Prophylactic anticoagulation for patients in hospital with covid-19

Comparison of coagulation profile and thromboembolic events among patients undergoing spinal surgery before and after COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Impairment of coagulation parameters and increased rate of thromboembolism are known complications of COVID-19 infection. In this study the coagulation profile and rate of thromboembolic events between two groups of patients who underwent spinal surgery before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was compared.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Clinically and laboratory negative for COVID-19 elective patients before (n: 211) and during COVID- 19 pandemic (n: 294) with spinal surgeries were included in this retrospective study. Surgical characteristics, Physiologic parameters, coagulation parameters and thromboembolic events were compared between the two study groups.

RESULTS

Preoperative coagulation parameters, including PT, PTT, and INR were significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (P < 0.001. P = 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively), while the platelet count was significantly reduced (P = 0.04). The same differences were observed between the two study groups after the spinal surgery. In addition, respiratory rate and postoperative bleeding of the first postoperative 24 h was significantly more in patients who were operated on during COVID-19 outbreak (P = 0.03 and P = 0.002, respectively). The rate of thromboembolic events was 3.1% during the COVID-19 pandemic (seven PE, one DVT, and one MI) and 0% before that. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

The rate of thromboembolic events seems to be increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings urge more stringent monitoring of the patients' coagulation parameters during the COVID-19 outbreak.

High risk of secondary infections following thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19

Background

This study’s primary aim was to evaluate the impact of thrombotic complications on the development of secondary infections. The secondary aim was to compare the etiology of secondary infections in patients with and without thrombotic complications.

Methods

This was a cohort study (NCT04318366) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients hospitalized at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital between February 25 and June 30, 2020. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated by univariable Poisson regression as the number of cases per 1000 person-days of follow-up (PDFU) with 95% confidence intervals. The cumulative incidence functions of secondary infections according to thrombotic complications were compared with Gray's method accounting for competing risk of death. A multivariable Fine-Gray model was applied to assess factors associated with risk of secondary infections.

Results

Overall, 109/904 patients had 176 secondary infections (IR, 10.0; 95% CI, 8.8–11.5; per 1000-PDFU). The IRs of secondary infections among patients with or without thrombotic complications were 15.0 (95% CI, 10.7–21.0) and 9.3 (95% CI, 7.9–11.0) per 1000-PDFU, respectively (P = .017). At multivariable analysis, thrombotic complications were associated with the development of secondary infections (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.788; 95% CI, 1.018–3.140; P = .043). The etiology of secondary infections was similar in patients with and without thrombotic complications.

Conclusions

In patients with COVID-19, thrombotic complications were associated with a high risk of secondary infections.

Hypercoagulation Detected by Rotational Thromboelastometry Predicts Mortality in COVID-19: A Risk Model Based on a Prospective Observational Study

Background  Severe disease due to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be associated with hypercoagulation. The aim of this study was to assess the Rotational Thromboelastometry (ROTEM) as a marker of coagulopathy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods  This was a prospective, observational study where patients hospitalized due to a COVID-19 infection were eligible for inclusion. Conventional coagulation tests and ROTEM were taken after hospital admission, and patients were followed for 30 days. A prediction model, including variables ROTEM EXTEM-MCF (Maximum Clot Firmness) which in previous data has been suggested a suitable marker of hypercoagulation, age, and respiratory frequency, was developed using logistic regression to evaluate the probability of death. Results  Out of the 141 patients included, 18 (13%) died within 30 days. In the final prediction model, the risk of death within 30 days for a patient hospitalized due to COVID-19 was increased with increased EXTEM-MCF, age, and respiratory frequency. Longitudinal ROTEM data in the severely ill subpopulation showed enhanced hypercoagulation. In an in vitro analysis, no heparin effect on EXTEM-coagulation time (CT) was observed, supporting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) effect on prolonged initiation of coagulation. Conclusion  Here, we show that hypercoagulation measured with ROTEM predicts 30-day mortality in COVID-19. Longitudinal ROTEM data strengthen the hypothesis of hypercoagulation as a driver of severe disease in COVID-19. Thus, ROTEM may be a useful tool to assess disease severity in COVID-19 and could potentially guide anticoagulation therapy.

