Interaction between thrombin potential and age on early clinical outcome in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Patients with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) have haemostatic dysfunction and are at higher risk of thrombotic complications. Although age is a major risk factor for outcome impairment in COVID-19, its impact on coagulative patterns here is still unclear. We investigated the association of Endogenous Thrombin Potential (ETP) with thrombotic and haemorrhagic events according to different ages in patients admitted for COVID-19. A total of 27 patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia, without need for intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation at hospital presentation, and 24 controls with non-COVID-19 pneumonia were prospectively included. ETP levels were measured on admission. Patients were evaluated for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, venous thromboembolism) and bleeding complications [according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition] during in-hospital stay. COVID-19 patients had similar ETP levels compared to controls (AUC 93 ± 24% vs 99 ± 21%, p = 0.339). In the COVID-19 cohort, patients with in-hospital MACE showed lower ETP levels on admission vs those without (AUC 86 ± 14% vs 95 ± 27%, p = 0.041), whereas ETP values were comparable in patients with or without bleeding (AUC 82 ± 16% vs 95 ± 26%, p = 0.337). An interaction between age and ETP levels for both MACE and bleeding complications was observed, where a younger age was associated with an inverse relationship between ETP values and adverse event risk (pint 0.018 for MACE and 0.050 for bleeding). Patients with COVID-19 have similar thrombin potential on admission compared to those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In younger COVID-19 patients, lower ETP levels were associated with a higher risk of both MACE and bleeding.

Simple Parameters from Complete Blood Count Predict In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients (F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded. RESULTS: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) (χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio (χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count (χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age (χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/µL was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63)). CONCLUSION: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment.

Clinical outcome with different doses of low-molecular-weight heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

A pro-thrombotic milieu and a higher risk of thrombotic events were observed in patients with CoronaVirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Accordingly, recent data suggested a beneficial role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but the optimal dosage of this treatment is unknown. We evaluated the association between prophylactic vs. intermediate-to-fully anticoagulant doses of enoxaparin and in-hospital adverse events in patients with COVID-19. We retrospectively included 436 consecutive patients admitted in three Italian hospitals. Outcome according to the use of prophylactic (4000 IU) vs. higher (> 4000 IU) daily dosage of enoxaparin was evaluated. The primary end-point was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital cardiovascular death, venous thromboembolism, new-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation. A total of 287 patients (65.8%) were treated with the prophylactic enoxaparin regimen and 149 (34.2%) with a higher dosing regimen. The use of prophylactic enoxaparin dose was associated with a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (25.4% vs. 26.9% with the higher dose; OR at multivariable analysis, including the propensity score: 0.847, 95% CI 0.400-0.1.792; p = 0.664). In the prophylactic dose group, a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death (OR 0.165), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.067), new-onset ARDS (OR 0.454) and mechanical intubation (OR 0.150) was observed. In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a prophylactic dosage of enoxaparin appears to be associated with similar in-hospital overall mortality compared to higher doses. These findings require confirmation in a randomized, controlled study.

Fatality rate and predictors of mortality in an Italian cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.