COVID-19 and haemostasis: a position paper from Italian Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET)

Emergency laparotomy and perioperative COVID-19: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Concerning the perioperative outcomes of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who underwent emergency laparotomy, more data must be collected. Because COVID-19 can affect multiple organs, cause various complications, and act as a risk factor for surgery, in this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of emergency laparotomy between SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected patients. This retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent emergency laparotomy from December 2021 to December 2022. Postoperative outcomes were compared between patients with and without confirmed perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative intensive care unit admission, hospital length of stay, re-operation, and postoperative complications. Data were analyzed by SPSS statistic version 27. In this study, 50 patients in the COVID-19 group and 91 patients in the non-COVID-19 group were assessed. The 30-day mortality in the COVID-19 group was significantly higher than in the non-COVID-19 group (34% vs. 12.1%, respectively, P = 0.004). Postoperative complications were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group (64% vs. 26.4%, P < 0.001). The frequency of ICU admission and need for re-operation were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group (P = 0.003 and P = 0.039, respectively). Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the non-COVID-19 group (P = 0.021). In patients with confirmed COVID-19, emergency laparotomy is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Additionally, emergency laparotomy is associated with increasing postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, intensive care admission, and additional surgery requirement.

A platelet lipidomics signature in patients with COVID-19

Ischemic cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic events are a frequent cause of death in severe COVID-19 patients. Platelet activation plays a key role in these complications, however platelet lipidomics have not been studied yet. The aim of our pilot investigation was to perform a preliminary study of platelet lipidomics in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy subjects. Lipid extraction and identification of ultrapurified platelets from eight hospitalized COVID-19 patients and eight age- and sex-matched healthy controls showed a lipidomic pattern almost completely separating COVID-19 patients from healthy controls. In particular, a significant decrease of ether phospholipids and increased levels of ganglioside GM3 were observed in platelets from COVID-19 patients. In conclusion, our study shows for the first time that platelets from COVID-19 patients display a different lipidomics signature distinguishing them from healthy controls, and suggests that altered platelet lipid metabolism may play a role in viral spreading and in the thrombotic complications of COVID-19.

A Delphi consensus on the management of anticoagulation in the COVID-19 pandemic: the MONACO study

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, guideline documents on the management of anticoagulation were rapidly published. However, these documents did not follow a structured methodology, and significant differences existed between the guidelines. The aim of this expert consensus was to provide recommendations on the clinical management of oral anticoagulation in patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A two-round Delphi study was conducted using an online survey. In the first round, panellists expressed their level of agreement with the items on a 9-point Likert scale. Items were selected if they received approval from ≥66.6% of panellists and if they were agreed by the scientific committee. In the second round, panellists revaluated those items that did not meet consensus in the first round.

Results

A total of 147 panellists completed the first round, and 144 of them completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 161 items included in five dimensions. These dimensions addressed: (I) management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without mechanical valves or moderate/severe mitral stenosis during COVID-19 infection; (II) thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; (III) management of anticoagulation at hospital discharge/after COVID-19; (IV) anticoagulation monitoring in the COVID-19 pandemic setting; and (V) role of telemedicine in the management and follow-up of patients with AF in the COVID-19 pandemic setting.

Conclusions

These areas of collective agreement could specially guide clinicians in making decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 during hospitalisation and at discharge, where results from clinical trials are still limited and, in some cases, conflicting.

The role of IL-6, ferritin, and coagulopathy in Covid-19 clinical progression

Background In COVID-19, the release of pro-inflammatory mediators in the cytokine storm, primarily interleukin-6 (IL-6), has been hypothesized to induce pulmonary intravascular coagulation. However, the relationship between IL-6 and coagulopathy remains unclear in COVID-19 progression. We aimed to investigate the correlation of IL-6 with D-dimer, fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), and ferritin. Furthermore, we also analyzed the effect of those parameters on the worsening of COVID-19 patients. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients from June 2020 to January 2021. A serial evaluation of IL-6, D-dimer, fibrinogen, ferritin, and PT was performed and correlated with the patient's condition at admission and on the 14th day. The outcomes (improvement, worsening, or discharged patients) were recorded during the study. Results Of 374 patients, 73 study subjects (61 severe and 12 moderate COVID-19) were included in this study. A total of 35 out of 61 severe and one out of 12 moderate illness subjects had experienced worsening. Spearman-rank correlation of IL-6 with with ferritin, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and PT was 0.08 ( p=0.5), -0.13 ( p=0.27), 0.01 ( p=0.91), and 0.03 ( p=0.77), respectively. In ROC analysis, D-dimer (74,77%) and IL-6 (71,32%) were the highest among other variables (>60%). Conclusions In COVID-19 patients, there was a correlation between elevated IL-6 and D-dimer levels with disease deterioration. There was no correlation between elevated IL-6 levels with ferritin, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and PT levels. Therefore, changes in IL-6 and D-dimer can predict worsening in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.

A systematic review on post-discharge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE), not only during hospitalization but also after discharge, raising concerns about anticoagulant (AC) use for post-discharge COVID-19 patients. We aimed to systematically review the current literature on the possible benefits or risks regarding extended thromboprophylaxis.

MAIN BODY

We searched related databases from December 1, 2019, to October 6, 2022, including studies on the necessity, duration, and selection of the ideal AC regarding extended thromboprophylaxis for post-discharge COVID-19 patients. The screening of the selected databases led to 18 studies and 19 reviews and guidelines. Studies included 52,927 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with 19.25% receiving extended thromboprophylaxis. VTE events ranging from 0 to 8.19% (median of 0.7%) occurred in a median follow-up of 49.5 days. All included studies and guidelines, except four studies, recommended post-discharge prophylaxis after an individual risk assessment indicating high thrombotic and low bleeding risk. Studies used risk assessment models (RAMs), clinical evaluation, and laboratory data to identify COVID-19 patients with a high risk of VTE. IMPROVE-DD was the most recommended RAM. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) were the most used AC classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-discharge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients is recommended after an individual assessment. The IMPROVE-DD model can help predict VTE risk. After distinguishing patients who need post-discharge AC therapy, DOACs for 30-35 days and LMWHs for 40-45 days can be the drug of choice. Further studies, particularly the results of the ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are required. Also, to properly handle such patients, every physician should consider lifestyle modification in addition to pharmacological treatment for post-discharge VTE prophylaxis.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the complicated disease COVID-19. Clinicians are continuously facing huge problems in the treatment of patients, as COVID-19-specific drugs are not available, hence the principle of drug repurposing serves as a one-and-only hope. Globally, the repurposing of many drugs is underway; few of them are already approved by the regulatory bodies for their clinical use and most of them are in different phases of clinical trials. Here in this review, our main aim is to discuss in detail the up-to-date information on the target-based pharmacological classification of repurposed drugs, the potential mechanism of actions, and the current clinical trial status of various drugs which are under repurposing since early 2020. At last, we briefly proposed the probable pharmacological and therapeutic drug targets that may be preferred as a futuristic drug discovery approach in the development of effective medicines.

