Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

The laboratory parameters in predicting the severity and death of COVID-19 patients: Future pandemic readiness strategies

The range of clinical manifestations associated with the infection by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) encompasses a broad spectrum, ranging from flu-like symptoms to the occurrence of multiple organ failure and death. The severity of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is categorized based on clinical presentation and is divided into three distinct levels of severity identified as non-severe, severe, and critical. Although individuals of all age groups are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, middle-aged and older adults are more frequently impacted, with the latter being more likely to develop severe illness. Various laboratory characteristics observed in hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been correlated with adverse outcomes. These include elevated levels of D-dimer, liver enzymes, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, ferritin, prothrombin time, and troponin, as well as decreased lymphocyte and platelets counts. This review investigated the relationship between baseline clinical characteristics, initial laboratory parameters upon hospital admission, and the severity of illness and mortality rates among COVID-19 patients. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has concluded, understanding the laboratory predictors of virus severity and mortality remains crucial, and examining these predictors can have long-term effects. Such insights can help healthcare systems manage resources more effectively and deliver timely and appropriate care by identifying and targeting high-risk individuals. This knowledge can also help us better prepare for future pandemics. By examining these predictors, we can take steps to protect public health and mitigate the impact of future pandemics.

Epigenetic perspectives associated with COVID-19 infection and related cytokine storm: an updated review

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has put the world in a medical crisis for the past three years; nearly 6.3 million lives have been diminished due to the virus outbreak. This review aims to update the recent findings on COVID-19 infections from an epigenetic scenario and develop future perspectives of epi-drugs to treat the disease.

METHODS

Original research articles and review studies related to COVID-19 were searched and analyzed from the Google Scholar/PubMed/Medline databases mainly between 2019 and 2022 to brief the recent work.

RESULTS

Numerous in-depth studies of the mechanisms used by SARS-CoV-2 have been going on to minimize the consequences of the viral outburst. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 receptors and Transmembrane serine protease 2 facilitate viral entry to the host cells. Upon internalization, it uses the host machinery to replicate viral copies and alter the downstream regulation of the normal cells, causing infection-related morbidities and mortalities. In addition, several epigenetic regulations such as DNA methylation, acetylation, histone modifications, microRNA, and other factors (age, sex, etc.) are responsible for the regulations of viral entry, its immune evasion, and cytokine responses also play a major modulatory role in COVID-19 severity, which has been discussed in detail in this review.

CONCLUSION

Findings of epigenetic regulation of viral pathogenicity open a new window for epi-drugs as a possible therapeutical approach against COVID-19.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

The prominent role of percutaneous transarterial embolization in the treatment of anterior abdominal wall hematomas: the results of three high volume tertiary referral centers

PURPOSE

Percutaneous transarterial embolization (PTE) represents a fast, safe and effective option for life-threatening anterior abdominal wall hematomas (AWHs) and those unresponsive to conservative treatment. Our study aims to assess cumulative results of safety, technical and clinical success of PTE performed in three high-volume tertiary referral centers and to evaluate the efficacy of the different embolic materials employed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of 124 patients (72.8 ± 14.4 years) with AWHs of different etiology submitted to PTE were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Clinical success, defined as absence of recurrent bleeding within 96 h from PTE, was considered as primary endpoint. The results of the comparison of three groups based on embolic agent employed were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Spontaneous AWHs accounted for 62.1%, iatrogenic for 21.8% and post-traumatic for 16.1% of cases. SARS-CoV-19 infection was present in 22.6% of patients. The most commonly embolized vessels were epigastric inferior artery (n = 127) and superior epigastric artery (n = 25). Technical and clinical success were 97.6 and 87.1%, respectively. Angiographic signs of active bleeding were detected in 85.5% of cases. Four (4%) major complications were reported. The comparison of the three groups of embolic agents (mechanical, particulate/fluid and combined) showed no statistically significant differences in terms of clinical success. SARS-CoV-2 infection was found to be an independent factor for recurrent bleeding and poor 30-day survival.

CONCLUSION

PTE performed with all the embolic agent employed in our centers is a safe and effective tool in the treatment of life-threatening anterior AWH of each origin.

The Role of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets in Reducing Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Reporting Adjusted Data

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with prolonged prothrombin time (PT), active partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and increased D-dimer levels. Therefore, we aim to investigate if anticoagulants (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy play a role in mitigating COVID-19 and its associated thrombosis along with its effect on the mortality rate, the need for mechanical ventilation, and the risk of hospital admission. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 19, 2022. The studies were divided into two groups: Group A (any dose of AC/AP versus no AC/AP) and Group B (therapeutic dose of AC (tAC)/AP versus prophylactic dose of AC (pAC)/AP). Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for all statistical analyses. Adjusted data ratios were extracted from all included studies and pooled using the random effects model. A total of 33 studies were taken for the analysis of two groups (Group A: 285,065 COVID-19-positive patients, Group B: 2,421 COVID-19-positive patients). Overall analysis in Group A showed that the AC/AP group had a low risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to the control group (risk ratio (RR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.86). There was no significant difference in the need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60-1.08) and hospital admission (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.59) between the AC/AP and no AC/AP group. Alongside, in Group B, tAC/AP did not demonstrate a significant decrease in mortality as compared to pAC/AP (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.06). Treatment with AC and AP drugs can significantly decrease the mortality rate in COVID-19-infected patients, while AC also significantly reduces the need for mechanical ventilation.

Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the 'target trial framework' as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it.

METHODS

The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%).

CONCLUSION

Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the 'target trial' framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

Eliminating Food Insecurity in the USA: a Target Trial Emulation Using Observational Data to Estimate Effects on Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Food insecurity is associated with many aspects of poor health. However, trials of food insecurity interventions typically focus on outcomes of interest to funders, such as healthcare use, cost, or clinical performance metrics, rather than quality of life outcomes that may be prioritized by individuals who experience food insecurity.

OBJECTIVE

To emulate a trial of a food insecurity elimination intervention, and quantify its estimated effects on health utility, health-related quality of life, and mental health.

DESIGN

Target trial emulation using longitudinal, nationally representative data, from the USA, 2016-2017.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2013 adults in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey screened positive for food insecurity, representing 32 million individuals.

MAIN MEASURES

Food insecurity was assessed using the Adult Food Security Survey Module. The primary outcome was the SF-6D (Short-Form Six Dimension) measure of health utility. Secondary outcomes were mental component score (MCS) and physical component score (PCS) of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (a measure of health-related quality of life), Kessler 6 (K6) psychological distress, and Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item (PHQ2) depressive symptoms.

