Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With COVID-19: An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Analysis of Statistics Utilized in Primary Articles in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine: A Prelude to Practical Pedagogy in Biostatistics

BackgroundBiostatistics is an increasing focus in current medical school curricula. This study evaluated the statistical methods utilized in a high-impact factor medical Journal to develop a guide to those statistics that can be applied to facilitate the interpretation of data for practicing physicians, fellows, residents, and medical students.MethodsIn Part 1 of our tandem manuscripts, the 100 most recent primary articles from February 2021 to December 2021 were analyzed from the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. The evaluation consisted of study temporality, study design, types of descriptor variables, and types of statistical tests.ResultsRetrospective studies were most common (75/100, 75%), followed by prospective studies (23/100, 23%). The most popular designs were cohort (82/100, 82%), followed by case series (9/100, 9%), randomized control trials (4/100, 4%), and case-control (3/100, 3%). The most commonly utilized descriptor variables were frequency and proportion (100/100, 100%), followed by median (74/100, 74%) and mean (71/100, 71%). The chi-square test was the most frequently used statistical test (59/100, 59%), while logistic regression (48/100, 48%), Mann-Whitney-U (46/100, 46%), and two-sample independent t-test (40/100, 40%) also were popular.ConclusionThis review revealed that retrospective and cohort studies were utilized most frequently. The chi-square test was used in the majority of studies, while logistic regression was also popular. This information can help determine areas in which supplemental training will be most beneficial to improve the understanding of statistical methods in medical journals by practicing physicians, fellows, residents, and medical students. As an outgrowth of this study, we have developed a practical guide to relevant statistical methods, serving as Part 2 of these tandem manuscripts.

Outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been ongoing for over 3 years, during which numerous clinical and experimental studies have been conducted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

METHODS

We searched the databases by using Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome-Study Design (PICOS). We conducted a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to retrieve studies published until December 10, 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. The results were presented as pooled morbidity with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The study was conducted on 19 studies that enrolled a total of 1494 patients, and the results showed a pooled survival probability of 66.0%. The pooled morbidity for intracranial hemorrhage was 8.7%, intracranial thrombosis 7.0%, pneumothorax 9.0%, pulmonary embolism 11.0%, pulmonary hemorrhage 9.0%, heart failure 14.0%, liver failure 13.0%, renal injury 44.0%, gastrointestinal hemorrhage 6.0%, gastrointestinal ischemia 6.0% and venous thrombosis 31.0%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies focused on the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO, which are significant in evaluating the use of ECMO in COVID-19 patients and provide a basis for further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022382555.

Ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is employed to support critically ill COVD-19 patients. The occurrence of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), as well as the implementation of anticoagulation strategies under the dual influence of ECMO and COVID-19 remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the ischemic stroke, ICH and overall in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO and summarize the anticoagulation regimens.

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for studies examining ischemic stroke, ICH, and mortality in COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO. The outcomes were incidences of ischemic stroke, ICH, overall in-hospital mortality and anticoagulation regimens. We calculated the pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to summarize the results.

RESULTS

We analyzed 12 peer-reviewed studies involving 6039 COVID-19 patients. The incidence of ischemic stroke had a pooled estimate of 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2%-3.2%). The pooled prevalence of ICH was 8.0% (95% CI: 6.3%-9.6%). The pooled estimate of overall in-hospital mortality was 40.3% (95% CI: 33.1%-47.5%). The occurrence of ICH was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO than in other respiratory ECMO [relative risk=1.75 (95% CI: 1.00-3.07)]. Unfractionated heparin was the most commonly used anticoagulant, and anticoagulation monitoring practice varied among centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemic stroke and ICH were common under the double "hit" of COVID-19 and ECMO. The prevalence of ICH was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO than non-COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO. Individualized anticoagulation regimens may be a good choice to balance thrombosis and bleeding. More detailed research and further exploration are needed to clarify the underlying mechanism and clinical management decisions.

Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data.

RESULTS

Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020.

INTERPRETATION

Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Multi-horizon predictive models for guiding extracorporeal resource allocation in critically ill COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) resource allocation tools are currently lacking. We developed machine learning (ML) models for predicting COVID-19 patients at risk of receiving ECMO to guide patient triage and resource allocation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units for >24 h from March 2020 to October 2021, divided into training and testing development and testing-only holdout cohorts. We developed ECMO deployment timely prediction model ForecastECMO using Gradient Boosting Tree (GBT), with pre-ECMO prediction horizons from 0 to 48 h, compared to PaO2/FiO2 ratio, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy score, logistic regression, and 30 pre-selected clinical variables GBT Clinical GBT models, with area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and precision recall curve (AUPRC) metrics.