Common Coagulopathies Associated With COVID-19 Patients

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, which first appeared in the Chinese province of Hubei city of Wuhan, has been spreading internationally since December 2019. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus illness from 2019 to be a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Patients hospitalised with severe coronavirus or comorbid conditions (like cardiovascular disease and obesity) are linked to a worse prognosis. The rise in D-dimer and its relationship to prognosis are the most often documented aberrations in coagulation/fibrinolysis in COVID-19. However, the D-dimer assessment's utility is not limitless. Since the coagulation/fibrinolytic state might occasionally change over a short period of time, routine exams are also advantageous in understanding the relevance of the inquiry. Both thrombotic and hemorrhagic diseases should be taken into consideration, despite the fact that the pathophysiology of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) linked with coronavirus disease 19 differs significantly from that of septic disseminated intravascular coagulation. Coagulation as well as fibrinolysis indicators are used to make the diagnosis of COVID-19 thrombosis, which encompasses both macro- and micro-thrombosis. Compared to bacterial-sepsis-associated coagulopathy/DIC, COVID-19 has a lower prevalence of prolonged prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and decreased antithrombin activity. However, the causes of coagulopathy remain poorly understood. Hypoxia, endothelial injury, dysregulated immunological responses mediated by inflammatory cytokines, and lymphocyte cell death are thought to be implicated. While blood loss tends to be rare, it is uncertain if COVID-19 suffers from thrombosis or whether the current recommendations for regular venous thromboembolic dose are appropriate. It is important to decide on the COVID-19 therapy phases. Antiviral therapy, cytokine storm therapy, and thrombosis therapy are the steps. Future advancements are predicted, such as a therapy that combines heparin and nafamostat.

Readmission After COVID-19 for Late Acute Venous Thrombosis; CASE SERIES and Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Assess heterogeneity within patients with resolved COVID-19 to broaden the vision about post-discharge thrombotic cases and postulate possible related mechanisms in search of better anticoagulation guidelines. This study details patients' characteristics, medical history, treatment, and outcomes of readmitted patients with late acute thrombosis through a systematic review of the literature and patients from our academic center database.

METHODS

We extracted the records of patients readmitted for venous thrombosis complications after discharge from the database of the first 2000 patients admitted with COVID-19 in our academic center; we also performed a systematic review of the literature using the Medical Subject Headings terms "late thrombosis," "COVID-19," + "venous thrombosis" in PubMed and Google Scholar according to PRISMA guideline.

RESULTS

The literature review found 20 patients suitable for review matching the inclusion criteria. These patients were added to those in our database, summing up a total of 26 patients. The median age was 50 years old, 76.9% were male, and most were overweight or had grade 1 obesity (n = 11, 42.3%). None had a previous thrombotic history, but 50% had an underlying comorbidity. Thrombotic events presented on a median of 20 days (range: 4-150 days) from discharge. Pulmonary embolisms occurred in 23 patients (88.46%), deep vein thrombosis in 4, mesenteric thrombosis, and cerebral venous thrombosis in 1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study found that most patients readmitted for thrombotic events after COVID-19 discharge were middle-aged men with Venous Thrombo Embolism events.

Molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in tissue-specific metabolic modulation by SARS-CoV-2

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is triggered by the SARS-CoV-2, which is able to infect and cause dysfunction not only in lungs, but also in multiple organs, including central nervous system, skeletal muscle, kidneys, heart, liver, and intestine. Several metabolic disturbances are associated with cell damage or tissue injury, but the mechanisms involved are not yet fully elucidated. Some potential mechanisms involved in the COVID-19-induced tissue dysfunction are proposed, such as: (a) High expression and levels of proinflammatory cytokines, including TNF-α IL-6, IL-1β, INF-α and INF-β, increasing the systemic and tissue inflammatory state; (b) Induction of oxidative stress due to redox imbalance, resulting in cell injury or death induced by elevated production of reactive oxygen species; and (c) Deregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, exacerbating the inflammatory and oxidative stress responses. In this review, we discuss the main metabolic disturbances observed in different target tissues of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential mechanisms involved in these changes associated with the tissue dysfunction.

Application of a Decision Tree Model to Predict the Outcome of Non-Intensive Inpatients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Many studies have identified predictors of outcomes for inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in intensive care units. However, most retrospective studies applied regression methods to evaluate the risk of death or worsening health. Recently, new studies have based their conclusions on retrospective studies by applying machine learning methods. This study applied a machine learning method based on decision tree methods to define predictors of outcomes in an internal medicine unit with a prospective study design. The main result was that the first variable to evaluate prediction was the international normalized ratio, a measure related to prothrombin time, followed by immunoglobulin M response. The model allowed the threshold determination for each continuous blood or haematological parameter and drew a path toward the outcome. The model's performance (accuracy, 75.93%; sensitivity, 99.61%; and specificity, 23.43%) was validated with a k-fold repeated cross-validation. The results suggest that a machine learning approach could help clinicians to obtain information that could be useful as an alert for disease progression in patients with COVID-19. Further research should explore the acceptability of these results to physicians in current practice and analyze the impact of machine learning-guided decisions on patient outcomes.

Drugs for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and its complications: An update on what we learned in the past 2 years

The COVID-19 Committee of the Lincei Academy has reviewed the scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of existing and new drugs/biologics for the preventing and treating of COVID-19 and its complications. This position paper reports what we have learned in the field in the past 2 years. The focus was on, but not limited to, drugs and neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory drugs, complement inhibitors and anticoagulant agents. We also discuss the risks/benefit of using cell therapies on COVID-19 patients. The report summarizes the available evidence, which supports recommendations from health authorities and panels of experts regarding some drugs and biologics, and highlights drugs that are not recommended, or drugs for which there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against their use. We also address the issue of the safety of drugs used to treat underlying concomitant conditions in COVID-19 patients. The investigators did an enormous amount of work very quickly to understand better the nature and pathophysiology of COVID-19. This expedited the development and repurposing of safe and effective therapeutic interventions, saving an impressive number of lives in the community as well as in hospitals.