KEY RESULTS

We estimated that food insecurity elimination would improve health utility by 80 QALYs per 100,000 person-years, or 0.008 QALYs per person per year (95% CI 0.002 to 0.014, p = 0.005), relative to the status quo. We also estimated that food insecurity elimination would improve mental health (difference in MCS [95% CI]: 0.55 [0.14 to 0.96]), physical health (difference in PCS: 0.44 [0.06 to 0.82]), psychological distress (difference in K6: -0.30 [-0.51 to -0.09]), and depressive symptoms (difference in PHQ-2: -0.13 [-0.20 to  -0.07]).

CONCLUSIONS

Food insecurity elimination may improve important, but understudied, aspects of health. Evaluations of food insecurity interventions should holistically investigate their potential to improve many different aspects of health.

Effects of Different Anticoagulation Doses on Moderate-to-Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia With Hypoxemia

Background COVID-19 is a prothrombotic disease that can cause thromboembolism and microthrombi, which could lead to multiorgan failure and death. Since COVID-19 is a relatively new disease, there are guidelines for anticoagulation dosing for COVID-19 patients without consensus on the dosing. We studied the effects of different doses of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia on any differences in need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We also analyzed the patient population who benefited most from anticoagulation. Methodology We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who were admitted with the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection with positive polymerase chain reaction, pneumonia (confirmed either by chest X-ray or CT chest), and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation of <94%, while on room air). These patients were studied for outcomes (the need for high-flow oxygen, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality) for different doses of anticoagulation (prophylactic, escalated, and therapeutic). Results The sample consists of 132 subjects, predominantly males (116, 87%), with a mean age of 59 years and a standard deviation of 15. About one-third of the participants had diabetes, and more than 50% had hypertension. Additionally, 27 (20.3%) had a history of heart disease, and 70 (53%) of the subjects were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at some point during the study. Among those admitted to the ICU, about 11 (8%) subjects required mechanical ventilation and 16 (12%) passed away during the study. Those who died had higher use of high-flow oxygen, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation and had a longer stay on mechanical ventilation. There was no significant difference in mortality or need for mechanical ventilation for any strategy of anticoagulation. Conclusions Different doses of anticoagulation did not show any statistically significant relationship between the need for mechanical ventilation and mortality. More patients on high-flow oxygen had received escalated doses of anticoagulation as compared to those who were not on high-flow oxygen. Anticoagulation levels did not have any statistically significant effect on overall survival of patients.

Increased Thrombotic Risk in COVID-19: Evidence and Controversy

The pandemic of respiratory disease caused by the novel coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2, which emerged at the end of 2019, is still ongoing [...].

Timing of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in critically ill adults with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate if the timing of initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at 68 hospitals across the US from March 1 to July 1, 2020. We examined the association between early (ICU days 1-2) versus late (ICU days 3-7) initiation of IMV and time-to-death. Patients were followed until the first of hospital discharge, death, or 90 days. We adjusted for confounding using a multivariable Cox model.

RESULTS

Among the 1879 patients included in this analysis (1199 male [63.8%]; median age, 63 [IQR, 53-72] years), 1526 (81.2%) initiated IMV early and 353 (18.8%) initiated IMV late. A total of 644 of the 1526 patients (42.2%) in the early IMV group died, and 180 of the 353 (51.0%) in the late IMV group died (adjusted HR 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill adults with respiratory failure from COVID-19, early compared to late initiation of IMV is associated with reduced mortality.

Coagulopathy and thromboembolic events a pathogenic mechanism of COVID-19 associated with mortality: An updated review

During 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 emerged from China, and during months, COVID-19 spread in many countries around the world. The expanding data about pathogenesis of this virus could elucidate the exact mechanism by which COVID-19 caused death in humans. One of the pathogenic mechanisms of this disease is coagulation. Coagulation disorders that affect both venous and arterial systems occur in patients with COVID-19. The possible mechanism involved in the coagulation could be excessive inflammation induced by SARS-CoV-2. However, it is not yet clear well how SARS-CoV-2 promotes coagulopathy. However, some factors, such as pulmonary endothelial cell damage and some anticoagulant system disorders, are assumed to have an important role. In this study, we assessed conducted studies about COVID-19-induced coagulopathy to obtain clearer vision of the wide range of manifestations and possible pathogenesis mechanisms.

Significance of heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) occurs in approximately 3% of patients receiving heparinoids. About 30-75% of patients with type 2 of HIT develop thrombosis as a result of platelet activation. The most important clinical symptom is thrombocytopenia. Patients with severe COVID-19 are among those receiving heparinoids. This meta-analysis performed to picture the current knowledge and results of published studies in this field. Three search engines were searched and 575 papers were found. After evaluation, 37 articles were finally selected of which 13 studies were quantitatively analyzed. The pooled frequency rate of suspected cases with HIT in 13 studies with 11,241 patients was 1.7%. The frequency of HIT was 8.2% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation subgroup with 268 patients and 0.8% in the hospitalization subgroup with 10,887 patients. The coincidence of these two conditions may increase the risk of thrombosis. Of the 37 patients with COVID-19 and confirmed HIT, 30 patients (81%) were treated in the intensive care unit or had severe COVID-19. The most commonly used anticoagulants were UFH in 22 cases (59.4%). The median platelet count before treatment was 237 (176-290) x 10³/µl and the median nadir platelet count was 52 (31-90.5) x 10³/µl.

Efficacy and Safety of Anticoagulant Therapy in COVID-19-Related Pulmonary Embolism with Different Extension

Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and its incidence is highly variable. The aim of our study was to describe the radiological and clinical presentations, as well as the therapeutic management, of PEs that occurred during SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of hospitalized patients. In this observational study, we enrolled patients with moderate COVID-19 who developed PE during hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological features were recorded. PE was diagnosed on clinical suspicion and/or CT angiography. According to CT angiography results, two groups of patients were further distinguished: those with proximal or central pulmonary embolism (cPE) and those with distal or micro-pulmonary embolism (mPE). A total of 56 patients with a mean age of 78 ± 15 years were included. Overall, PE occurred after a median of 2 days from hospitalization (range 0-47 days) and, interestingly, the majority of them (89%) within the first 10 days of hospitalization, without differences between the groups. Patients with cPE were younger (p = 0.02), with a lower creatinine clearance (p = 0.04), and tended to have a higher body weight (p = 0.059) and higher D-Dimer values (p = 0.059) than patients with mPE. In all patients, low-weight molecular heparin (LWMH) at anticoagulant dosage was promptly started as soon as PE was diagnosed. After a mean of 16 ± 9 days, 94% of patients with cPE were switched to oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, which was a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in 86% of cases. In contrast, only in 68% of patients with mPE, the prosecution with OAC was indicated. The duration of treatment was at least 3 months from PE diagnosis in all patients who started OAC. At the 3-month follow-up, no persistence or recurrence of PE as well as no clinically relevant bleedings were found in both groups. In conclusion, pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 may have different extensions. Used with clinical judgment, oral anticoagulant therapy with DOAC was effective and safe.

