COVID-19 and thrombosis: searching for evidence.

Early in the pandemic, COVID-19-related increases in rates of venous and arterial thromboembolism were seen. Many observational studies suggested a benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized patients using various dosing strategies. Randomized trials were initiated to compare the efficacy of these different options in acutely ill and critically ill inpatients as the concept of immune-mediated inflammatory microthrombosis emerged. We present a case-based review of how we approach thromboembolic prophylaxis in COVID-19 and briefly discuss the epidemiology, the pathophysiology, and the rare occurrence of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

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.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Derivation and external validation of a simple risk score to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Changing the paradigm in the care for acute pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged as a multidisciplinary, multispecialty team of experts in the care of highly complex symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a centralized unique activation process, providing rapid multimodality assessment and risk stratification, formulating the best individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, streamlining the care in challenging clinical case scenarios (e.g., intermediate-high risk and high-risk PE), and facilitating the implementation of the recommended therapeutic strategies on time. PERTs are currently changing how complex acute PE cases are approached. The structure, organization, and function of a given PERT may vary from hospital to hospital, depending on local expertise, specific resources, and infrastructure for a given academic hospital center. Current emerging data demonstrate the value of PERTs in improving time to PE diagnosis; shorter time to initiation of anticoagulation reducing hospital length of stay; increasing use of advanced therapies without an increase in bleeding; and in some reports, decreasing mortality. Importantly, PERTs are positively impacting outcomes by changing the paradigm of care for acute PE through global adoption by the health-care community.

Eligibility for Posthospitalization Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35-day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results Using a 35-hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID-19 (MI-COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus-related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%-39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all-cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI-COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Thromboembolic prevention and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: updated clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Thromboembolism is a common and deadly consequence of COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients. Based on clinical evidence pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic and early observational reports, expert consensus and guidance documents have strongly encouraged the use of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. More recently, multiple clinical trials and larger observational studies have provided evidence for tailoring the approach to thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19. This document provides updated guidance for the use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19 from the Anticoagulation Forum, the leading North American organization of anticoagulation providers. We discuss ambulatory, in-hospital, and post-hospital thromboprophylaxis strategies as well as provide guidance for patients with thrombotic conditions who are considering COVID-19 vaccination.

Impact of Early Corticosteroids on Preventing Clinical Deterioration in Non-critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: While guidelines stronglyrecommend dexamethasone in critical COVID-19, the optimal threshold to initiate corticosteroids in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Using data from a state-wide COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the effectiveness of early corticosteroids for preventing clinical deterioration among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. METHODS: This was a target trial using observational data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 39 hospitals participating in the MI-COVID19 registry between March 16, 2020 and August 24, 2020. We studied the impact of corticosteroids initiated within 2 calendar days of hospitalization ("early steroids") versus no early steroids among non-ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 receiving non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, transfer to intensive care, and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score-weighted regression to measure the association of early steroids and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1002 patients meeting study criteria, 231 (23.1%) received early steroids. After IPTW, to balance potential confounders between the treatment groups, early steroids were not associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (aOR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.6) or in any components of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that early corticosteroid therapy prevents clinical deterioration among hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal threshold for initiating corticosteroids in this population.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multihospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection. RESULTS: Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34-6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87-6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49-122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67-6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30-21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37-7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11-6.33; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

Factors Associated With Risk of Postdischarge Thrombosis in Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: COVID-19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic events; however, the need for extended thromboprophylaxis after hospitalization remains unclear. Objective: To quantify the rate of postdischarge arterial and venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19, identify the factors associated with the risk of postdischarge venous thromboembolism, and evaluate the association of postdischarge anticoagulation use with venous thromboembolism incidence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Eligible patients were enrolled at 5 hospitals of the Henry Ford Health System from March 1 to November 30, 2020. Data analysis was performed from April to June 2021. Exposures: Anticoagulant therapy after discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: New onset of symptomatic arterial and venous thromboembolic events within 90 days after discharge from the index admission for COVID-19 infection were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes. Results: In this cohort study of 2832 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the mean (SD) age was 63.4 (16.7) years (IQR, 53-75 years), and 1347 patients (47.6%) were men. Thirty-six patients (1.3%) had postdischarge venous thromboembolic events (16 pulmonary embolism, 18 deep vein thrombosis, and 2 portal vein thrombosis). Fifteen (0.5%) postdischarge arterial thromboembolic events were observed (1 transient ischemic attack and 14 acute coronary syndrome). The risk of venous thromboembolism decreased with time (Mann-Kendall trend test, P < .001), with a median (IQR) time to event of 16 (7-43) days. There was no change in the risk of arterial thromboembolism with time (Mann-Kendall trend test, P = .37), with a median (IQR) time to event of 37 (10-63) days. Patients with a history of venous thromboembolism (odds ratio [OR], 3.24; 95% CI, 1.34-7.86), peak dimerized plasmin fragment D (D-dimer) level greater than 3 µg/mL (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.86-7.57), and predischarge C-reactive protein level greater than 10 mg/dL (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.45-6.29) were more likely to experience venous thromboembolism after discharge. Prescriptions for therapeutic anticoagulation at discharge were associated with reduced incidence of venous thromboembolism (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.75; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Although extended thromboprophylaxis in unselected patients with COVID-19 is not supported, these findings suggest that postdischarge anticoagulation may be considered for high-risk patients who have a history of venous thromboembolism, peak D-dimer level greater than 3 µg/mL, and predischarge C-reactive protein level greater than 10 mg/dL, if their bleeding risk is low.

