ABSTRACT
Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, with an inherent requirement for anticoagulation to avoid circuit thrombosis, is a key element in the treatment of respiratory failure associated with COVID-19. Anticoagulation remains challenging, the standard of care being intravenous continuous administration of unfractionated heparin. Yet regimens vary. Some intensive care units in our center have successfully used enoxaparin subcutaneously in recent years and throughout the pandemic. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure who had been systemically anticoagulated using either enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The choice of anticoagulant therapy was based on the standard of the intensive care unit. Defined thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events were analyzed as study endpoints. Results: Of 98 patients, 62 had received enoxaparin and 36 unfractionated heparin. All hazard ratios for the thromboembolic (3.43; 95% CI: 1.08-10.87; p = 0.04), hemorrhagic (2.58; 95% CI: 1.03-6.48; p = 0.04), and composite (2.86; 95% CI: 1.41-5.92; p = 0.007) endpoints favored enoxaparin, whose efficient administration was verified by peak levels of anti-factor Xa (median: 0.45 IU ml-1; IQR: 0.38; 0.56). Activated partial thromboplastin time as well as thrombin time differed significantly (both p<0.001) between groups mirroring the effect of unfractionated heparin. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the successful use of subcutaneous enoxaparin for systemic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Our findings are to be confirmed by future prospective, randomized, controlled trials.
ABSTRACT
Background: Viscoelastic coagulation testing has been suggested to help manage coagulopathy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, results from different viscoelastic devices are not readily comparable. ClotPro® is a novel thromboelastometry analyzer offering a wider range of commercially available assays. Methods: We compared the results from ClotPro with results from the well-established ROTEM® Delta device and conventional coagulation tests in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results: Viscoelastic parameters indicated the presence of a potentially hypercoagulable state in the majority of patients. In up to 95 paired measurements, we found strong correlations between several parameters routinely used in clinical practice: (i) EX test vs. EXTEM CT, A5, A10, MCF, (ii) IN test vs. INTEM A5, A10, MCF, and (iii) FIB test vs. FIBTEM A5, A10, MCF (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). In contrast, IN test CT vs. INTEM CT showed only a moderate correlation (R = 0.53 and p < 0.001). Clot strength parameters of both devices exhibited strong correlations with platelet counts and fibrinogen levels (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). Divergent correlations of intrinsically activated assays with aPTT and anti-factor Xa activity were visible. Regarding absolute differences of test results, considerable delta occurred in CT, CFT, and clot strength parameters (all p < 0.001) between both devices. Conclusions: Several parameters obtained by ClotPro show strong correlations with ROTEM Delta. Due to weak correlations of intrinsically activated clotting times and considerable absolute differences in a number of parameters, our findings underline the need for device-specific algorithms in this patient cohort.
ABSTRACT
Background: Viscoelastic coagulation testing has been suggested to help manage coagulopathy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, results from different viscoelastic devices are not readily comparable. ClotPro® is a novel thromboelastometry analyzer offering a wider range of commercially available assays. Methods: We compared the results from ClotPro with results from the well-established ROTEM® Delta device and conventional coagulation tests in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results: Viscoelastic parameters indicated the presence of a potentially hypercoagulable state in the majority of patients. In up to 95 paired measurements, we found strong correlations between several parameters routinely used in clinical practice: (i) EX test vs. EXTEM CT, A5, A10, MCF, (ii) IN test vs. INTEM A5, A10, MCF, and (iii) FIB test vs. FIBTEM A5, A10, MCF (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). In contrast, IN test CT vs. INTEM CT showed only a moderate correlation (R = 0.53 and p < 0.001). Clot strength parameters of both devices exhibited strong correlations with platelet counts and fibrinogen levels (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). Divergent correlations of intrinsically activated assays with aPTT and anti-factor Xa activity were visible. Regarding absolute differences of test results, considerable delta occurred in CT, CFT, and clot strength parameters (all p < 0.001) between both devices. Conclusions: Several parameters obtained by ClotPro show strong correlations with ROTEM Delta. Due to weak correlations of intrinsically activated clotting times and considerable absolute differences in a number of parameters, our findings underline the need for device-specific algorithms in this patient cohort.
ABSTRACT
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is often used in the management of COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure. We report the first case of a patient with COVID-19-related ARDS on ECMO support who developed symptoms of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in the absence of heparin therapy. A low platelet count of 61 G/L was accompanied by the presence of circulating HIT antibodies 12 days after ECMO initiation. Replacement of the ECMO system including cannulas resulted in the normalization of the platelet count. However, the clinical situation did not improve, and the patient died 9 days later. Careful consideration of anticoagulant therapy and ECMO circuit, as well as routine HIT antibody testing, may prevent a fatal course in ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Early during the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, reports suggested alarmingly high incidences for thromboembolic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the clinical relevance of these events was not reported in several studies. Additionally, more recent research showed contradictory results and suggested substantially lower rates of venous thromboembolism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to summarize evidence on the incidence of clinically relevant venous thromboembolism (VTE)-defined as VTE excluding isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE) and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the incidence of clinically relevant PE and/or DVT in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Scientific reports published in the English language between January and October 2020 were included. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate incidence estimates of clinically relevant VTE and bleeding events. We also performed exploratory meta-regression and subgroup analyses of different diagnostic approaches and additional factors that possibly influenced the incidence of these outcomes. Results: Fifty-four articles (5,400 patients) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 41 had a high risk of bias. The majority of included patients were male, > 60 years, and overweight. Twenty-one studies reported the use of prophylactic doses of heparin. Pooled incidences for clinically relevant PE were estimated at 8% (95% CI, 4-11%), for proximal DVT at 14% (95% CI, 9-20%), and-after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias-for the composite outcome of VTE at 18% (95% CI, 13-24%). Clinically relevant bleeding occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI, 2-9%). Conclusions: We summarized currently available data on the rate of clinically relevant VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Pooled incidence estimates were lower than those reported by previous review articles. In the absence of evidence-based anticoagulation guidelines for critically ill patients with COVID-19, the results of our study provide clinically important information for an individual risk-benefit assessment in this context. Registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO on June 22, 2020 (CRD42020193353; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).