Drug Repurposing and Observational Studies: The Case of Antivirals for the Treatment of COVID-19

Remdesivir and molnupiravir were the only 2 repurposed antivirals that were approved for emergency use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both drugs received their emergency use authorization on the basis of a single industry-funded phase 3 trial, which was launched after evidence of in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. In contrast, for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), little in vitro evidence was generated, no randomized trials for early treatment were done, and the drug was not considered for authorization. Yet, by the summer of 2020, observational evidence suggested a substantially lower risk for severe COVID-19 in TDF users compared with nonusers. The decision-making process for the launching of randomized trials for these 3 drugs is reviewed. Observational data in favor of TDF was systematically dismissed, even though no viable alternative explanations were proposed for the lower risk for severe COVID-19 among TDF users. Lessons learned from the TDF example during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic are described, and the use of observational clinical data to guide decisions about the launch of randomized trials during the next public health emergency is proposed. The goal is that gatekeepers of randomized trials make better use of the available observational evidence for the repurposing of drugs without commercial value.

Retrospective Study of Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Rural North Carolina

Background

Some patients with COVID-19 develop life-threatening thrombotic complications including myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and ischemic stroke. These inflammatory and hypercoagulable states have been well documented in patient cohorts from metropolitan areas, but not in more rural populations, nor has a data-driven treatment plan been developed for thrombotic COVID-19 patients.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective case-control study of COVID-19-positive patients to analyze the impact of thrombosis on various clinical endpoints including terminal diagnosis and disease severity. Prevalence and impact of thrombosis were determined using medical records from 2237 COVID-19-positive patients hospitalized in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Odds ratios for terminal diagnosis, death, ICU admission, and ventilation were calculated based on thrombosis status, D-dimer level, or type of antithrombotic treatment.

Results

Terminal diagnosis [OR 1.81; 95% CI (1.10, 2.98)], ICU admission [2.25; (1.33, 3.81)], and ventilation [2.46; (1.45, 4.18)] were all more likely in thrombotic patients (N = 97) compared to nonthrombotic patients (N = 2140) after adjusting for age. D-dimer levels were associated with death overall, but not among thrombotic patients. Treatments that combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs appeared to be more efficacious than anticoagulants alone in preventing death and severe disease.

Limitations

Patient medical history prior to hospitalization was not evaluated.

Conclusion

In this cohort, those with thrombosis are at increased risk for adverse outcomes including death and severe disease. Antithrombotic therapy that includes antiplatelet drugs provides improved outcomes. Higher-powered prospective trials will be necessary to confirm any potential merits of antiplatelet therapy.

COVID-19 Thrombotic Complications and Therapeutic Strategies

Shortly after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, clinicians rapidly recognized an apparent association between the disease and both arterial and venous thrombotic complications, which was confirmed in epidemiologic studies. Based on these data, hospitals empirically developed and implemented protocols with different strategies for anticoagulation of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) clarified the role of anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and recently discharged from the hospital. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19, observational comparative effectiveness analyses that provided hints of a benefit from anticoagulation, and finally the RCTs that established which patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation. These RCTs have demonstrated that hospitalized, noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation, but patients who are hospitalized and critically ill, discharged from the hospital, or not hospitalized do not benefit.

Therapeutic advances in COVID-19

Over 2 years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives. Unlike the early days of the pandemic, when management decisions were based on extrapolations from in vitro data, case reports and case series, clinicians are now equipped with an armamentarium of therapies based on high-quality evidence. These treatments are spread across seven main therapeutic categories: anti-inflammatory agents, antivirals, antithrombotics, therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, anti-SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibody therapies, modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and vitamins. For each of these treatments, the patient population characteristics and clinical settings in which they were studied are important considerations. Although few direct comparisons have been performed, the evidence base and magnitude of benefit for anti-inflammatory and antiviral agents clearly outweigh those of other therapeutic approaches such as vitamins. The emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of much of the available evidence, particularly for antibody therapies. Importantly, patients with acute and chronic kidney disease were under-represented in many of the COVID-19 clinical trials, and outcomes in this population might differ from those reported in the general population. Here, we examine the clinical evidence for these therapies through a kidney medicine lens.

Angiopoietin-Like4 Is a Novel Marker of COVID-19 Severity

Vascular dysfunction and capillary leak are common in critically ill COVID-19 patients, but identification of endothelial pathways involved in COVID-19 pathogenesis has been limited. Angiopoietin-like 4 (ANGPTL4) is a protein secreted in response to hypoxic and nutrient-poor conditions that has a variety of biological effects including vascular injury and capillary leak.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the role of ANGPTL4 in COVID-19-related outcomes.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twenty-five COVID-19 ICU patients were enrolled from April 2020 to May 2021 in a prospective, multicenter cohort study from three different medical centers, University of Washington, University of Southern California and New York University.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Plasma ANGPTL4 was measured on days 1, 7, and 14 after ICU admission. We used previously published tissue proteomic data and lung single nucleus RNA (snRNA) sequencing data from specimens collected from COVID-19 patients to determine the tissues and cells that produce ANGPTL4.

RESULTS

Higher plasma ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly associated with worse hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per log2 increase, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; p = 0.002). Higher ANGPTL4 concentrations were also associated with higher proportions of venous thromboembolism and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Longitudinal ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly different during the first 2 weeks of hospitalization in patients who subsequently died compared with survivors (p for interaction = 8.1 × 10-5). Proteomics analysis demonstrated abundance of ANGPTL4 in lung tissue compared with other organs in COVID-19. ANGPTL4 single-nuclear RNA gene expression was significantly increased in pulmonary alveolar type 2 epithelial cells and fibroblasts in COVID-19 lung tissue compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