Hemostatic system and COVID-19 crosstalk: A review of the available evidence

Since the discovery of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its resultant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, respiratory manifestations have been the mainstay of clinical diagnosis, laboratory evaluations, and radiological investigations. As time passed, other pathological aspects of SARS-CoV-2 have been revealed. Various hemostatic abnormalities have been reported since the rise of the pandemic, which was sometimes superficial, transient, or fatal. Mild thrombocytopenia, thrombocytosis, venous, arterial thromboembolism, and disseminated intravascular coagulation are among the many hemostatic events associated with COVID-19. Venous thromboembolism necessitating therapeutic doses of anticoagulants is more frequently seen in severe cases of COVID-19, especially in patients admitted to intensive care units. Hemorrhagic complications rarely arise in COVID-19 patients either due to a hemostatic imbalance resulting from severe disease or as a complication of over anticoagulation. Although the pathogenesis of coagulation disturbance in SARS-CoV-2 infection is not yet understood, professional societies recommend prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in severe cases, especially in the presence of abnormal coagulation indices. The review article discusses the various available evidence on coagulation disorders, management strategies, outcomes, and prognosis associated with COVID-19 coagulopathy, which raises awareness about the importance of anticoagulation therapy for COVID-19 patients to guard against possible thromboembolic events.

High-dose versus low-dose venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Standard doses of anticoagulant prophylaxis may not be sufficiently effective for the prevention of VTE. The objective of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose versus low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing high-dose with low-dose thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of VTE and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 5470 patients from 9 RCTs were included. Four trials included critically ill patients, four non-critically ill patients, and one included both. VTE occurred in 2.9% of patients on high-dose and in 5.7% of patients on low-dose thromboprophylaxis (relative risk [RR] 0.53; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.41-0.69; I² = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome, 22). Major bleeding occurred in 2.5% and 1.4% of patients, respectively (RR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.20-2.66; I² = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome, 100). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.26; I² = 47%). The risk of VTE was significantly reduced by high-dose thromboprophylaxis in non-critically ill (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; I² = 0%), but not in critically ill patients (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.21; I² = 36%).

DISCUSSION

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, high-dose thromboprophylaxis is more effective than low-dose for the prevention of VTE but increases the risk of major bleeding.

Increased Susceptibility for Thromboembolic Events versus High Bleeding Risk Associated with COVID-19

The infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is associated with numerous systemic involvements. Besides the severe respiratory injuries and cardiovascular complications, it became obvious early on that this disease carries an increased risk of thromboembolic events, but a higher propensity for bleedings as well. We researched the medical literature over significant PubMed published articles debating on the prevalence, category of patients, the moment of occurrence, and evolution of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but also of venous and arterial “in situ” thrombosis (AT), and hemorrhagic events as well. Most researchers agree on an increased prevalence of thromboembolic events, ranging between 25 and 31% for VTE, depending on the analyzed population. For AT and hemorrhagic complications lower rates were reported, namely, about 2–3%, respectively, between 4.8 and 8%, occurring mostly in older patients, suffering from moderate/severe forms of COVID-19, with associated comorbidities. It is important to mention that patients suffering from hemorrhages frequently received thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant drugs. As a consequence of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications which are both important negative prognostic factors, the evolution of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is aggravated, determining an augmented morbidity and mortality of this population.

Effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation therapy on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review with an updated meta-analysis

Background

Previous studies demonstrate a reduced risk of thrombosis and mortality with anticoagulant treatment in patients with COVID-19 than in those without anticoagulation treatment. However, an open question regarding the efficacy and safety of therapeutic anticoagulation (T-AC) versus a lower dose, prophylaxis anticoagulation (P-AC) in COVID-19 patients is still controversial.

Methods

We systematically reviewed currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs) from January 8, 2019, to January 8, 2022, and compared prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulant treatment in COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were risk of mortality, major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included venous and arterial thromboembolism. Subgroup analysis was also performed between critically ill and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between patients with higher and lower levels of D-dimer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to decrease the bias and the impact of population heterogeneity.

Results

We identified 11 RCTs and 17 OBs fulfilling our inclusion criteria. In the RCTs analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of mortality between COVID-19 patients with T-AC treatment and those treated with P-AC (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.78–1.15, P = 0.60). Similar results were also found in the OBs analyses (RR 1.21, 95% CI, 0.98–1.49, P = 0.08). The pooling meta-analysis using a random-effects model combined with effect sizes showed that in the RCTs and OBs analyses, patients with COVID-19 who received T-AC treatment had a significantly higher relative risk of the major bleeding event than those with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients (RCTs: RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19–2.62, P = 0.005; OBs: RR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.56–3.68, P < 0.0001). Compared with P-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients, patients with T-AC treatment significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.39–0.67, P<0.00001), but it is not associated with arterial thrombosis events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.66–1.42, P = 0.87). The subgroup analysis of OBs shows that the mortality risk significantly reduces in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC compared with those with P-AC treatment (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.39–0.86, P = 0.007), while the mortality risk significantly increases in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with T-AC (RR 1.56, 95% CI, 1.34–1.80, P < 0.00001). In addition, T-AC treatment does not reduce the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients with high d-dimer levels in RCTs. Finally, the overall sensitivity analysis after excluding two RCTs studies remains consistent with the previous results.

Conclusions

In our integrated analysis of included RCTs and OBs, there is no significant difference between the mortality of T-AC and P-AC treatment in unselected patients with COVID-19. T-AC treatment in COVID-19 patients significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism but showed a higher risk of bleeding than those with P-AC treatment. In addition, P-AC treatment was superior to T-AC treatment in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, the evidence supporting the necessity for T-AC treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients came only from OBs.

Trial registration

Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021293294).

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-022-00408-9.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data

Introduction

Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients.

Methodology

This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms.

Results

A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively.

Conclusion

Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Thromboprophylaxis in people hospitalized with COVID-19: Assessing intermediate or standard doses in a retrospective cohort study

Background and Objectives

Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses.

Methods

We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22-3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates.

Conclusions

Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Low in-hospital mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 receiving thromboprophylaxis: data from the multicentre observational START-COVID Register

COVID-19 infection causes respiratory pathology with severe interstitial pneumonia and extra-pulmonary complications; in particular, it may predispose to thromboembolic disease. The current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, however, the optimal heparin dosage treatment is not well-established. We conducted a multicentre, Italian, retrospective, observational study on COVID-19 patients admitted to ordinary wards, to describe clinical characteristic of patients at admission, bleeding and thrombotic events occurring during hospital stay. The strategies used for thromboprophylaxis and its role on patient outcome were, also, described. 1091 patients hospitalized were included in the START-COVID-19 Register. During hospital stay, 769 (70.7%) patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs: low molecular weight heparin (the great majority enoxaparin), fondaparinux, or unfractioned heparin. These patients were more frequently affected by comorbidities, such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism, neurological disease, and cancer with respect to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. During hospital stay, 1.2% patients had a major bleeding event. All patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs; 5.4%, had venous thromboembolism [30.5% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 66.1% pulmonary embolism (PE), and 3.4% patients had DVT + PE]. In our cohort the mortality rate was 18.3%. Heparin use was independently associated with survival in patients aged ≥ 59 years at multivariable analysis. We confirmed the high mortality rate of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in ordinary wards. Treatment with antithrombotic drugs is significantly associated with a reduction of mortality rates especially in patients older than 59 years.

