Prothrombotic Milieu, Thrombotic Events and Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Hospitalized COVID-19 Positive Patients: A Review.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although initial reports concentrated on severe respiratory illness, emerging literature has indicated a substantially elevated risk of thromboembolic events in patients with COVID-19 disease. Pro-inflammatory cytokine release has been linked to endothelial dysfunction and activation of coagulation pathways, as evident by elevated D-dimer levels and deranged coagulation parameters. Both macrovascular and microvascular thromboses have been described in observational cohort and post-mortem studies. Concurrently, preliminary data have suggested the role of therapeutic anticoagulation in preventing major thromboembolic complications in moderately but not critically ill patients. However, pending results from randomized controlled trials, clear guidance is lacking regarding the intensity and duration of anticoagulation in such patients. Herein, we review the existing evidence on incidence and pathophysiology of COVID-19 related thromboembolic complications and guide anticoagulation therapy based on current literature and societal consensus statements.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Safety and efficacy of different prophylactic anticoagulation dosing regimens in critically and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of different prophylactic anticoagulation regimens among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We pooled evidence from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide insights on this topic. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched for RCTs comparing treatment with an escalated-dose (intermediate-dose or therapeutic-dose) vs. a standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation regimen in critically and non-critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization and without a formal indication for anticoagulation. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause death, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Seven RCTs were identified, including 5154 patients followed on an average of 33 days. Compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, escalated-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction of all-cause death [17.8% vs. 18.6%; risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.18] but was associated with an increase in major bleeding (2.4% vs. 1.4%; RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.15-2.60). Compared to prophylactic anticoagulation used at a standard dose, an escalated dose was associated with lower rates of venous thromboembolism (2.5% vs. 4.7%; RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.74) without a significant effect on myocardial infarction (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.47-1.36), stroke (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.43-2.09), or systemic arterial embolism (RR 1.20, 95%CI 0.29-4.95). There were no significant interactions in the subgroup analysis for critically and non-critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide comprehensive and high-quality evidence for the use of standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation over an escalated-dose regimen as routine standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have an indication for therapeutic anticoagulation, irrespective of disease severity. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021257203).

Types of myocardial injury and mid-term outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

AIMS: To evaluate the acute and chronic patterns of myocardial injury among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and their mid-term outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had a hospital encounter within the Mount Sinai Health System (New York City) between 27 February 2020 and 15 October 2020 were evaluated for inclusion. Troponin levels assessed between 72 h before and 48 h after the COVID-19 diagnosis were used to stratify the study population by the presence of acute and chronic myocardial injury, as defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Among 4695 patients, those with chronic myocardial injury (n = 319, 6.8%) had more comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease and heart failure, while acute myocardial injury (n = 1168, 24.9%) was more associated with increased levels of inflammatory markers. Both types of myocardial injury were strongly associated with impaired survival at 6 months [chronic: hazard ratio (HR) 4.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.44-5.06; acute: HR 4.72, 95% CI 4.14-5.36], even after excluding events occurring in the first 30 days (chronic: HR 3.97, 95% CI 2.15-7.33; acute: HR 4.13, 95% CI 2.75-6.21). The mortality risk was not significantly different in patients with acute as compared with chronic myocardial injury (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36), except for a worse prognostic impact of acute myocardial injury in patients <65 years of age (P-interaction = 0.043) and in those without coronary artery disease (P-interaction = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Chronic and acute myocardial injury represent two distinctive patterns of cardiac involvement among COVID-19 patients. While both types of myocardial injury are associated with impaired survival at 6 months, mortality rates peak in the early phase of the infection but remain elevated even beyond 30 days during the convalescent phase.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience a myocardial infarction have complex coronary morphology and high in-hospital mortality: Primary results of a nationwide angiographic study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore angiographic patterns and in-hospital outcomes of patients with concomitant coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 may experience MI during the course of the viral infection. However, this association is currently poorly understood. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective study of consecutive patients with concomitant COVID-19 and MI who underwent coronary angiography. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiography were analyzed by two observers in an independent core lab. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included, of whom 142 (93.4%) had COVID-19 diagnosis confirmation. The median time between symptom onset and hospital admission was 5 (1-10) days. A total of 83 (54.6%) patients presented with ST-elevation MI. The median angiographic Syntax score was 16 (9.0-25.3) and 69.0% had multi-vessel disease. At least one complex lesion was found in 73.0% of patients, 51.3% had a thrombus containing lesion, and 57.9% had myocardial blush grades 0/1. The overall in-hospital mortality was 23.7%. ST-segment elevation MI presentation and baseline myocardial blush grades 0 or 1 were independently associated with a higher risk of death (HR 2.75, 95%CI 1.30-5.80 and HR 3.73, 95%CI 1.61-8.61, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have a MI in the context of ongoing COVID-19 mostly present complex coronary morphologies, implying a background of prior atherosclerotic disease superimposed on a thrombotic milieu. The in-hospital prognosis is poor with a markedly high mortality, prompting further investigation to better clarify this newly described condition.