ANGPTL4 is expressed in pulmonary epithelial cells and fibroblasts and is associated with clinical prognosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Extreme obesity is a strong predictor for in-hospital mortality and the prevalence of long-COVID in severe COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is common in COVID-19 patients and is associated with high mortality. The aim of this observational study was to describe patients' characteristics and outcome, identifying potential risk factors for in-hospital mortality and for developing Long-COVID symptoms. This retrospective study included all patients with COVID-19 associated ARDS (cARDS) in the period from March 2020 to March 2021 who were invasively ventilated at the intensive care unit (ICU) of the University Hospital Dresden, Germany. Between October 2021 and December 2021 patients discharged alive (at minimum 6 months after hospital discharge-midterm survival) were contacted and interviewed about persistent symptoms possibly associated with COVID-19 as well as the quality of their lives using the EQ-5D-5L-questionnaire. Long-COVID was defined as the occurrence of one of the symptoms at least 6 months after discharge. Risk factors for mortality were assessed with Cox regression models and risk factors for developing Long-COVID symptoms by using relative risk (RR) regression. 184 Patients were included in this study (male: n = 134 (73%), median age 67 (range 25-92). All patients were diagnosed with ARDS according to the Berlin Definition. 89% of patients (n = 164) had severe ARDS (Horovitz-index < 100 mmHg). In 27% (n = 49) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was necessary to maintain gas exchange. The median length of in-hospital stay was 19 days (range 1-60). ICU mortality was 51%, hospital mortality 59%. Midterm survival (median 11 months) was 83% (n = 55) and 78% (n = 43) of these patients presented Long-COVID symptoms with fatigue as the most common symptom (70%). Extreme obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2) was the strongest predictor for in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio: 3.147, confidence interval 1.000-9.897) and for developing Long-COVID symptoms (RR 1.61, confidence interval 1.26-2.06). In-hospital mortality in severe cARDS patients was high, but > 80% of patients discharged alive survived the midterm observation period. Nonetheless, most patients developed Long-COVID symptoms. Extreme obesity with BMI > 40 kg/m2 was identified as independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality and for developing Long-COVID symptoms.Trial registration DRKS-ID DRKS00027856.

Relationship Between Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease and Death and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) is perceived as a risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We sought to determine whether CVD is associated with in-hospital death and cardiovascular events in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study used data from a multicenter cohort of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at 68 centers across the United States from March 1 to July 1, 2020. The primary exposure was CVD, defined as preexisting coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation/flutter. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission defined as a troponin I or T level above the 99th percentile upper reference limit of normal was a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events (cardiac arrest, new-onset arrhythmias, new-onset heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, or stroke) within 14 days.

RESULTS

Among 5133 patients (3231 male [62.9%]; mean age 61 years [SD, 15]), 1174 (22.9%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 1178 (34.6%) died, and 920 (17.9%) had a cardiovascular event. After adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, history of smoking, and comorbidities, preexisting CVD was associated with a 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.34) higher odds of death. No independent association was observed between preexisting CVD and cardiovascular events. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission was associated with higher odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.61-2.31]) and cardiovascular events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.47-2.24]), regardless of the presence of CVD.

CONCLUSIONS

CVD risk factors, rather than CVD itself, were the major contributors to outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. The occurrence of myocardial injury, regardless of CVD, and its association with outcomes suggests it is likely due to multiorgan injury related to acute inflammation rather than exacerbation of preexisting CVD.

REGISTRATION

NCT04343898; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343898.

Efficacy and Safety of Tinzaparin in Prophylactic, Intermediate and Therapeutic Doses in Non-Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: The PROTHROMCOVID Randomized Controlled Trial

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of thrombosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The optimal dosage of thromboprophylaxis is unknown. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin in prophylactic, intermediate, and therapeutic doses in non-critical patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia. PROTHROMCOVID is a randomized, unblinded, controlled, multicenter trial enrolling non-critical, hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were randomized to prophylactic (4500 IU), intermediate (100 IU/kg), or therapeutic (175 IU/kg) groups. All tinzaparin doses were administered once daily during hospitalization, followed by 7 days of prophylactic tinzaparin at discharge. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of symptomatic systemic thrombotic events, need for invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or death within 30 days. The main safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. Of the 311 subjects randomized, 300 were included in the prespecified interim analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [14.6] years; males, 182 [60.7%]). The composite endpoint at 30 days from randomization occurred in 58 patients (19.3%) of the total population; 19 (17.1 %) in the prophylactic group, 20 (22.1%) in the intermediate group, and 19 (18.5%) in the therapeutic dose group (p = 0.72). No major bleeding event was reported; non-major bleeding was observed in 3.7% of patients, with no intergroup differences. Due to these results and the futility analysis, the trial was stopped. In non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, intermediate or full-dose tinzaparin compared to standard prophylactic doses did not appear to affect the risk of thrombotic event, non-invasive ventilation, or mechanical ventilation or death. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT04730856). Edura-CT registration number: 2020-004279-42.

Incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of major bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a sub-analysis of the CLOT-COVID Study

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes extensive coagulopathy and a potential benefit of anticoagulation therapy has been documented for prevention of thromboembolic events. Bleeding events has also been reported as a notable complication; whereas, the incidence, risks, and clinical impact of bleeding remain unclear.

Method

The CLOT-COVID Study was a nationwide, retrospective, multicenter cohort study on consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan between April 2021 and September 2021. In this sub-analysis, we compared the characteristics of patients with and without major bleeding; moreover, we examined the risk factors for and clinical impact of bleeding events.

Results

Among 2882 patients with COVID-19, 57 (2.0%) had major bleeding. The incidence of major bleeding increased with COVID-19 severity as follows: 0.5%, 2.3%, and 12.3% in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19, respectively. COVID-19 severity, history of major bleeding, and anticoagulant type/dose were independently and additively associated with the bleeding incidence. Compared with patients without major bleeding, those with major bleeding exhibited a longer duration of hospitalization (9 [6–14] vs 28 [19–43] days, P < 0.001) and higher mortality during hospitalization (4.9% vs. 35.1%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In the real-world clinical practice, the incidence of major bleeding was not uncommon, especially in patients with severe COVID-19. Independent risk factors for major bleeding included history of major bleeding, COVID-19 severity, and anticoagulant use, which could be associated with poor clinical outcomes including higher mortality. Precise recognition of the risks for bleeding may be helpful for an optimal use of anticoagulants and for better outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Thrombosis and hemorrhage experienced by hospitalized children with SARS-CoV-2 infection or MIS-C: Results of the PICNIC registry

INTRODUCTION

Coagulopathy and thrombosis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection are well defined in hospitalized adults and leads to adverse outcomes. Pediatric studies are limited.

METHODS

An international multicentered (n = 15) retrospective registry collected information on the clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) in hospitalized children from February 1, 2020 through May 31, 2021. This sub-study focused on coagulopathy. Study variables included patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, hospital course, laboratory parameters, management, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine hundred eighty-five children were enrolled, of which 915 (93%) had clinical information available; 385 (42%) had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 288 had MIS-C (31.4%), and 242 (26.4%) had SARS-CoV-2 identified incidentally. Ten children (1%) experienced thrombosis, 16 (1.7%) experienced hemorrhage, and two (0.2%) experienced both thrombosis and hemorrhage. Significantly prevalent prothrombotic comorbidities included congenital heart disease (p-value .007), respiratory support (p-value .006), central venous catheter (CVC) (p = .04) in children with primary SARS-CoV-2 and in those with MIS-C included respiratory support (p-value .03), obesity (p-value .002), and cytokine storm (p = .012). Comorbidities prevalent in children with hemorrhage included age >10 years (p = .04), CVC (p = .03) in children with primary SARS-CoV-2 infection and in those with MIS-C encompassed thrombocytopenia (p = .001) and cytokine storm (p = .02). Eleven patients died (1.2%), with no deaths attributed to thrombosis or hemorrhage.