Therapeutic strategies to fight COVID-19: Which is the status artis?

COVID-19 is a complex disease, and many difficulties are faced today especially in the proper choice of pharmacological treatments. The role of antiviral agents for COVID-19 is still being investigated and evidence for immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory drugs is quite conflicting, whereas the use of corticosteroids is supported by robust evidence. The use of heparins in hospitalized critically ill patients is preferred over other anticoagulants. There are conflicting data on the use of convalescent plasma and vitamin D. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), many vaccines are in Phase III clinical trials, and some of them have already received marketing approval in European countries and in the United States. In conclusion, drug repurposing has represented the main approach recently used in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. At this moment, analysis of efficacy and safety data of drugs and vaccines used in real-life context is strongly needed. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on The second wave: are we any closer to efficacious pharmacotherapy for COVID 19? (BJP 75th Anniversary). To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v179.10/issuetoc.

Increased risk for thromboembolic events from combination of a gynecologic malignancy with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: a case report

PURPOSE

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, several patient groups are at particular risk. Mortality is higher among cancer patients and may be increased further by thromboembolic events, which are more common in coronavirus 2019 patients according to recent publications. We discuss the association of gynecologic malignancies, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and thromboembolism by reporting a case study and summarizing available literature.

CASE REPORT

A 71-year-old Caucasian patient with ovarian cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Routine screening revealed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in absence of specific symptoms. After uneventful recovery, oncologic treatment could be continued a few weeks later.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature on PubMed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search included articles ahead of print, published between 1 December 2019 and 1 June 2020. Cross-searches were conducted on all relevant articles.

RESULTS

We identified five articles meeting the defined criteria, including two retrospective studies, a review, a position paper, as well as a letter to the editor.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have a relatively poor outcome, which may partially be due to a higher rate of thromboembolic events. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended, and scoring systems are helpful in early detection. In cancer patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, individual risk for thromboembolic events should be taken into account when considering interruption versus continuation of antitumoral therapy. However, further data and studies are required.

ACE2 protein expression in lung tissues of severe COVID-19 infection

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a key host protein by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) enters and multiplies within cells. The level of ACE2 expression in the lung is hypothesised to correlate with an increased risk of severe infection and complications in COrona VIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To test this hypothesis, we compared the protein expression status of ACE2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in post-mortem lung samples of patients who died of severe COVID-19 and lung samples obtained from non-COVID-19 patients for other indications. IHC for CD61 and CD163 was performed for the assessment of platelet-rich microthrombi and macrophages, respectively. IHC for SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen was also performed. In a total of 55, 44 COVID-19 post-mortem lung samples were tested for ACE2, 36 for CD163, and 26 for CD61, compared to 15 non-covid 19 control lung sections. Quantification of immunostaining, random sampling, and correlation analysis were used to substantiate the morphologic findings. Our results show that ACE2 protein expression was significantly higher in COVID-19 post-mortem lung tissues than in controls, regardless of sample size. Histomorphology in COVID-19 lungs showed diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), acute bronchopneumonia, and acute lung injury with SARS-CoV-2 viral protein detected in a subset of cases. ACE2 expression levels were positively correlated with increased expression levels of CD61 and CD163. In conclusion, our results show significantly higher ACE2 protein expression in severe COVID-19 disease, correlating with increased macrophage infiltration and microthrombi, suggesting a pathobiological role in disease severity.

Cardiac injury and COVID-19 associated coagulopathy in patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: A rotational thromboelastometry study

Purpose

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic inflammatory condition associated with coagulopathy which may result in severe thromboembolic complications. Cardiac injury is not uncommon in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and therefore we aimed to investigate whether it stems from an abnormal coagulative state.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study on consecutive patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Traditional coagulation and whole blood rotational thromboelastometry tests were compared between patients with and without cardiac injury. Cardiac injury was defined by increased levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI).

Results

The study population consisted of 104 patients (67% males, median age 65 years), of whom 40 (38%) developed cardiac injury. No clinical differences in the traditional coagulation parameters were observed between patients with and without cardiac injury. Thromboelastometry analysis revealed abnormal maximum clot firmness (MCF) levels in FIBTEM assay in 80 (77%) patients. No significant differences in MCF values (p ​= ​0.450) and percentage of abnormal MCF (p ​= ​0.290) were detected between patients with and without cardiac injury. Cardiac injury - not hypercoagulability - was associated with mortality (p ​= ​0.016).

Conclusions

No differences in traditional coagulation and rotational thromboelastometry parameters were found among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without cardiac injury. Other mechanisms besides hypercoagulability may be a main culprit for cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients.

Evaluation of a patient specific, targeted-intensity pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 are at higher risk of thrombosis due to the inflammatory nature of their disease. A higher-intensity approach to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may be warranted. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine if a patient specific, targeted-intensity pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol incorporating severity of illness, weight, and biomarkers decreased incidence of thrombosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Included patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 and received thromboprophylaxis within 48 h of admission. Exclusion criteria included receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation prior to or within 24 h of admission, history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, pregnancy, or incarceration. Per-protocol patients received thromboprophylaxis according to institutional protocol involving escalated doses of anticoagulants based upon severity of illness, total body weight, and biomarker thresholds. The primary outcome was thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, mortality, and identification of risk factors for thrombosis. Of 1189 patients screened, 803 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 54 (42-65) and 446 (55.5%) were male. Patients in the per-protocol group experienced significantly fewer thrombotic events (4.4% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.002), less major bleeding (3.1% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.001), and lower mortality (6.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.02) when compared to patients treated off-protocol. Significant predictors of thrombosis included mechanical ventilation and male sex. Post-hoc regression analysis identified mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, and D-dimer ≥ 1500 ng/mL FEU as significant predictors of mortality. A targeted pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol incorporating severity of illness, body weight, and biomarkers appears effective and safe for preventing thrombosis in patients with COVID-19.

Acute myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19: Possible mechanisms and clinical implications

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection affects not only the lungs, but also the cardiovascular system, having a major impact on patients' outcomes. Myocardial injury (MI) occurs in the context of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with a higher risk of severe clinical outcome and mortality. COVID-19-related MI can have various clinical manifestations, of which the main ones are myocarditis, stress cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, and pulmonary embolism. The exact mechanisms of how MI occurs in these patients are not yet fully known. Direct injury, through direct viral myocardial invasion, and indirect injury, through interaction with angiotensin I converting enzyme 2, increased inflammation, and thrombocyte and endothelial dysfunction, could be involved in acute MI in patients with COVID-19. A better understanding of these multiple potential mechanisms may help to develop new targeted therapeutic strategies. The purpose of this review is to provide the current understanding of the potential mechanisms involved in MI induced by COVID-19 and to discuss the current progress in the therapeutic strategies.