COVID-19 risk index (CRI): a simple and validated emergency department risk score that predicts mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Although certain risk factors have been associated with morbidity and mortality, validated emergency department (ED) derived risk prediction models specific to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. The objective of this study is to describe and externally validate the COVID-19 risk index (CRI). A large retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed to analyze consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Multivariate regression using clinical data elements from the ED was used to create the CRI. The results were validated with an external cohort of 1799 patients from the MI-COVID19 database. The primary outcome was the composite of the need for mechanical ventilation or inpatient mortality, and the secondary outcome was inpatient mortality. A total of 1020 patients were included in the derivation cohort. A total of 236 (23%) patients in the derivation cohort required mechanical ventilation or died. Variables independently associated with the primary outcome were age ≥ 65 years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, initial D-dimer > 1.1 µg/mL, platelet count < 150 K/µL, and severity of SpO2:FiO2 ratio. The derivation cohort had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83, and 0.74 in the external validation cohort Calibration shows close adherence between the observed and expected primary outcomes within the validation cohort. The CRI is a novel disease-specific tool that assesses the risk for mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Discrimination of the score may change given continuous updates in contemporary COVID-19 management and outcomes.

Trends in Venous Thromboembolism Anticoagulation in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Importance: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of COVID-19. It is not well understood how hospitals have managed VTE prevention and the effect of prevention strategies on mortality. Objective: To characterize frequency, variation across hospitals, and change over time in VTE prophylaxis and treatment-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, as well as the association of anticoagulation strategies with in-hospital and 60-day mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 used a pseudorandom sample from 30 US hospitals in the state of Michigan participating in a collaborative quality initiative. Data analyzed were from patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and June 17, 2020. Data were analyzed through March 2021. Exposures: Nonadherence to VTE prophylaxis (defined as missing ≥2 days of VTE prophylaxis) and receipt of treatment-dose or prophylactic-dose anticoagulants vs no anticoagulation during hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The effect of nonadherence and anticoagulation strategies on in-hospital and 60-day mortality was assessed using multinomial logit models with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Of a total 1351 patients with COVID-19 included (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 47.7% women, 48.9% Black patients), only 18 (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE, and 219 (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation. Use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.31-1.61 per week). Of 1127 patients who ever received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 or more days of prophylaxis. Missed prophylaxis varied from 11% to 61% across hospitals and decreased markedly over time (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97 per week). VTE nonadherence was associated with higher 60-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67) but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03). Receiving any dose of anticoagulation (vs no anticoagulation) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (only prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.52; any treatment dose: aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). However, only the prophylactic dose of anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days (prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; treatment dose: aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.35). Conclusions and Relevance: This large, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, found evidence of rapid dissemination and implementation of anticoagulation strategies, including use of treatment-dose anticoagulation. As only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower 60-day mortality, prophylactic dosing strategies may be optimal for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

COVID-19 versus HIT hypercoagulability.

A striking feature of COVID-19 is the high frequency of thrombosis, particularly in patients who require admission to intensive care unit because of respiratory complications (pneumonia/adult respiratory distress syndrome). The spectrum of thrombotic events is wide, including in situ pulmonary thrombosis, deep-vein thrombosis and associated pulmonary embolism, as well as arterial thrombotic events (stroke, myocardial infarction, limb artery thrombosis). Unusual thrombotic events have also been reported, e.g., cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, mesenteric artery and vein thrombosis. Several hematology abnormalities have been observed in COVID-19 patients, including lymphopenia, neutrophilia, thrombocytopenia (usually mild), thrombocytosis, elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin times (the latter abnormality often indicating lupus anticoagulant phenomenon), hyperfibrinogenemia, elevated von Willebrand factor levels, and elevated fibrin d-dimer. Many of these abnormal hematologic parameters-even as early as the time of initial hospital admission-indicate adverse prognosis, including greater frequency of progression to severe respiratory illness and death. Progression to overt disseminated intravascular coagulation in fatal COVID-19 has been reported in some studies, but not observed in others. We compare and contrast COVID-19 hypercoagulability, and associated increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis, from the perspective of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), including the dilemma of providing thromboprophylaxis and treatment recommendations when available data are limited to observational studies. The frequent use of heparin-both low-molecular-weight and unfractionated-in preventing and treating COVID-19 thrombosis, means that vigilance for HIT occurrence is required in this patient population.

Thromboembolism and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: interim clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection that can, in severe cases, result in cytokine storm, systemic inflammatory response and coagulopathy that is prognostic of poor outcomes. While some, but not all, laboratory findings appear similar to sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), COVID-19- induced coagulopathy (CIC) appears to be more prothrombotic than hemorrhagic. It has been postulated that CIC may be an uncontrolled immunothrombotic response to COVID-19, and there is growing evidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events in these critically ill patients. Clinicians around the globe are challenged with rapidly identifying reasonable diagnostic, monitoring and anticoagulant strategies to safely and effectively manage these patients. Thoughtful use of proven, evidence-based approaches must be carefully balanced with integration of rapidly emerging evidence and growing experience. The goal of this document is to provide guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum, a North American organization of anticoagulation providers, regarding use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19. We discuss in-hospital and post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, treatment of suspected but unconfirmed VTE, laboratory monitoring of COVID-19, associated anticoagulant therapies, and essential elements for optimized transitions of care specific to patients with COVID-19.