Optimal dosing of heparin for prophylactic anticoagulation in critically ill COVID-19 patients a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The optimal amount of anticoagulation for critically ill COVID-19 patients is controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of three major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included comparing therapeutic or intermediate doses to standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulants in critically ill COVID-19 patients, with heparins as the only anticoagulation therapy considered. RESULTS: Out of the six RCTs, 2130 patients were administered escalated dose anticoagulation (50.2%) and standard thromboprophylaxis therapy (49.8%). The escalated dose showed no significant impact on mortality (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.13). Although there was no significant difference in DVT (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.08), the risk of PE was significantly reduced in patients receiving escalated dose anticoagulation (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.60), with an increased risk of bleeding events (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08-2.53). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis fail to support escalated anticoagulation doses to reduce mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, higher doses of anticoagulants appear to reduce thrombotic events while increasing the risk of bleeding effectively.

Risk of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with pre-coronavirus disease obstructive sleep apnea diagnoses: an electronic health record-based analysis from the RECOVER initiative.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been associated with more severe acute coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We assessed OSA as a potential risk factor for Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC). METHODS: We assessed the impact of preexisting OSA on the risk for probable PASC in adults and children using electronic health record data from multiple research networks. Three research networks within the REsearching COVID to Enhance Recovery initiative (PCORnet Adult, PCORnet Pediatric, and the National COVID Cohort Collaborative [N3C]) employed a harmonized analytic approach to examine the risk of probable PASC in COVID-19-positive patients with and without a diagnosis of OSA prior to pandemic onset. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as well as ORs adjusted for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, hospitalization status, obesity, and preexisting comorbidities. RESULTS: Across networks, the unadjusted OR for probable PASC associated with a preexisting OSA diagnosis in adults and children ranged from 1.41 to 3.93. Adjusted analyses found an attenuated association that remained significant among adults only. Multiple sensitivity analyses with expanded inclusion criteria and covariates yielded results consistent with the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with preexisting OSA were found to have significantly elevated odds of probable PASC. This finding was consistent across data sources, approaches for identifying COVID-19-positive patients, and definitions of PASC. Patients with OSA may be at elevated risk for PASC after SARS-CoV-2 infection and should be monitored for post-acute sequelae.

Low dose vs high dose tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: Tocilizumab has been shown to decrease mortality when used concomitantly with steroids in COVID-19 with 8 mg/kg (max 800 mg) being the standard dose. Our study sought to assess whether a low dose (400 mg) shows similar benefit compared to a high dose for COVID patients concurrently on the same median dose of steroids. MATERIALS/METHODS: A retrospective, multihospital observational study of COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab in conjunction with steroids between March 2020 and August 2021 was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 407 patients were analyzed with low dose group being significantly more ill at baseline as a higher percentage of patients received vasopressors, were admitted to the ICU and on mechanical ventilation. In the propensity-matched analysis, both groups receiving a median dexamethasone equivalent dose of 10 mg showed no difference in 28-day mortality (p = 0.613). The high dose group had a higher rate of fungal and viral infections. CONCLUSION: Compared to low dose tocilizumab, the high dose did not provide additional efficacy and mortality benefit but resulted in higher fungal and viral infections. This study illustrates that low dose tocilizumab can be an alternative to high dose during a drug shortage of tocilizumab without compensating for efficacy and safety, conserving resources for more patients.

The Use of High-Dose Corticosteroids Versus Low-Dose Corticosteroids With and Without Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids and tocilizumab have been shown to improve survival in patients who require supplemental oxygen from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The optimal dose of immunosuppression for the treatment of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with or without tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring mechanical ventilation who received high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with or without tocilizumab. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Safety outcomes included infections and incidence of hyperglycemia. RESULTS: In this cohort, 110 (54%) and 95 (46%) patients received high-dose (≥10 mg dexamethasone equivalent) and low-dose (<10 mg dexamethasone equivalent) corticosteroids for more than 3 consecutive days, respectively. Thirty-five patients (32%) in the high-dose group and 33 patients (35%) in the low-dose group survived to hospital discharge (P = 0.85). There was no difference in 28-day mortality in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab compared with those who received low-dose corticosteroids with tocilizumab (n = 38/82, 46% vs n = 19/40, 48% P = 0.99); however, there was a higher mortality if patients received low-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab (n = 39/55, 71%, P = 0.01). The highest rate of a bacterial pneumonia was in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids with tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation, we found no difference in high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with regard to survival to hospital discharge. However, patients receiving only low-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab did worse than the other groups. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal immunosuppression dosing strategy in this patient population.

Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators are not associated with improved gas exchange in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Measure the effect of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators on gas exchange in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study at three New York University Hospitals was performed including eighty-four mechanically ventilated SARS Cov-2 nasopharyngeal PCR positive patients, sixty nine treated with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and fifteen with inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO). The primary outcomes were change in PAO2:FIO2 ratio, oxygenation Index (OI), and ventilatory ratio (VR) after initiation of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. RESULTS: There was no significant change in PAO2:FIO2ratio after initiation of iNO (mean - 4.1, 95% CI -17.3-9.0, P = 0.54) or iEPO (mean - 3.4, 95% CI -19.7-12.9, P = 0.66), in OI after initiation of iNO (mean 2.1, 95% CI-0.04-4.2, P = 0.054) or iEPO (mean - 3.4, 95% CI -19.7-12.9, P = 0.75), or in VR after initiation of iNO (mean 0.17, 95% CI -0.03-0.36, P = 0.25) or iEPO (mean 0.33, 95% CI -0.0847-0.74, P = 0.11). PAO2:FIO2, OI and VR did not significantly change over a five day period starting the day prior to drug initiation in patients who received either iNO or iEPO assessed with a fixed effects model. CONCLUSION: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators were not associated with significant improvement in gas exchange in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

