A low dose heparinized saline protocol is associated with improved duration of arterial line patency in critically ill COVID-19 patients

Thrombosis-Related Loss of Arterial Lines in the First Wave of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with severe respiratory distress requiring intensive care unit (ICU)-level care. Such care often requires placement of an arterial line for monitoring of pulmonary disease progression, hemodynamics, and laboratory tests. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, experienced physicians anecdotally reported multiple attempts, decreased insertion durations, and greater need for replacement of arterial lines in patients with COVID-19 due to persistent thrombosis. Because invasive procedures in patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk for caregiver infection, better defining difficulties in maintaining arterial lines in COVID-19 patients is important. We sought to explore the association between COVID-19 infection and arterial line thrombosis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

In this primary exploratory analysis, a multivariable Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to retrospectively estimate the association between critically ill COVID-19 (versus sepsis/acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]) patients and the risk of arterial line removal for thrombosis (with arterial line removal for any other reason treated as a competing risk). As a sensitivity analysis, we compared the number of arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days between critically ill COVID-19 and sepsis/ARDS patients using multivariable negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

We retrospectively identified 119 patients and 200 arterial line insertions in patients with COVID-19 and 54 patients and 68 arterial line insertions with non-COVID ARDS. Using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model, we found the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for arterial line clot to be 2.18 (1.06-4.46) for arterial lines placed in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 sepsis/ARDS patients ( P = .034). Patients with COVID-19 had 36.3 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days compared to 19.1 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days in patients without COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI], 1.78 [0.94-3.39]; P = .078).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that arterial line complications due to thrombosis are more likely in COVID-19 patients and supports the need for further research on the association between COVID-19 and arterial line dysfunction requiring replacement.

Vascular findings in CTA body and extremity of critically ill COVID-19 patients: commonly encountered vascular complications with review of literature

The purpose of our review is to discuss the role of CT angiography (CTA) in evaluating a variety of vascular complications in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a worldwide health threat. While COVID-19 pneumonia is the most common and well-recognized presentation of COVID-19, severely ill hospitalized patients often present with extrapulmonary systemic findings. Vascular complications occur not only due to known viral-induced vasculopathy, coagulopathy, and related "cytokine storm," but also due to anticoagulation medication used during hospitalization. There is a paucity of articles describing extrapulmonary vascular findings, especially in critically ill COVID-19 patients. In our article, we discuss commonly encountered vascular imaging findings in the body (chest, abdomen, and pelvis) and extremities, the importance of early radiological detection, and the role of CTA in the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Nuts and bolts of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy: the essentials for management and treatment

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) is a well-recognized hematologic complication among patients with severe COVID-19 disease, where macro- and micro-thrombosis can lead to multiorgan injury and failure. Major societal guidelines that have published on the management of CAC are based on consensus of expert opinion, with the current evidence available. As a result of limited studies, there are many clinical scenarios that are yet to be addressed, with expert opinion varying on a number of important clinical issues regarding CAC management.

METHODS

In this review, we utilize current societal guidelines to provide a framework for practitioners in managing their patients with CAC. We have also provided three clinical scenarios that implement important principles of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Overall, decisions should be made on acase by cases basis and based on the providers understanding of each patient's medical history, clinical course and perceived risk.

Care bundles for improving outcomes in patients with COVID-19 or related conditions in intensive care - a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the strain of coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause serious illness in some people resulting in admission to intensive care units (ICU) and frequently, ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure. Evaluating ICU care, and what is effective in improving outcomes for these patients is critical. Care bundles, a small set of evidence-based interventions, delivered together consistently, may improve patient outcomes. To identify the extent of the available evidence on the use of care bundles in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a scoping review to inform WHO guideline discussions. This review does not assess the effectiveness of the findings, assess risk of bias, or assess the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). As this review was commissioned to inform guideline discussions, it was done rapidly over a three-week period from 26 October to 18 November 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and describe the available evidence on the use of care bundles in the ICU for patients with COVID-19 or related conditions (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) viral pneumonia or pneumonitis), or both. In carrying out the review the focus was on characterising the evidence base and not evaluating the effectiveness or safety of the care bundles or their component parts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of all designs that reported on patients who are critically ill with COVID-19, ARDS, viral pneumonia or pneumonitis, in the ICU setting, where a care bundle was implemented in providing care, were eligible for inclusion. One review author (VS) screened all records on title and abstract. A second review author (DR) checked 20% of excluded and included records; agreement was 99.4% and 100% respectively on exclude/include decisions. Two review authors (VS and DR) independently screened all records at full-text level. VS and DR resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus, or referral to a third review author (AN) as required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (VS) extracted the data and a second review author (DR) checked 20% of this for accuracy. As the review was not designed to synthesise effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterise the certainty of the evidence (GRADE), we mapped the extracted data and presented them in tabular format based on the patient condition; that is patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, patients with ARDS, patients with any influenza or viral pneumonia, patients with severe respiratory failure, and patients with mixed conditions. We have also provided a narrative summary of the findings from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies and identified three ongoing studies. The studies were of variable designs and included a systematic review of standardised approaches to caring for critically ill patients in ICU, including but not exclusive to care bundles (1 study), a randomised trial (1 study), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (4 studies), before and after studies (7 studies), observational quality improvement reports (4 studies), case series/case reports (3 studies) and audit (1 study). The studies were conducted in eight countries, most commonly China (5 studies) and the USA (4 studies), were published between 1999 and 2020, and involved over 2000 participants in total. Studies categorised participant conditions patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (7 studies), patients with ARDS (7 studies), patients with another influenza or viral pneumonia (5 studies), patients with severe respiratory failure (1 study), and patients with mixed conditions (1 study). The care bundles described in the studies involved multiple diverse practices. Guidance on ventilator settings (10 studies), restrictive fluid management (8 studies), sedation (7 studies) and prone positioning (7 studies) were identified most frequently, while only one study mentioned chest X-ray. None of the included studies reported the prespecified outcomes ICU-acquired weakness (muscle wasting, weight loss) and users' experience adapting care bundles. Of the remaining prespecified outcomes, 14 studies reported death in ICU, nine reported days of ventilation (or ventilator-free days), nine reported length of stay in ICU in days, five reported death in hospital, three reported length of stay in hospital in days, and three reported adherence to the bundle.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review has identified 21 studies on care bundle use in critically ill patients in ICU with COVID-19, ARDS, viral influenza or pneumonia and severe respiratory failure. The data for patients with COVID-19 specifically are limited, derived mainly from observational quality improvement or clinical experiential accounts. Research is required, urgently, to further assess care bundle use and optimal components of these bundles in this patient cohort. The care bundles described were also varied, with guidance on ventilator settings described in 10 care bundles, while chest X-ray was part mentioned in one care bundle in one study only. None of the studies identified in this scoping review measured users' experience of adapting care bundles. Optimising care bundle implementation requires that the components of the care bundle are collectively and consistently applied. Data on challenges, barriers and facilitators to implementation are needed. A formal synthesis of the outcome data presented in this review and a critical appraisal of the evidence is required by a subsequent effectiveness review. This subsequent review should further explore effect estimates across the included studies.