Anticoagulation Prior to COVID-19 Infection Has No Impact on 6 Months Mortality: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high incidence of thromboembolic events in humans. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate if anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection may impact clinical profile, as well as mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was based on retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching (PSM), a group of 236 patients receiving any anticoagulant treatment prior to COVID-19 infection (AT group) was compared to 236 patients without previous anticoagulation (no AT group). In 180 days, the observation we noted comparable mortality rate in AT and no AT groups (38.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.51). Similarly, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in admission in the intensive care unit (14.1% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.20), intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.0% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.38), catecholamines usage (14.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.86), and bleeding rate (6.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.37) in both groups. Our results suggest that antithrombotic treatment prior to COVID-19 infection is unlikely to be protective for morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Isolated thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: case series

Background

Data regarding thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination are scarce.

Methods

Clinical and laboratory data were collected from all patients who developed thrombosis within 4 weeks of receiving the Pfizer or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. None had a COVID-19-positive swab.

Results

Seventeen patients were included, with average age of 48.8 years and equal proportion of females to males. Our data suggest that thrombosis occurred in 1 in 163,000 of all individuals who had received any dose of any type of COVID-19 vaccine: six (1 in 123,000) patients after the first dose of Oxford/AstraZeneca, none after the second dose of Oxford/AstraZeneca, four (1 in 257,000) patients after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and seven (1 in 102,000) patients after the second dose of Pfizer vaccine. Three of 17 patients with thrombosis (17.6%) died.

Conclusions

We believe this report to be one of the earliest in the literature to address the question of whether isolated thrombosis is a possible complication of COVID-19 vaccination.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12185-021-03285-6.

Cerebral thrombophlebitis revealing SARS-CoV-2 infection: About one case

INTRODUCTION

SARS-CoV-2 infection is a pandemic that continues to ravage the world, the list of its complications continues to grow longer every day.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the case of a patient admitted to intensive care for cerebral thrombophlebitis revealing a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCUSSION

The inflammatory nature of SARS-CoV-2 infection exposes an increased risk of thrombosis.In this article, we will discuss its mechanism and the anticoagulant treatment modalities.

CONCLUSION

Besides the typical clinical signs, SARS-CoV-2 infection can manifest as thromboembolic complications such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and less frequently cerebral thrombophlebitis.

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in a Patient With Mild Symptoms of COVID-19 Pneumonia

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is mainly associated with pneumonia, several non-respiratory complications may also occur. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is a rare but potentially fatal complication of COVID-19 infection. In order to increase awareness about such life-threatening complications to a large population of patients with otherwise mild COVID-19 infection, we present the clinical course of a 29-year-old unvaccinated female who developed CVST, with eight days of mild COVID-19 infection, that proved fatal despite adequate therapeutic measures. Clinicians should carefully consider the risk of thrombosis in patients who present with COVID-19 infection regardless of the intensity of the disease, including prophylaxis (to reduce the risk of hypercoagulable complications) and treatment beyond discharge. More data and research is needed to identify COVID-19 as an independent risk factor for thromboembolism so that future efforts can be aimed at appropriate management e.g. with prophylactic anticoagulants to avoid such complications. In case of unexplained neurological manifestations in patients with an active or recent COVID-19 infection, early investigations for cerebrovascular integrity should be done by using MRI and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)/magnetic resonance venography (MRV).

Untargeted metabolomics of COVID-19 patient serum reveals potential prognostic markers of both severity and outcome

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is normally based on the qualitative detection of viral nucleic acid sequences. Properties of the host response are not measured but are key in determining outcome. Although metabolic profiles are well suited to capture host state, most metabolomics studies are either underpowered, measure only a restricted subset of metabolites, compare infected individuals against uninfected control cohorts that are not suitably matched, or do not provide a compact predictive model.

OBJECTIVES

Here we provide a well-powered, untargeted metabolomics assessment of 120 COVID-19 patient samples acquired at hospital admission. The study aims to predict the patient's infection severity (i.e., mild or severe) and potential outcome (i.e., discharged or deceased).

METHODS

High resolution untargeted UHPLC-MS/MS analysis was performed on patient serum using both positive and negative ionization modes. A subset of 20 intermediary metabolites predictive of severity or outcome were selected based on univariate statistical significance and a multiple predictor Bayesian logistic regression model was created.

RESULTS

The predictors were selected for their relevant biological function and include deoxycytidine and ureidopropionate (indirectly reflecting viral load), kynurenine (reflecting host inflammatory response), and multiple short chain acylcarnitines (energy metabolism) among others. Currently, this approach predicts outcome and severity with a Monte Carlo cross validated area under the ROC curve of 0.792 (SD 0.09) and 0.793 (SD 0.08), respectively. A blind validation study on an additional 90 patients predicted outcome and severity at ROC AUC of 0.83 (CI 0.74-0.91) and 0.76 (CI 0.67-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Prognostic tests based on the markers discussed in this paper could allow improvement in the planning of COVID-19 patient treatment.

[Features of pathological anatomy of COVID-19 according to autopsy results in the Volgograd Region]

In connection with the ongoing pandemic of the novel coronavirus infection, the study of its morphopathology and the analysis of autopsy data are relevant. At the same time, attention should be paid to thromboses that play a significant role in the development of fatal outcomes in COVID-19, even taking into account the prescription of anticoagulant therapy to most patients.

OBJECTIVE

To make an assessment of morphological changes and a statistical analysis of the structure of mortality in COVID-19 on the basis of autopsy results in the Volgograd Region in 2020.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was based on data from «The system for information on the work of the Volgograd Regional Autopsy Bureau» with a search for cases according to U07.1 code (the COVID-19 virus was identified) in January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, as well as on the autopsy materials of the Volgograd Regional Autopsy Bureau, and microscopic examination with photo fixation. Statistical processing was performed using the R programming language.

RESULTS

During the above period, 1119 deaths were identified with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Anatomopathological examination of the autopsy material showed that 77.54% of cases had blood clots mainly in the vessels of the pulmonary microvasculature, often only in the single veins during the applied anticoagulant therapy.

Analysis of variance indicated that the obtained result statistically significantly differed from the random distribution, and the probability of the presence of blood clots of specified localization was 3.17 times higher (CI 2.3-4.4; p<0.05) than their absence, as evidenced by logistic regression. In addition, perivascular and intra-alveolar diapedesis hemorrhages were noted in most fatal cases.

CONCLUSION

Thus, this investigation has revealed that the high frequency of thrombosis detected in the presence of perivascular and intra-alveolar diapedesis hemorrhages in COVID-19 confirms the tendency of patients with a severe course of the disease to manifest hemostatic disorders, significant blood vascular endothelial injury, and obvious vascular impermeability.