Low-Dose Tocilizumab With High-Dose Corticosteroids in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Hypoxic Respiratory Failure Improves Mortality Without Increased Infection Risk.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoxic respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia carries a high mortality risk. There is uncertainty surrounding which patients benefit from corticosteroids in combination with tocilizumab and the dosage and timing of these agents. The balance of controlling inflammation without increasing the risk of secondary infection is difficult. At present, dexamethasone 6 mg is the standard of care in COVID-19 hypoxia; whether this is the ideal choice of steroid or dosage remains to be proven. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the impact on mortality of tocilizumab only, corticosteroids only, and combination therapy in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: A multihospital, retrospective study of adult patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 who received supportive therapy, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, or combination therapy were assessed for 28-day mortality, biomarker improvement, and relative risk of infection. Propensity-matched analysis was performed between corticosteroid alone and combination therapies to further assess mortality benefit. RESULTS: The steroid-only, tocilizumab-only, and combination groups showed hazard reduction in mortality at 28 days when compared with supportive therapy. In a propensity-matched analysis, the combination group (daily equivalent dexamethasone 10 mg and tocilizumab 400 mg) had an improved 28-day mortality compared with the steroid-only group (daily equivalent dexamethasone 10 mg; hazard ratio (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.38-0.84), P = 0.005] without increasing the risk of infection. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Combination of tocilizumab and corticosteroids was associated with improved 28-day survival when compared with corticosteroids alone. Modification of steroid dosing strategy as well as steroid type may further optimize therapeutic effect of the COVID-19 treatment.

COVID-19 and Respiratory System Disorders: Current Knowledge, Future Clinical and Translational Research Questions.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 emerged as a serious human pathogen in late 2019, causing the disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The most common clinical presentation of severe COVID-19 is acute respiratory failure consistent with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway, lung parenchymal, pulmonary vascular, and respiratory neuromuscular disorders all feature in COVID-19. This article reviews what is known about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection on different parts of the respiratory system, clues to understanding the underlying biology of respiratory disease, and highlights current and future translation and clinical research questions.

Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to better characterize the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most at risk of severe, outpatient thrombosis by defining the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with arterial or venous thrombosis diagnosed at admission. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. We found a shift in the proportions of thrombosis subtypes from 2019 to 2020, with declines in ST-segment myocardial infarction (from 22.0% to 10.1% of thrombotic events) and stroke (from 48.6% to 37.2%) and an increase in venous thromboembolism (from 29.4% to 52.7%). The patients with COVID-19-associated thrombosis were younger (age, 58 years vs 64 years; P = .043) and were less frequently women (31.3% vs 43.9%; P = .16). However, no differences were found in the body mass index or major comorbidities between those with and without COVID-19. COVID-19-associated thrombosis correlated with greater mortality (15.2% vs 4.3%; P = .016). The biometric profile of patients admitted with COVID-19-associated thrombosis compared with regular thrombosis showed significant changes in the complete blood count, liver function test results, D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and coagulation panels. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization had increased mortality compared with outpatients without COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization. Given the significantly higher inflammatory marker levels, it is possible this is related to different mechanisms of thrombotic disease in these patients. The inflammation could be a therapeutic target to reduce the risk, or aid in the treatment, of thrombosis. We call for more studies elucidating the role that immunothrombosis might be playing in patients with COVID-19.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest among patients with and without COVID-19.

AIMS: To define outcomes of patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of IHCA cases. Patients with COVID-19 were compared to consecutive patients without COVID-19 from the prior year. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 30-day survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 30-days were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with COVID-19 suffering IHCA were identified and compared to 55 consecutive IHCA patients in 2019. The COVID-19 cohort was more likely to require vasoactive agents (67.3% v 32.7%, p = 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (76.4% v 23.6%, p < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (18.2% v 3.6%, p = 0.029) and intensive care unit care (83.6% v 50.9%, p = 0.001) prior to IHCA. Patients with COVID-19 had shorter CPR duration (10 min v 22 min, p = 0.002). ROSC (38.2% v 49.1%, p = 0.336) and 30-day survival (20% v 32.7%, p = 0.194) did not differ. A 30-day cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 was more common among non-COVID patients (27.3% v 9.1%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival were similar between IHCA patients with and without COVID-19. Compared to previously published data, we report greater ROSC and 30-day survival after IHCA in COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Thromboelastography Profiles of Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The rate of thromboembolic events among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is high; however, there is no robust method to identify those at greatest risk. We reviewed thromboelastography studies in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 to characterize their coagulation states. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Tertiary ICU in New York City. PATIENTS: Sixty-four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU with thromboelastography performed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients had a clotting index in the hypercoagulable range (clotting index > 3) (median 3.05). Reaction time and K values were below the lower limit of normal in 43.8% of the population consistent with a hypercoagulable profile. The median α angle and maximum amplitude (75.8° and 72.8 mm, respectively) were in the hypercoagulable range. The α angle was above reference range in 70.3% of patients indicative of rapid clot formation. Maximum amplitude, a factor of fibrinogen and platelet count and function, and a measure of clot strength was above reference range in 60.1% of patients. Thirty-one percent had thromboembolic events; thromboelastography parameters did not correlate with events in our cohort. Those with D-dimer values greater than 2,000 were more likely to have shorter reaction times compared with those with D-dimer levels less than or equal to 2,000 (4.8 vs 5.6 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have hypercoagulable thromboelastography profiles with additional derangements related to fibrinogen and platelet function. As the majority of patients have an elevated thromboelastography maximum amplitude, a follow-up study evaluating platelet aggregation would be instructive.