RESULTS

ECMO prevalence was 2.89% and 1.73% in development and holdout cohorts. ForecastECMO had the best performance in both cohorts. At the 18-h prediction horizon, a potentially clinically actionable pre-ECMO window, ForecastECMO, had the highest AUROC (0.94 and 0.95) and AUPRC (0.54 and 0.37) in development and holdout cohorts in identifying ECMO patients without data 18 h prior to ECMO.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We developed a multi-horizon model, ForecastECMO, with high performance in identifying patients receiving ECMO at various prediction horizons. This model has potential to be used as early alert tool to guide ECMO resource allocation for COVID-19 patients. Future prospective multicenter validation would provide evidence for generalizability and real-world application of such models to improve patient outcomes.

Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05].

INTERPRETATION

The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO.

FUNDING

None.

Same but Different-ECMO in COVID-19 and ARDS of Other Etiologies. Comparison of Survival Outcomes and Management in Different ARDS Groups

Background: COVID-19 has led to increased numbers of patients in need of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, but knowledge on management in comparison to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is still lacking. We analyzed venovenous ECMO management and survival outcomes in patients with COVID-19 in comparison to influenza ARDS and pulmonary ARDS of other origin. Results: Retrospective analysis of prospective venovenous ECMO registry-based data collection was performed. One hundred consecutive venovenous ECMO patients with severe ARDS were included (41 COVID-19, 24 influenza A, 35 ARDS of other etiologies). Patients with COVID-19 had higher BMI (body mass index), lower SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) scores, lower C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels and less vasoactive support at ECMO initiation. Significantly more patients were mechanically ventilated for more than 7 days prior to ECMO initiation in the COVID-19 group, however they were ventilated with lower tidal volumes and more often received additional rescue therapies prior to and on ECMO. COVID-19 patients had significantly more barotrauma and thrombotic events on ECMO. There were no differences in weaning of ECMO, however duration of ECMO runs and ICU length of stay was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group. The leading cause of death in the COVID-19 group was irreversible respiratory failure, while uncontrolled sepsis and multiorgan failure were leading causes in the other 2 groups. All patients who survived ICU treatment were discharged out of hospital, and there were no differences in survival among groups at 180 days. Conclusions: Survival outcomes of venovenous ECMO patients do not differ between COVID-19 and ARDS of other pulmonary etiologies. ARDS guidelines were in greater proportion adhered to in COVID-19 patients, with, however, longer time to ECMO initiation. COVID-19 ARDS seems specific as a more single-organ disease with longer ECMO duration and irreversible respiratory failure as a main cause of ICU mortality.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 compared to other etiologies of acute respiratory failure: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies.

METHODS

V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications.

CONCLUSION

This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different.

Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Inverse Probability Weighted Analysis

Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has been used in case of COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), outcomes and criteria for its application should be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To describe patient characteristics and outcomes in patients receiving VV ECMO due to COVID-19-induced ARDS and to assess the possible impact of COVID-19 on mortality.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter retrospective study in 15 ICUs worldwide. All adult patients (> 18 yr) were included if they received VV ECMO with ARDS as main indication. Two groups were created: a COVID-19 cohort from March 2020 to December 2020 and a "control" non-COVID ARDS cohort from January 2018 to July 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Collected data consisted of patient demographics, baseline variables, ECMO characteristics, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics, COVID-19-related therapies before and during ECMO and complication rate. To assess the influence of COVID-19 on mortality, inverse probability weighted (IPW) analyses were used to correct for predefined confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients with COVID-19 received VV ECMO. The main indication for VV ECMO consisted of refractory hypoxemia, either isolated or combined with refractory hypercapnia. Complications with the highest occurrence rate included hemorrhage, an additional infectious event or acute kidney injury. Mortality was 35% and 45% at 28 and 60 days, respectively. Those mortality rates did not differ between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in 2020. Furthermore, 60-day mortality was equal between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated ARDS receiving VV ECMO (hazard ratio 60-d mortality, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98; p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mortality for patients with COVID-19 who received VV ECMO was similar to that reported in other COVID-19 cohorts, although no differences were found between the first and second waves regarding mortality. In addition, after IPW, mortality was independent of the etiology of ARDS.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID-19 patients: A systematic review of literature

OBJECTIVE

Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. While veno-venous extracorporeal life support (V-V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID-19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow-up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation-to-cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS-only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID-19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7-57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V-V ECLS, 4.7% on veno-arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V-V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9-16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V-V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy-right ventricular assist device.

CONCLUSION

MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID-19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID-19.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by a clinical spectrum of diseases ranging from asymptomatic or mild cases to severe pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as rescue therapy in appropriate patients with COVID-19 complicated by ARDS refractory to mechanical ventilation. In this study, we review the indications, challenges, complications, and clinical outcomes of ECMO utilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Most of these patients required venovenous ECMO. Although the risk of mortality and complications is very high among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO, it is similar to that of non-COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring ECMO. ECMO is a resource-intensive therapy, with an inherent risk of complications, which makes its availability limited and its use challenging in the midst of a pandemic. Well-maintained data registries, with timely reporting of outcomes and evidence-based clinical guidelines, are necessary for the careful allocation of resources and for the development of standardized utilization protocols.