Characterization of Myocardial Injury in Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury is frequent among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with a poor prognosis. However, the mechanisms of myocardial injury remain unclear and prior studies have not reported cardiovascular imaging data. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the echocardiographic abnormalities associated with myocardial injury and their prognostic impact in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter cohort study including 7 hospitals in New York City and Milan of hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had undergone transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) and electrocardiographic evaluation during their index hospitalization. Myocardial injury was defined as any elevation in cardiac troponin at the time of clinical presentation or during the hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were included. Mean age was 63 years and 205 patients (67.2%) were male. Overall, myocardial injury was observed in 190 patients (62.3%). Compared with patients without myocardial injury, those with myocardial injury had more electrocardiographic abnormalities, higher inflammatory biomarkers and an increased prevalence of major echocardiographic abnormalities that included left ventricular wall motion abnormalities, global left ventricular dysfunction, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction grade II or III, right ventricular dysfunction and pericardial effusions. Rates of in-hospital mortality were 5.2%, 18.6%, and 31.7% in patients without myocardial injury, with myocardial injury without TTE abnormalities, and with myocardial injury and TTE abnormalities. Following multivariable adjustment, myocardial injury with TTE abnormalities was associated with higher risk of death but not myocardial injury without TTE abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19 who underwent TTE, cardiac structural abnormalities were present in nearly two-thirds of patients with myocardial injury. Myocardial injury was associated with increased in-hospital mortality particularly if echocardiographic abnormalities were present.

Effect of Colchicine vs Standard Care on Cardiac and Inflammatory Biomarkers and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: The GRECCO-19 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has evolved into a global pandemic. Low-dose colchicine combines anti-inflammatory action with a favorable safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with colchicine on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial (the Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention), 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized in a 1:1 allocation from April 3 to April 27, 2020, to either standard medical treatment or colchicine with standard medical treatment. The study took place in 16 tertiary hospitals in Greece. Intervention: Colchicine administration (1.5-mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg after 60 min and maintenance doses of 0.5 mg twice daily) with standard medical treatment for as long as 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were (1) maximum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level; (2) time for C-reactive protein to reach more than 3 times the upper reference limit; and (3) time to deterioration by 2 points on a 7-grade clinical status scale, ranging from able to resume normal activities to death. Secondary end points were (1) the percentage of participants requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) number, type, severity, and seriousness of adverse events. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated (61 [58.1%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [54-76] years) with 50 (47.6%) randomized to the control group and 55 (52.4%) to the colchicine group. Median (interquartile range) peak high-sensitivity cardiac troponin values were 0.0112 (0.0043-0.0093) ng/mL in the control group and 0.008 (0.004-0.0135) ng/mL in the colchicine group (P = .34). Median (interquartile range) maximum C-reactive protein levels were 4.5 (1.4-8.9) mg/dL vs 3.1 (0.8-9.8) mg/dL (P = .73), respectively. The clinical primary end point rate was 14.0% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Mean (SD) event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days the in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P = .03). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, except for diarrhea, which was more frequent with colchicine group than the control group (25 patients [45.5%] vs 9 patients [18.0%]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration. There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04326790.