CONCLUSION

Thrombosis and hemorrhage are uncommon events in children with SARS-CoV-2; largely experienced by those with pre-existing comorbidities. Understanding the complete spectrum of coagulopathy in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection requires ongoing research.

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.

Secondary Complications in COVID-19 Patients: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, primarily causes a respiratory tract infection that is not limited to respiratory distress syndrome, but it is also implicated in other body systems. Systemic complications were reported due to an exaggerated inflammatory response, which involves severe alveolar damage in the lungs and exacerbates the hypercoagulation that leads to venous thrombosis, ischemic attack, vascular dysfunction and infarction of visceral abdominal organs. Some complications are related to anticoagulant drugs that are administrated to stabilize hypercoagulability, but increase the risk of bleeding, hematoma and hemorrhage. The aim of this study is to report the diagnostic role of CT in the early diagnosis and management of patients with severe COVID-19 complications through the most interesting cases in our experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retrospective analysis of patients studied for COVID-19 in our institution and hospitals, which are part of the university training network, was performed.

CASES

Pneumomediastinum, cortical kidney necrosis, splenic infarction, cerebral ischemic stroke, thrombosis of the lower limb and hematomas are the most major complications that are reviewed in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CT imaging modality with its high sensitivity and specificity remains the preferred imaging choice to diagnose early the different complications associated with COVID-19, such as thrombosis, ischemic stroke, infarction and pneumomediastinum, and their management, which significantly improved the outcomes.

Role of Acute Thrombosis in Coronavirus Disease 2019

Patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are prone to venous, cerebrovascular, and coronary thrombi, particularly those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pathogenesis is multifactorial and likely involves proinflammatory cascades, development of coagulopathy, and neutrophil extracellular traps, although further investigations are needed. Elevated levels of D-dimers are common in patients with COVID-19 and cannot be used in isolation to predict venous thromboembolism in people with SARS-CoV-2. If given early in hospital admission, therapeutic-dose heparin improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate COVID-19. To date, antithrombotics have not improved outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19.

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.

Association between oral anticoagulants and COVID-19-related outcomes: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early evidence has shown that anticoagulant reduces the risk of thrombotic events in those infected with COVID-19. However, evidence of the role of routinely prescribed oral anticoagulants (OACs) in COVID-19 outcomes is limited.

AIM

To investigate the association between OACs and COVID-19 outcomes in those with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2.

DESIGN AND SETTING

On behalf of NHS England, a population-based cohort study was conducted.

METHOD

The study used primary care data and pseudonymously-linked SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing data, hospital admissions, and death records from England. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 outcomes comparing people with current OAC use versus non-use, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, deprivation, and general practice.

RESULTS

Of 71 103 people with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2, there were 52 832 current OAC users and 18 271 non-users. No difference in risk of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with current use (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.04) versus non-use. A lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and a marginally lower risk of COVID-19-related death (aHR, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04) were associated with current use versus non-use.

CONCLUSION

Among those at low baseline stroke risk, people receiving OACs had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19 outcomes than non-users; this might be explained by a causal effect of OACs in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes or unmeasured confounding, including more cautious behaviours leading to reduced infection risk.

Anticoagulant Treatment in Severe ARDS COVID-19 Patients

Patients with COVID-19 may complicate their evolution with thromboembolic events. Incidence of thromboembolic complications are high and also, patients with the critically-ill disease showed evidence of microthrombi and microangiopathy in the lung probably due to endothelial damage by directly and indirectly injured endothelial and epithelial cells. Pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis and arterial embolism were reported in patients with COVID-19, and several analytical abnormal coagulation parameters have been described as well. D-dimer, longer coagulation times and lower platelet counts have been associated with poor outcomes. The use of anticoagulation or high doses of prophylactic heparin is controversial. Despite the use of anticoagulation or high prophylactic dose of heparin have been associated with better outcomes in observational studies, only in patients with non-critically ill disease benefits for anticoagulation was observed. In critically-ill patient, anticoagulation was not associated with better outcomes. Other measures such as antiplatelet therapy, fibrinolytic therapy or nebulized anticoagulants are being studied in ongoing clinical trials.

Enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: The X-COVID-19 Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards METHODS: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding.

RESULTS

The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5-11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm.

CONCLUSIONS

No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies in coronavirus disease 2019: A literature review

The impact on mortality associated with covid-19 today exceeds five million deaths worldwide, and the number of deaths continues to rise. The complications of the survivors, socio-economic implications at a global level, economic limitations in the health systems, and physical and emotional exhaustion of health personnel are detrimental. Therapeutic strategies are required to limit the evolution of the disease, improve the prognosis of critically ill patients, and, in countries with low purchasing power, create affordable alternatives that can help contain the evolution towards the severity of infected people with mild to moderate symptoms. The misinformation and myths that today are more frequent on social networks and the implementation of practices without scientific support is a problem that aggravates the general panorama. This review aims to concentrate on the best evidence for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in a simple and summarized manner, addressing therapies from their bases to the most innovative alternatives available today.

•

The pathophysiological bases of classic ADRS differ significantly from those related to ARDS due to COVID-19.

•

The therapeutic objective based on the pathophysiological aspects could improve the clinical evolution of the affected patients.

•

The objectives set for oxygen saturation should be reconsidered since oxygen in high concentrations could have deleterious effects, especially in this patient population.

•

Extracorporeal membrane circulation should not be left aside, and early implementation could save many lives in well-selected patients.