Polypropylene Hollow Fiber Membrane by Dissolution-Inducing Pore Methods

Plasma leakage limits the development of polypropylene membranes as oxygenated membranes. Here, a new method named the dissolution-induced pore method was adapted to prepare polypropylene hollow fiber membranes: after polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride were melt-blended and extruded, the polyvinyl chloride was removed by N, N-dimethylacetamide to obtain a porous polypropylene membrane material. The variation of membranes has been explored in detail with respect to the influence of different parameters on the flux and mechanical properties of membranes and the feasibility of the polyvinyl chloride recovery. The resulting polypropylene hollow fiber membrane shows that plasma penetration was zero within 6 h of test, gas flux can reach 189,000 L/(m2·h·0.1 MPa), and its strength at break reaches 65 MPa and the elongation at break is 890%; polyvinyl chloride recovery achieves more than 99%. This research has developed a promising and low-cost extracorporeal membrane oxygenation material, which provides benefits for patients with less capacity for medical expenditure.

Coagulation abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 on venovenous ECLS increased risk for technical complications and support times but had no impact on survival

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress on venovenous extracorporeal lung support (V-V ECLS) showed high incidence of vascular as well as ECLS-related thrombotic complications. The latter may influence the outcome of the patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective monocentric study on prospectively collected data of technical complications including 69 adult COVID-19 patients on V-V ECLS (ECLS Registry, March 2020 until April 2021) without and with system exchanges. Alterations in ECLS-specific data, hemolysis, coagulation and hemostasis parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Every second COVID-19 patient on V-V ECLS developed technical complications. Optimized ECLS management at our ECLS center reduced cases of acute clot formation (pump head thrombosis, acute oxygenator thrombosis) (17%), and allowed early identification of progressive clotting processes (worsened gas transfer, coagulation disorder) (14%, 54%) with a significant overhang of hyperfibrinolysis (37%). Although COVID-19 disease and technical complications caused prolonged length of stay at the intensive care unit and ECLS support times, the proportion of successful weaning and survival rates were comparable with patients without system exchange.

CONCLUSION

The survival of ECLS patients with COVID-19 was independent of the requirement for system exchange due to technical-induced coagulation disorders. Close monitoring for circuit clotting is mandatory in COVID-19 patients and is one prerequisite for successful organ support in these difficult patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with COVID-19: 1-year experience

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed reasonable outcomes. However, recent studies indicated a negative trend and analysis is needed.

Methods

Baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, and outcomes of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 were analyzed in a retrospective single-center study. We included hospital admissions until February 28, 2021; patients were followed until discharge/death. Eventually, we compared data between patients hospitalized before and after September 1, 2020.

Results

Median age of patients treated with ECMO (n=39) was 56 years; most patients were males (n=28, 72%). Median mechanical ventilation time (prior to ECMO) was 6 days, while the median ECMO duration was 19 days. Overall survival rate was 41%. In the sub-analysis, survival until discharge in the first and second epidemic waves was 53% (n=19) and 30% (n=20), respectively (P=0.2). At baseline, compared with patients of the first wave, those of the second wave had higher median body mass index (28.2 vs. 31.1 kg/m², respectively, P=0.02), bicarbonate (27 vs. 31.8 mmol/L, respectively, P=0.033), plasma free hemoglobin (36 vs. 58 mg/L, respectively, P=0.013), alanine aminotransferase (33 vs. 52 U/L, respectively, P=0.018), and pH (7.29 vs. 7.42, respectively, P=0.005), lower rate of pulmonary hypertension (32% vs. 0%, respectively, P=0.008), lower positive end-expiratory pressure (14 vs. 12 cmH₂O, respectively, P=0.04), longer median ECMO duration (16 vs. 24.5 days, respectively, P=0.074), and more frequent major bleeding events (42% vs. 80%, respectively, P=0.022).

Conclusions

ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 had an overall survival rate of 41%. Similar to international registries, we observed less favorable outcomes during the second wave. Further research is needed to confirm this signal and find predictors for mortality.

Thromboembolism and Bleeding in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by a coagulation dysfunction which has different underlying mechanisms and factors. Patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have an increased risk for thromboembolic and bleeding complications. Incidences are high, and mainly consist of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in affected patients. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic doses of antithrombotic agents are only beneficial in noncritically ill patients, and usual care thromboprophylaxis is sufficient in critically ill patients at the ICU. Regarding screening for VTE, high quality evidence is warranted to investigate the significance of asymptomatic DVT in the ICU setting and its influence on PE and mortality.