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.

Questions about COVID-19 associated coagulopathy: possible answers from the viscoelastic tests

Abnormal coagulation parameters are often observed in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the severity of derangement has been associated with a poor prognosis. The COVID-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC) displays unique features that include a high risk of developing thromboembolic complications. Viscoelastic tests (VETs), such as thromboelastometry (ROTEM), thromboelastography (TEG) and Quantra Hemostasis Analyzer (Quantra), provide "dynamic" data on clot formation and dissolution; they are used in different critical care settings, both in hemorrhagic and in thrombotic conditions. In patients with severe COVID-19 infection VETs can supply to clinicians more information about the CAC, identifying the presence of hypercoagulable and hypofibrinolysis states. In the last year, many studies have proposed to explain the underlying characteristics of CAC; however, there remain many unanswered questions. We tried to address some of the important queries about CAC through VETs analysis.

Clinical outcomes and the impact of prior oral anticoagulant use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to hospitals in the UK - a multicentre observational study

Coagulation dysfunction and thrombosis are major complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) prior to diagnosis of COVID-19 may therefore have better outcomes. In this multicentre observational study of 5 883 patients (≥18 years) admitted to 26 UK hospitals between 1 April 2020 and 31 July 2020, overall mortality was 29·2%. Incidences of thrombosis, major bleeding (MB) and multiorgan failure (MOF) were 5·4%, 1·7% and 3·3% respectively. The presence of thrombosis, MB, or MOF was associated with a 1·8, 4·5 or 5·9-fold increased risk of dying, respectively. Of the 5 883 patients studied, 83·6% (n = 4 920) were not on OAC and 16·4% (n = 963) were taking OAC at the time of admission. There was no difference in mortality between patients on OAC vs no OAC prior to admission when compared in an adjusted multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1·05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·93-1·19; P = 0·15] or in an adjusted propensity score analysis (HR 0·92 95% CI 0·58-1·450; P = 0·18). In multivariate and adjusted propensity score analyses, the only significant association of no anticoagulation prior to diagnosis of COVID-19 was admission to the Intensive-Care Unit (ICU) (HR 1·98, 95% CI 1·37-2·85). Thrombosis, MB, and MOF were associated with higher mortality. Our results indicate that patients may have benefit from prior OAC use, especially reduced admission to ICU, without any increase in bleeding.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Remote history of VTE is associated with severe COVID-19 in middle and older age: UK Biobank cohort study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 risk-prediction models include a history of VTE. However, it is unclear whether remote history (>9 years previously) of VTE also confers increased risk of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate possible association between VTE and COVID-19 severity, independent of other risk factors.

METHODS

Cohort study of UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010. Baseline data, including history of VTE, were linked to COVID-19 test results, COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and COVID-19 deaths. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death was compared for participants with a remote history VTE versus without. Poisson regression models were run univariately then adjusted stepwise for sociodemographic, lifestyle, and comorbid covariates.

RESULTS

After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders and comorbid conditions, remote history of VTE was associated with nonfatal community (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.54, p = .039), nonfatal hospitalized (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06-2.17, p = .024) and severe (hospitalized or fatal) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.89, p = .025) COVID-19. Associations with remote history of VTE were stronger among men (severe COVID-19: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.14-2.42, p = .009) than for women (severe COVID-19: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.74, p = .786).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support inclusion of remote history of VTE in COVID-19 risk-prediction scores, and consideration of sex-specific risk scores.

Heparin - Messias or Verschlimmbesserung?

A heightened risk of thrombosis noted early on with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection led to the widespread use of heparin anticoagulation in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, reports soon started appearing in the literature where an apparent failure of heparin to prevent thrombotic events was observed in hospitalized patients with this viral infection. In this review, we explore the likely mechanisms for heparin failure with particular relevance to COVID-19. We also explore the role of anti-Xa assays and global hemostatic tests in this context. The current controversy of dosing heparin in this disease is detailed with some possible mechanistic reasons for anticoagulant failure. We hope that lessons learnt from the use of heparin in COVID-19 could assist us in the appropriate use of this anticoagulant in the future.