Intensive-Dose Tinzaparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The INTERACT Study

(1) Background: It is well-established that coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is highly pro-inflammatory, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade. COVID-19-induced hypercoagulability is associated with adverse outcomes and mortality. Current guidelines recommend that hospitalized COVID-19 patients should receive pharmacological prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE). (2) INTERACT is a retrospective, phase IV, observational cohort study aiming to evaluate the overall clinical effectiveness and safety of a higher than conventionally used prophylactic dose of anticoagulation with tinzaparin administered for VTE prevention in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate disease severity. (3) Results: A total of 705 patients from 13 hospitals in Greece participated in the study (55% men, median age 62 years). Anticoagulation with tinzaparin was initiated immediately after admission. A full therapeutic dose was received by 36.3% of the participants (mean ± SD 166 ± 33 IU/Kgr/day) and the remaining patients (63.9%) received an intermediate dose (mean ± SD 114 ± 22 IU/Kgr/day). The median treatment duration was 13 days (Q1−Q3: 8−20 days). During the study (April 2020 to November 2021), 14 thrombotic events (2.0%) were diagnosed (i.e., three cases of pulmonary embolism (PE) and 11 cases of deep venous thrombosis, DVT). Four bleeding events were recorded (0.6%). In-hospital death occurred in 12 patients (1.7%). Thrombosis was associated with increasing age (median: 74.5 years, Q1−Q3: 62−79, for patients with thrombosis vs. 61.9 years, Q1−Q3: 49−72, p = 0.0149), increased D-dimer levels for all three evaluation time points (at admission: 2490, Q1−Q3: 1580−6480 vs. 700, Q1−Q3: 400−1475, p < 0.0001), one week ± two days after admission (3510, Q1−Q3: 1458−9500 vs. 619, Q1−Q3: 352−1054.5, p < 0.0001), as well as upon discharge (1618.5, Q1−Q3: 1010−2255 vs. 500, Q1−Q3: 294−918, p < 0.0001). Clinical and laboratory improvement was affirmed by decreasing D-dimer and CRP levels, increasing platelet numbers and oxygen saturation measurements, and a drop in the World Health Organization (WHO) progression scale. (4) Conclusions: The findings of our study are in favor of prophylactic anticoagulation with an intermediate to full therapeutic dose of tinzaparin among non-critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Complications of Critical COVID-19: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations for the Mechanically Ventilated Patient

Patients admitted to the ICU with critical COVID-19 often require prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation. Difficulty weaning, lack of progress, and clinical deterioration are commonly encountered. These conditions should prompt a thorough evaluation for persistent or untreated manifestations of COVID-19, as well as complications from COVID-19 and its various treatments. Inflammation may persist and lead to fibroproliferative changes in the lungs. Infectious complications may arise including bacterial superinfection in the earlier stages of disease. Use of immunosuppressants may lead to the dissemination of latent infections, and to opportunistic infections. Venous thromboembolic disease is common, as are certain neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 including delirium and stroke. High levels of ventilatory support may lead to ventilator-induced injury to the lungs and diaphragm. We present diagnostic and therapeutic considerations for the mechanically ventilated patient with COVID-19 who shows persistent or worsening signs of critical illness, and we offer an approach to treating this complex but common scenario.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study

INTRODUCTION

The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

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.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To understand the potential role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), highlighting evolving practices and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The role for ECMO in COVID-19-related ARDS has evolved throughout the pandemic. Early reports of high mortality led to some to advocate for withholding ECMO in this setting. Subsequent data suggested mortality rates were on par with those from studies conducted prior to the pandemic. However, outcomes are evolving and mortality in these patients may be worsening with time.

SUMMARY

ECMO has an established role in the treatment of severe forms of ARDS. Current data suggest adherence to the currently accepted algorithm for management of ARDS, including the use of ECMO. However, planning related to resource utilization and strain on healthcare systems are necessary to determine the feasibility of ECMO in specific regions at any given time. Utilization of national and local networks, pooling of resources and ECMO mobilization units are important to optimize access to ECMO as appropriate. Reported complications of ECMO in the setting of COVID-19-related ARDS have been predominantly similar to those reported in studies of non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Further high-quality research is needed.

COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism: A narrative review

COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) is associated with coagulopathy through numerous mechanisms. The reported incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has varied widely, and several meta-analyses have been performed to assess the overall prevalence of VTE. The novelty of this coronavirus strain along with its unique mechanisms for microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis has led to uncertainty as to how to diagnose, prevent, and treat thrombosis in patients affected by this virus. This review discusses the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection along with an updated review on the preventative and treatment strategies for VTE associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Atorvastatin versus placebo in patients with covid-19 in intensive care: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of statin treatment versus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. Results for the anticoagulation randomization have been reported previously. Results for the double blind randomization to atorvastatin versus placebo are reported here.

SETTING

11 hospitals in Iran.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥18 years with covid-19 admitted to the ICU.

INTERVENTION

Atorvastatin 20 mg orally once daily versus placebo, to be continued for 30 days from randomization irrespective of hospital discharge status.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality within 30 days from randomization. Prespecified safety outcomes included increase in liver enzyme levels more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinically diagnosed myopathy. A clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 605 patients randomized between 29 July 2020 and 4 April 2021 for statin randomization in the INSPIRATION-S trial, 343 were co-randomized to intermediate dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin based regimens, whereas 262 were randomized after completion of the anticoagulation study. 587 of the 605 participants were included in the primary analysis of INSPIRATION-S, reported here: 290 were assigned to atorvastatin and 297 to placebo (median age 57 years (interquartile range 45-68 years); 256 (44%) women). The primary outcome occurred in 95 (33%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 108 (36%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.21). Death occurred in 90 (31%) patients in the atorvastatin group and 103 (35%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.22). Rates for venous thromboembolism were 2% (n=6) in the atorvastatin group and 3% (n=9) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 2.06). Myopathy was not clinically diagnosed in either group. Liver enzyme levels were increased in five (2%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and six (2%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 2.81).

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with covid-19 admitted to the ICU, atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality compared with placebo. Treatment was, however, found to be safe. As the overall event rates were lower than expected, a clinically important treatment effect cannot be excluded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486508.

Methylprednisolone, venous thromboembolism, and association with heparin to 30 days in hospital survival in severe Covid-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Mortality in severe COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with thrombo-inflammation. Corticosteroids are given to attenuate the inflammation, but they are associated with thrombosis. The aims of this study were to determine the risk of venous thromboembolism between no methylprednisolone and methylprednisolone (dose versus duration) and to evaluate any synergistic dose-dependent association of heparin and methylprednisolone to 30 days in hospital survival.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort. Patients included in this study were ≥ 18 years of age and admitted for severe COVID-19 pneumonia between March and June 2020 in 13 hospitals in New Jersey, United States. A propensity score analysis between administration of methylprednisolone and no methylprednisolone was fitted for 11 variables and Youden Index Method was used to determine cut-off between low dose and high dose methylprednisolone. Multivariate cox regression was to assess risk.