Spontaneous ilio-psoas haematomas (IPHs): a warning for COVID-19 inpatients

INTRODUCTION

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing a hypercoagulable state due to haemostatic changes directly related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or to the consequence of the cytokine storm. Anticoagulation is now recommended to reduce the thrombotic risk. Ilio-psoas haematoma (IPH) is a potentially lethal condition that can arise during the hospitalization, especially in intensive care units (ICUs) and frequently reported as a complication of anticoagulation treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We report a case series of seven subjects with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia complicated by Ilio-psoas haematomas (IPHs) at our COVID-Hospital in Rome, Italy.

RESULTS

Over the observation period, 925 subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to our COVID-hospital. Among them, we found seven spontaneous IPHs with an incidence of 7.6 cases per 1000 hospitalization. All the reported cases had a severe manifestation of COVID-19 pneumonia, with at least one comorbidity and 5/7 were on treatment with low weight molecular heparin for micro or macro pulmonary thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the indications to prescribe anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 and the lack of solid evidences on the optimal dose and duration, it is important to be aware of the iliopsoas haematoma as a potentially serious complication in COVID-19 inpatients. KEY MESSAGE Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of hypercoagulability state and anticoagulation therapy is recommended. Ilio-psoas haematoma (IPH) is found to be a complication of anticoagulation regimen especially in severe COVID-19 cases. An incidence of 7.6 cases per 1000 admission of IPHs was reported. Hypoesthesia of the lower limbs, pain triggered by femoral rotation, hypovolaemia and anaemia are the most common symptoms and signs of IPHs that should alert physician.

Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia and Cardiac Arrest: A Presentation of Pulmonary Embolism With Infarction as a Sequela of Long COVID Syndrome

With the emergence of diverse post-COVID sequelae, there have been reports of thromboembolic events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and pulmonary embolism. These events have been reported after severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections mostly requiring intensive care unit admissions. The findings of acute pulmonary embolism on electrocardiography are commonly sinus tachycardia and S1Q3T3. However, the presentation of pulmonary embolism with arrhythmias is rare. We report a case of a young 31-year-old female who had a history of COVID-19 with a chest computed tomography (CT) severity score of 5/25 five weeks back and presented with acute onset chest pain, breathlessness for one hour followed by collapse. She was intubated in the emergency department and managed with antiarrhythmic drugs however she went into sudden cardiorespiratory arrest and was revived with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The patient was finally diagnosed as a case of pulmonary embolism leading to pulmonary infarction presenting as paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia and cardiac arrest as a result of long COVID syndrome. This emphasizes the importance of routine follow-up and strict vigilance even in young patients with mild COVID-19 as it might result in serious life-threatening complications which otherwise seem to be unexpected.

Rigorous Assessment of Guidelines on COVID-19-Related Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Clinical Practice of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Purpose

Severe COVID-19 patients were prone to develop venous thromboembolism. Unfortunately, to date, there is no evidence of any effective medications for thromboembolism in COVID-19. The management of the disease relies on symptomatic and supportive treatments, giving rise to a variety of guidelines. However, the quality of methodology and clinical recommendations remains unknown.

Materials and Methods

We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, websites of international organizations and medical societies, and gray literature databases. Four well-trained appraisers independently evaluated the quality of eligible guidelines and extracted recommendations using well-recognized guideline appraisal tools. Furthermore, recommendations were extracted and reclassified according to a composite grading system.

Results

The search identified 23 guidelines that offered 108 recommendations. Guidelines scored average on AGREE II criteria, with Scope and Purpose and Clarity of Presentation highest. Only five (22%) guidelines provided high-quality recommendations. The existed clinical recommendations were inconsistent in terms of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of thromboembolic disease to some extent.

Conclusion

Current guidelines for COVID-19 thromboembolism are generally of low quality, and clinical recommendations on thromboembolism are principally supported by insufficient evidence. There is still an urgent need for more well-designed clinical trials as evidence to prevent adverse events and improve prognosis during COVID-19 treatment.

Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.

METHODS

A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."

RESULTS

A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).

CONCLUSION

These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.

Caring for nursing home residents with COVID-19: a "hospital-at-nursing home" intermediate care intervention

Background

Nursing home (NH) residents have been dramatically affected by COVID-19, with extremely high rates of hospitalization and mortality.

Aims

To describe the features and impact of an assistance model involving an intermediate care mobile medical specialist team (GIROT, Gruppo Intervento Rapido Ospedale Territorio) aimed at delivering “hospital-at-nursing home” care to NH residents with COVID-19 in Florence, Italy.

Methods

The GIROT activity was set-up during the first wave of the pandemic (W1, March–April 2020) and became a structured healthcare model during the second (W2, October 2020–January 2021). The activity involved (1) infection transmission control among NHs residents and staff, (2) comprehensive geriatric assessment including prognostication and geriatric syndromes management, (3) on-site diagnostic assessment and protocol-based treatment of COVID-19, (4) supply of nursing personnel to understaffed NHs. To estimate the impact of the GIROT intervention, we reported hospitalization and infection lethality rates recorded in SARS-CoV-2-positive NH residents during W1 and W2.

Results

The GIROT activity involved 21 NHs (1159 residents) and 43 NHs (2448 residents) during W1 and W2, respectively. The percentage of infected residents was higher in W2 than in W1 (64.5% vs. 38.8%), while both hospitalization and lethality rates significantly decreased in W2 compared to W1 (10.1% vs 58.2% and 23.4% vs 31.1%, respectively).

Discussion

Potentiating on-site care in the NHs paralleled a decrease of hospital admissions with no increase of lethality.

Conclusions

An innovative “hospital-at-nursing home” patient-centred care model based on comprehensive geriatric assessment may provide a valuable contribution in fighting COVID-19 in NH residents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40520-021-01959-z.

[COVID-19-induced coagulopathy and thrombosis manifestations]

Klinisches Problem

Klinisch wird COVID-19 („corona virus disease“ 2019) zunehmend als systemische Erkrankung gesehen, in deren Zentrum eine Multiorganbeteiligung durch einen hyperkoagulatorischen Zustand im Sinne einer Vaskulopathie steht.

Therapeutische Standardverfahren

Eine Behandlung mit Thrombozytenfunktionshemmern oder Heparinen erscheint die logische Konsequenz. Die aktuelle Studienlage, zumindest für ASS, ergibt allerdings keine Hinweise auf eine Wirksamkeit.

Diagnostik

Entsprechend der zu nennenswerten Anteilen primär mikrostrukturellen Gefäßveränderungen sollte die radiologische Diagnostik nicht nur Makrogefäßpathologien, sondern auch Hinweise auf diffuse Perfusionsstörungen darstellen.