Viral-induced inflammatory coagulation disorders: Preparing for another epidemic

A number of viral infectious diseases have emerged or reemerged from wildlife vectors that have generated serious threats to global health. Increased international traveling and commerce increase the risk of transmission of viral or other infectious diseases. In addition, recent climate changes accelerate the potential spread of domestic disease. The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an important example of the worldwide spread, and the current epidemic will unlikely be the last. Viral hemorrhagic fevers, such as Dengue and Lassa fevers, may also have the potential to spread worldwide with a significant impact on public health with unpredictable timing. Based on the important lessons learned from COVID-19, it would be prudent to prepare for future pandemics of life-threatening viral diseases. Among the various threats, this review focuses on the coagulopathy of acute viral infections since hypercoagulability has been a major challenge in COVID-19, but represents a different presentation compared to viral hemorrhagic fever. However, both thrombosis and hemorrhage are understood as the result of thromboinflammation due to viral infections, and the role of anticoagulation is important to consider.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and antithrombotic agents-lessons after 1 year

COVID-19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic complications, which can be explained by the complex and unique interplay between coronaviruses and endothelial cells, the local and systemic inflammatory response, and the coagulation system. Empirically, an intensified dose of thrombosis prophylaxis is being used in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and several guidelines on this topic have been published, although the insufficiency of high quality and direct evidence has led to weak recommendations. In this Viewpoint we summarise the pathophysiology of COVID-19 coagulopathy in the context of patients who are ambulant, admitted to hospital, and critically ill or non-critically ill, and those post-discharge from hospital. We also review data from randomised controlled trials in the past year of antithrombotic therapy in patients who are critically ill. These data provide the first high-quality evidence on optimal use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with COVID-19. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for patients who are ambulant and post-discharge. A first ever trial in non-critically ill patients who were admitted to hospital has shown that a therapeutic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin might improve clinical outcomes in this population. In critically ill patients, this same treatment does not improve outcomes and prophylactic dose anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis is recommended. In the upcoming months we expect numerous data from the ongoing antithrombotic COVID-19 studies to guide clinicians at different stages of the disease.

Use and misuse of biomarkers and the role of D-dimer and C-reactive protein in the management of COVID-19: A post-hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high mortality among hospitalized patients and incurs high costs. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection can trigger both inflammatory and thrombotic processes, and these complications can lead to a poorer prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the association and temporal trends of D-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels with the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), hospital mortality, and costs among inpatients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Data were extracted from electronic patient records and laboratory databases. Crude and adjusted associations for age, sex, number of comorbidities, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at admission, and D-dimer or CRP logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations.

RESULTS

Between March and June 2020, COVID-19 was documented in 3,254 inpatients. The D-dimer level ≥4,000 ng/mL fibrinogen equivalent unit (FEU) mortality odds ratio (OR) was 4.48 (adjusted OR: 1.97). The CRP level ≥220 mg/dL OR for death was 7.73 (adjusted OR: 3.93). The D-dimer level ≥4,000 ng/mL FEU VTE OR was 3.96 (adjusted OR: 3.26). The CRP level ≥220 mg/dL OR for VTE was 2.71 (adjusted OR: 1.92). All these analyses were statistically significant (p<0.001). Stratified hospital costs demonstrated a dose-response pattern. Adjusted D-dimer and CRP levels were associated with higher mortality and doubled hospital costs. In the first week, elevated D-dimer levels predicted VTE occurrence and systemic inflammatory harm, while CRP was a hospital mortality predictor.

CONCLUSION

D-dimer and CRP levels were associated with higher hospital mortality and a higher incidence of VTE. D-dimer was more strongly associated with VTE, although its discriminative ability was poor, while CRP was a stronger predictor of hospital mortality. Their use outside the usual indications should not be modified and should be discouraged.