RESULTS

In 759 patients, the incidence of venous thromboembolism was 9% of patients who received methylprednisolone and 3% of patients who did not receive methylprednisolone with a [RR 2.92 (95% CI 1.54, 5.55 P < 0.0001)]. There was a higher incidence of mechanical ventilation in the methylprednisolone group. The median d-dimer between patients with venous thromboembolism was higher compared to those without (P < 0.0003). However, the d-dimer was not statistically significant between those who had venous thromboembolism between methylprednisolone and no methylprednisolone groups (P = 0.40). There was no higher risk in high dose versus low dose [RR = 0.524 (95% CI 0.26, 1.06 P 0.4)]; however, the risk for venous thromboembolism between methylprednisolone for > 7 days and ≤ 7 days was statistically significant (RR 5.46 95% CI 2.87, 10.34 P < 0.0001). Patients who received low dose methylprednisolone and therapeutic heparin had a trend towards higher risk of mortality compared to prophylactic heparin (HR 1.81 95% CI 0.994 to 3.294) (P = 0.0522). There was no difference in 30 days in hospital survival between high dose methylprednisolone with prophylactic or therapeutic heparin (HR 0.827 95% CI 0.514 to 1.33) (P = 0.4335).

CONCLUSION

Methylprednisolone for > 7 days had a higher association of venous thromboembolism. There was no added benefit of therapeutic heparin to methylprednisolone on mechanically ventilated patients.

In-hospital Mortality Rates in SARS-CoV-2 Patients Treated with Enoxaparin and Heparin

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate in-hospital mortality rates in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) according to enoxaparin and heparin use.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 962 patients admitted to two hospitals in Kuwait with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Cumulative all-cause mortality rate was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients (males, 196 [64.9%]; mean age, 57.2 ± 14.6 years; mean body mass index, 29.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2) received anticoagulation therapy. Patients receiving anticoagulation treatment tended to have pneumonia (n = 275 [91.1%]) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 106 [35.1%]), and high D-dimer levels (median [interquartile range]: 608 [523;707] ng/mL). The mortality rate in this group was high (n = 63 [20.9%]). Multivariable logistic regression, the Cox proportional hazards, and Kaplan-Meier models revealed that the use of therapeutic anticoagulation agents affected the risk of all-cause cumulative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Age, hypertension, pneumonia, therapeutic anticoagulation, and methylprednisolone use were found to be strong predictors of in-hospital mortality. In elderly hypertensive COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation were found to have 2.3 times higher risk of in-hospital mortality. All cause in-hospital mortality rate in the therapeutic anticoagulation group was up to 21%.

Incidence & outcomes of clinically significant bleeding events in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving Therapeutic dose AntiCoagulanTs: A retrospective cohort study (INTerACT study)

Background & objectives

The high mortality associated with the thrombotic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients resulted in the usage of anticoagulants in varying doses. Whether high-dose anticoagulants have led to better outcomes or higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding events is debatable. Thus, this study was conducted to find the incidence of clinically significant bleeding events in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) patients on therapeutic anticoagulation and their outcomes.

Methods

In this retrospective, single-centre study of 155 critically ill COVID-19 patients, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was observed. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association between anticoagulant regimen, coagulation and inflammatory markers with the incidence of bleeding and thrombotic events.

Results

The incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding was 33.54 per cent (26.17-41.46%) and major bleeding was 9.03 per cent (5.02-14.69%). The anticoagulation intensity at baseline had a high odds of major bleeding when enoxaparin and dual antiplatelet therapy were used together [adjusted odds ratio OR of 434.09 (3.81-49502.95), P<0.05]. At admission, bleeders had a poorer PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio with more patients on invasive ventilation. At the time of bleeding, the bleeders had a higher D-dimer, ferritin, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin compared to non-bleeders. The subhazard ratio for death in bleeders was 3.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.65; P<0.001).

Interpretation & conclusions

The incidence of bleeding in critically ill COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation may increase with the severity of the disease as well as with concurrent use of dual antiplatelets. Major bleeding may also contribute to higher mortality.

Anti-Xa Directed Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

Objective: To compare Anti-Xa directed thromboprophylaxis using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (anti-Xa peak goal 0.2-0.5 IU/mL) to alternative anticoagulation strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, single health-system study. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and clinically important bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included dosing comparisons between LMWH cohorts. Main Results: A total of 695 patients were included. No differences were found in the incidence of thrombotic events with any of the dosing strategies. The incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the standard dose thromboprophylaxis, intermediate dose subcutaneous heparin (SQH), and therapeutic anticoagulation cohorts. Forty-nine percent of patients within the anti-Xa directed group had their first anti-Xa peak at goal, while 43% were above goal. Patients who had levels above goal had dose modifications made, therefore anti-Xa directed LMWH resulted in significantly lower total daily doses compared to intermediate dose LMWH. Conclusions: Anti-Xa directed LMWH dosing provided comparable thromboprophylaxis with lower total daily doses of LMWH in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Clinico-histopathologic and single nuclei RNA sequencing insights into cardiac injury and microthrombi in critical COVID-19

Acute cardiac injury is prevalent in critical COVID-19 and associated with increased mortality. Its etiology remains debated, as initially presumed causes--- myocarditis and cardiac necrosis--- have proven uncommon. To elucidate the pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated cardiac injury, we conducted a prospective study of the first 69 consecutive COVID-19 decedents at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. Of six acute cardiac histopathologic features, microthrombi was the most commonly detected amongst our cohort (n=48, 70%). We tested associations of cardiac microthrombi with biomarkers of inflammation, cardiac injury, and fibrinolysis and with in-hospital antiplatelet therapy, therapeutic anticoagulation, and corticosteroid treatment, while adjusting for multiple clinical factors, including COVID-19 therapies. Higher peak erythrocyte sedimentation rate and c-reactive protein were independently associated with increased odds of microthrombi, supporting an immunothrombotic etiology. Using single nuclei RNA-sequencing analysis on 3 patients with and 4 patients without cardiac microthrombi, we discovered an enrichment of pro-thrombotic/anti-fibrinolytic, extracellular matrix remodeling, and immune-potentiating signaling amongst cardiac fibroblasts in microthrombi-positive, relative to microthrombi-negative, COVID-19 hearts. Non-COVID-19 non-failing hearts were used as reference controls. Our study identifies a specific transcriptomic signature in cardiac fibroblasts as a salient feature of microthrombi-positive COVID-19 hearts. Our findings warrant further mechanistic study as cardiac fibroblasts may represent a potential therapeutic target for COVID-19-associated cardiac microthrombi.