Leistungsfähigkeit

In der Lunge sind beispielsweise Perfusionsausfälle nachweisbar, die nur teilweise durch pulmonalarterielle Füllungsdefekte zu erklären sind. Ähnliche Befunde zeigen sich in fast allen Organsystemen.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Eine therapeutische Intervention mittels niedermolekularer Heparine bei hospitalisierten Patienten in situationsadaptierter Dosierung ist indiziert und wird ausführlich besprochen. Bei Nachweis von Mikro- und Makrogefäßthrombosierung im Rahmen von COVID-19 spielt die erweiterte radiologische Diagnostik eine zentrale Rolle und ist die Basis der Therapie und Sekundärprävention.

A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis Comparing Prophylactic and Therapeutic Low Molecular Weight Heparins for Mortality Reduction in 32,688 COVID-19 Patients

Background: Antithrombotic treatment, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH), has been proposed as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to lower diffuse intravascular clotting activation. However, it is unclear whether prophylactic or therapeutic doses have similar efficacy in reducing mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020179955) and meta-analysis including observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of heparins (either LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux) in COVID-19 patients. Heparin treatment was compared to no anticoagulation. A subgroup analysis on prophylactic or therapeutic doses compared to no anticoagulation was performed. Prophylactic dose was also compared to full dose anticoagulation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were major bleeding and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: 33 studies (31 observational, 2 RCT) were included for a total overall population of 32,688 patients. Of these, 21,723 (66.5%) were on heparins. 31 studies reported data on all-cause mortality, showing that both prophylactic and full dose reduced mortality (pooled Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.69 and HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.66, respectively). However, the full dose was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% CI 1.14-3.53) compared to prophylactic dose. Finally, LOS was evaluated in 3 studies; no difference was observed between patients with and without heparins (0.98, -3.87, 5.83 days). Conclusion: Heparin at both full and prophylactic dose is effective in reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, compared to no treatment. However, full dose was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42020179955.

The Impact of Risk-Adjusted Heparin Regimens on the Outcome of Patients with COVID-19 Infection. A Prospective Cohort Study

Background. According to recent guidelines, all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), unless there are specific contraindications. However, the optimal preventive strategy in terms of intensity of anticoagulation for these patients is not well established. Objectives. To investigate the impact of individualized regimens of enoxaparin on the development of VTE and on the risk of major bleeding complications during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods. All consecutive patients admitted to the medical wards of six Italian hospitals between 15 September and 15 October 2020 with COVID-19 infection of moderate severity were administered enoxaparin in subcutaneous daily doses adjusted to the Padua Prediction Score stratification model: No heparin in patients scoring less than 4, 4000 IU daily in those scoring 4, 6000 IU in those scoring 5, and 8000 in those scoring six or more. Objective tests were performed in patients developing clinical symptoms of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding complications were defined according to the ISTH classification. Results. From the 154 eligible patients, enoxaparin was administered in all: 4000 IU in 73 patients, 6000 IU in 53, and 8000 IU in the remaining 28. During the course of hospitalization, 27 patients (17.5%) died. VTE developed in 14 of the 154 patients (9.1%; 95% CI, 4.6% to 13.6%), and was fatal in 1. Major bleeding complications developed in 35 patients (22.7%; 95% CI, 16.1% to 29.3%), and were fatal in 8. Conclusions. Despite the use of risk-adjusted doses of enoxaparin, the rate of VTE events was consistent with that reported in contemporary studies where fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was used. The unexpectedly high risk of bleeding complications should induce caution in administering enoxaparin in doses higher than the conventional low ones.

Pulmonary embolism after discharge for COVID-19: A report of two cases

Previous studies have found critically ill patients with COVID-19 to have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. In this case report of two patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19, both patients developed pulmonary embolism within a few days after hospital discharge. Both patients received thromboprophylaxis and had an increasing fibrin D-dimer during their hospital stay. Continued thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge may be indicated for patients with COVID-19, especially for patients at high risk of thrombosis with elevated levels of fibrin D-dimer.

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: Systematic Review of National and International Clinical Guidance Reports

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common among patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefits; however, the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy has not yet been defined. <P> Objective: To identify published guidance reports by national and international societies regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in COVID-19 patients in different settings (outpatients, hospitalized, post-discharge). <P> Methods: A systematic review of the literature (Pubmed/EMBASE) was conducted independently by two investigators. <P> Results: Among 1942 initially identified articles, 33 guidance documents were included: 20 published by national and 13 by international societies. These documents provide recommendations mainly for hospitalized (97% of reports) and post-discharge (75%) COVID-19 patients, and less so for outpatients (34%). Thrombotic and bleeding risk stratification prior to any treatment decision is the cornerstone of all suggested thromboprophylaxis strategies; 81% of the documents recommend thromboprophylaxis for all hospitalized patients with a prophylactic dosage of low molecular weight heparin irrespective of VTE risk. Intermediate or therapeutic dose intensity is recommended in high VTE risk patients by 56% and 28% of documents, respectively. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis is suggested in case of high bleeding risk or contraindication to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (59% of documents). Extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients with high VTE risk after hospital discharge (63% of documents). For non-hospitalized outpatients, 28% of documents recommend pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for high VTE risk. <P> Conclusion: The current guidance identifies thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients, especially during hospitalization, as of major importance for the prevention of VTE. Recommendations are derived from limited evidence from observational studies.

Thromboembolic Complications in Severe COVID-19: Current Antithrombotic Strategies and Future Perspectives

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS- CoV-2) is our latest pandemic and has turned out to be a global public health crisis. One of the special characteristics of this disease is that it may predispose patients to thrombotic disease both in the venous and arterial circulation. We review arterial and venous thromboembolic complications in patients with COVID-19, epidemiology, pathogenesis, hematologic biomarkers, and current antithrombotic strategies. Future perspectives and clinical trials are ongoing to determine the best thromboprophylaxis strategies in the hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 Associated Coagulopathy in an Indian Scenario: A Correlation with Disease Severity and Survival Status

Covid-19 pandemic reveals that the virus causes Covid-19 associated coagulopathy and it is well known that thrombotic risk is associated with ethnicity. To describe the Covid-19 associated coagulopathy in Indian population and to correlate it with the disease severity and survivor status. A cross sectional descriptive study of 391 confirmed Covid-19 cases was carried out over a period of 1.5 months. Patients were categorised as mild to moderate, severe and very severe and also labelled as survivors and non survivors. Prothrombin time (PT), International normalised ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time, D dimer, Fibrin degradation products (FDP), fibrinogen and thrombin time and platelet counts were investigated among the subgroups. Mean age was higher in patients with severe disease (57.62 ± 13.08) and among the non survivors (56.54 ± 12.78). Statistically significant differences in D dimer, FDP, PT, INR and age were seen among the 3 subgroups and survivors. Strong significant positive correlation was noted between D dimer and FDP (r = 0.838, p < .001), PT and INR (r = 0.986, p < 0.001). D dimer was the best single coagulation parameter as per the area under curve (AUC: 0.762, p < 0.001) and D dimer + FDP was the best combination parameter (AUC: 0.764, p = 0) to differentiate mild moderate from severe disease. Raised levels of D dimer, FDP, PT, PT INR and higher age correlated positively with disease severity and mortality in Indian Population.