Heparin and SARS-CoV-2: Multiple Pathophysiological Links

Low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, has been one of most used drugs to fight the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pharmacological properties of heparin recognize its specific ability, as with other oligosaccharides and glycosaminoglycan, to bind several types of viruses during their pass through the extracellular matrix of the respiratory tract, as well as its anticoagulant activity to prevent venous thromboembolism. Antithrombotic actions of enoxaparin have been testified both for inpatients with COVID-19 in regular ward and for inpatients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Prophylactic doses seem to be able to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in inpatients in the regular ward, while intermediate or therapeutic doses have been frequently adopted for inpatients with COVID-19 in ICU. On the other hand, although we reported several useful actions of heparin for inpatients with COVID-19, an increased rate of bleeding has been recorded, and it may be related to several conditions such as underlying diseases with increased risks of bleeding, increased doses or prolonged administration of heparin, personal trend to bleed, and so on.

Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism in Severe COVID-19: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of 21 Studies

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICU) is frequent, but risk factors (RF) remain unidentified. In this meta-analysis (CRD42020188764) we searched for observational studies from ICUs reporting the association between VTE and RF in Medline/Embase up to 15 April 2021. Reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Analyses were conducted using the random-effects model and produced a non-adjusted odds ratio (OR). We analysed 83 RF from 21 studies (5296 patients). We found moderate-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and the D-dimer peak (OR 5.83, 95%CI 3.18–10.70), and length of hospitalization (OR 7.09, 95%CI 3.41–14.73) and intubation (OR 2.61, 95%CI 1.94–3.51). We identified low-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and CRP (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32–2.53), D-dimer (OR 4.58, 95% CI 2.52–8.50), troponin T (OR 8.64, 95% CI 3.25–22.97), and the requirement for inotropic drugs (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15–2.43). Traditional VTE RF (i.e., history of cancer, previous VTE events, obesity) were not found to be associated to VTE in COVID-19. Anticoagulation was not associated with a decreased VTE risk. VTE RF in severe COVID-19 correspond to individual illness severity, and inflammatory and coagulation parameters.

Anticoagulant Treatment Regimens in Patients with Covid-19: A Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with a hypercoagulable state. It has been hypothesized that higher‐dose anticoagulation, including therapeutic‐dose and intermediate‐dose anticoagulation, is superior to prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation in the treatment of COVID‐19. This meta‐analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of higher‐dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID‐19. Ten randomized controlled open‐label trials with a total of 5,753 patients were included. The risk of death and net adverse clinical events (including death, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding) were similar between higher‐dose and prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI, 0.79–1.16, P = 0.66 and RR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.73–1.03, P = 0.11, respectively). Higher‐dose anticoagulation, compared with prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation, decreased the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47–0.84, P = 0.002) but increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19–2.62, P = 0.005). The risk of death showed no statistically significant difference between higher‐dose anticoagulation and prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients (RR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.50–1.52, P = 0.62) and in critically ill patients with COVID‐19 (RR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.93–1.17, P = 0.5). The risk of death was similar between therapeutic‐dose vs. prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69–1.21, P = 0.54) and between intermediate‐dose vs. prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61, P = 0.98). In patients with markedly increased d‐dimer levels, higher‐dose anticoagulation was also not associated with a decreased risk of death as compared with prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (RR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.64–1.16, P = 0.34). Without any clear evidence of survival benefit, these findings do not support the routine use of therapeutic‐dose or intermediate‐dose anticoagulation in critically or noncritically ill patients with COVID‐19.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) Related Thrombotic and Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients: Experience from an Academic Medical Center

Introduction: Thrombosis and bleeding are recognized complications of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), with a higher incidence described particularly in the critically ill. Methods: A retrospective review of COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care units (ICU) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes included clinically significant thrombotic and bleeding events (according to the ISTH definition) in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included mortality vis-a-vis the type of anticoagulation. Results: The cohort included 144 consecutive COVID-19 patients with a median age of 64 years (IQR 54.5–75). The majority were male (85 (59.0%)) and Caucasian (90 (62.5%)) with a median BMI of 30.5 kg/m² (IQR 25.7–36.1). The median APACHE score at admission to the ICU was 12.5 (IQR 9.5–22). The coagulation parameters at admission were a d-dimer level of 109.2 mg/mL, a platelet count of 217.5 k/mcl, and an INR of 1.4. The anticoagulation strategy at admission included prophylactic anticoagulation for 97 (67.4%) patients and therapeutic anticoagulation for 35 (24.3%) patients, while 12 (8.3%) patients received no anticoagulation. A total of 29 patients (20.1%) suffered from thrombotic or major bleeding complications. These included 17 thrombus events (11.8%)—8 while on prophylactic anticoagulation (7 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose) and 9 while on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)—and 19 major bleeding events (13.2%) (4 on no anticoagulation, 7 on prophylactic (6 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose), and 8 on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)). A higher thrombosis risk among patients who received remdesivir (18.8% vs. 5.3% (p-value = 0.01)) and convalescent serum (17.3% vs. 5.8% (p-value = 0.03%)) was noted, but no association with baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, comorbidity), coagulation parameters, or treatments (steroids, mechanical ventilation) could be identified. There were 10 pulmonary embolism cases (6.9%). A total of 99 (68.8%) patients were intubated, and 66 patients (45.8%) died. Mortality was higher, but not statistically significant, in patients with thrombotic or bleeding complications—58.6% vs. 42.6% (p-value = 0.12)—and higher in the bleeding (21.2%) vs. thrombus group (12.1%), p-value = 0.06. It did not significantly differ according to the type of anticoagulation used or the coagulation parameters. Conclusions: This study describes a high incidence of thrombotic and bleeding complications among critically ill COVID-19 patients. The findings of thrombotic events in patients on anticoagulation and major bleeding events in patients on no or prophylactic anticoagulation pose a challenging clinical dilemma in the issue of anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. The questions raised by this study and previous literature on this subject demonstrate that the role of anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients is worthy of further investigation.

Incidence and Clinical Features of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reportedly causes venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the status of this complication in Japan was unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The VTE and COVID-19 in Japan Study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study enrolling hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were evaluated with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examination at 22 centers in Japan between March 2020 and October 2020. Among 1,236 patients with COVID-19, 45 (3.6%) were evaluated with contrast-enhanced CT examination. VTE events occurred in 10 patients (22.2%), and the incidence of VTE in mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 was 0%, 11.8%, and 40.0%, respectively. COVID-19 patients with VTE showed a higher body weight (81.6 vs. 64.0 kg, P=0.005) and body mass index (26.9 vs. 23.2 kg/m2, P=0.04), and a higher proportion had a severe status for COVID-19 compared with those without. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive at discharge between patients with and without VTE (80.0% vs. 88.6%, P=0.48). Among 8 pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, all were low-risk PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a relatively small number of patients undergoing contrast-enhanced CT examination in Japanese real-world clinical practice, there were no VTE patients among those with mild COVID-19, but the incidence of VTE seemed to be relatively high among severe COVID-19 patients, although all PE events were low-risk without significant effect on mortality risk.