Venous thromboembolism and COVID-19: a single center experience from an academic tertiary referral hospital of Northern Italy

Preliminary evidence supports the notion that COVID-19 patients may have an increased susceptibility to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the magnitude of this association still needs to be defined. Furthermore, clinical predictors of thrombogenesis, and the relationship with the inflammatory status are currently unknown. On this basis, we conducted a retrospective, observational study on 259 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic tertiary referral hospital in Northern Italy between March 19th and April 6th, 2020. Records of COVID-19 patients with a definite VTE event were reviewed for demographic information, co-morbidities, risk factors for VTE, laboratory tests, and anticoagulation treatment. Twenty-five cases among 259 COVID-19 patients developed VTE (9.6%), all of them having a Padua score > 4, although being under standard anticoagulation prophylaxis since hospital admission. In the VTE subcohort, we found a significant positive correlation between platelet count (PLT) and either C reactive protein (CRP) (p < 0.0001) or lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (p = 0.0013), while a significant inverse correlation was observed between PLT and mean platelet volume (p < 0.0001). Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio significantly correlated with CRP (p < 0.0001). The majority of VTE patients was male and younger compared to non-VTE patients (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). No significant difference was found in D-dimer levels between VTE and non VTE patients, while significantly higher levels of LDH (p = 0.04) and IL-6 (p = 0.04) were observed in VTE patients in comparison to non-VTE patients. In conclusion, our findings showed a quite high prevalence of VTE in COVID-19 patients. Raised inflammatory indexes and increased serum levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines should raise the clinical suspicion of VTE.

Case Report: An Unusual Case of Biventricular Thrombosis in a COVID-19 Patient With Ischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Assessment of Mass Mobility and Embolic Risk by Tissue Doppler Imaging

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein binds to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on vascular cells. As a consequence, patients with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolic complications of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent endothelial cell damage with consequence of development of systemic vasculitis and diffuse intravascular coagulation. The present case describes a COVID-19 female patient with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who presented with congestive heart failure and echocardiographic evidence of biventricular apical thrombi. The peak antegrade longitudinal velocity (Va) of each thrombotic mass was measured by pulsed wave tissue Doppler imaging (PW-TDI). Both left ventricular and right ventricular apical thrombi were found with a TDI-derived mass peak Va < 10 cm/s. There was no clinical evidence of neither systemic nor pulmonary embolization, probably due to the hypomobility of both left and right ventricular masses.

Outpatient Management of COVID-19 Disease: A Holistic Patient-Centered Proposal Based on the Greek Experience

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a worldwide pandemic and affected more than 227 countries or territories, resulting in more than 179 million cases with over 3.890.00 deaths, as of June 25, 2021. The Hellenic Thoracic Society (HTS) during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic released a guidance document for the management of patients with COVID-19 in the community and in hospital setting. In this review, with guidance the HTS document, we are discussing the outpatient management of COVID-19 patients, including the preventive measures, the patients' isolation and quarantine criteria of close contacts, the severity and risk stratification, including the decisions for advanced hospitalization, and the disease management at home in patients with mild disease and after hospital discharge for those with more severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer: possible role of mimicry of human molecules by viral proteins and the resulting anti-cancer immunity

A few reports suggest that molecular mimicry can have a role in determining the more severe and deadly forms of COVID-19, inducing endothelial damage, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and multiorgan failure. Heat shock proteins/molecular chaperones can be involved in these molecular mimicry phenomena. However, tumor cells can display on their surface heat shock proteins/molecular chaperones that are mimicked by SARS-CoV-2 molecules (including the Spike protein), similarly to what happens in other bacterial or viral infections. Since molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and tumoral proteins can elicit an immune reaction in which antibodies or cytotoxic cells produced against the virus cross-react with the tumor cells, we want to prompt clinical studies to evaluate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on prognosis and follow up of various forms of tumors. These topics, including a brief historical overview, are discussed in this paper.

The Interrelationship between Liver Function Test and the Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has become a global public health challenge. Assessing the effect of COVID-19 on liver injury is of great importance. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the characteristics of liver function tests in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A systematic search of publications from December 2019 up to April 2020 in Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline (via PubMed) databases was performed. Both cross-sectional and case series studies reporting an association between liver injury and COVID-19 infection were included. The data were analyzed using the STATA software (version 11.0) and the random-effects model for I2>50% was used to pool the results.

Results

In this meta-analysis, 42 articles comprising a total of 6,557 COVID-19 patients were studied. The prevalence of increase in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels was 30% and 21% in non-severe patients and 38% and 48% in severe patients, respectively. Patients with severe COVID-19 infection were 4.22, 4.96, and 4.13 times more likely to have elevated AST, ALT, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, respectively.

Conclusion

Elevation in liver function tests was higher in patients with severe than non-severe COVID-19 infection. Given the widespread use of drugs that increases the risk of hepatotoxicity, healthcare providers should be aware of changes in liver enzymes in COVID-19 patients. The inclusion of other studies from outside China could confirm the pattern of elevation in liver function tests in COVID-19 patients across the globe. Preprint of this article is available on medRxiv, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.20.20108357v1.

Role of combining anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 treatment: a rapid review

Although primarily affecting the respiratory system, COVID-19 causes multiple organ damage. One of its grave consequences is a prothrombotic state that manifests as thrombotic, microthrombotic and thromboembolic events. Therefore, understanding the effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in the context of COVID-19 treatment is important. The aim of this rapid review was to highlight the role of thrombosis in COVID-19 and to provide new insights on the use of antithrombotic therapy in its management. A rapid systematic review was performed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews. Papers published in English on antithrombotic agent use and COVID-19 complications were eligible. Results showed that the use of anticoagulants increased survival and reduced thromboembolic events in patients. However, despite the use of anticoagulants, patients still suffered thrombotic events likely due to heparin resistance. Data on antiplatelet use in combination with anticoagulants in the setting of COVID-19 are quite scarce. Current side effects of anticoagulation therapy emphasise the need to update treatment guidelines. In this rapid review, we address a possible modulatory role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant combination against COVID-19 pathogenesis. This combination may be an effective form of adjuvant therapy against COVID-19 infection. However, further studies are needed to elucidate potential risks and benefits associated with this combination.