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.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Heparin thromboprophylaxis is routinely administered during hospitalization for COVID-19. Because of the immune stimulation related to COVID-19, there is ongoing concern regarding a heightened incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv database to identify studies that reported clinical and laboratory characteristics and/or the incidence of HIT in patients with COVID-19. The primary aim was to systematically review the clinical features and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with confirmed HIT. The secondary objective was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of HIT in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A meta-analysis of 7 studies including 5849 patients revealed the pooled incidence of HIT in COVID-19 of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-3.2%; I2 = 89%). The estimated incidences were 1.2% (95% CI, 0.3%-3.9%; I2 = 65%) vs 0.1% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.4%; I2 = 0%) in therapeutic vs prophylactic heparin subgroups, respectively. The pooled incidences of HIT were higher in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.6%-8.3%; I2 = 72.5%) compared with noncritically ill patients (0.1%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.4%: I2 = 0%). There were 19 cases of confirmed HIT and 1 with autoimmune HIT for clinical and laboratory characterization. The median time from heparin initiation to HIT diagnosis was 13.5 days (interquartile range, 10.75-16.25 days). Twelve (63%) developed thromboembolism after heparin therapy. In conclusion, the incidence of HIT in patients with COVID-19 was comparable to patients without COVID-19, with higher incidences with therapeutic anticoagulation and in critically ill patients.

Forming the Hematology-Oncology Collaborative Videoconferencing (CO-VID) Learning Initiative: Experiential Lessons Learned From a Novel Trainee-Led Multidisciplinary Virtual Learning Platform.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 challenged medical practice and graduate medical education. Building on previous initiatives, we describe and reflect on the formative process and goals of the Hematology-Oncology Collaborative Videoconferencing Learning Initiative, a trainee-led multi-institutional virtual COVID-19 learning model. METHODS: Clinical fellows and faculty from 13 US training institutions developed consensus needs, goals, and objectives, recruited presenters, and generated a multidisciplinary COVID-19 curriculum. Weekly Zoom conferences consisted of two trainee-led instructional segments and a trainee-moderated faculty Q&A panel. Hematology-oncology training program faculty and trainees were the targeted audience. Leadership evaluations consisted of anonymized baseline and concluding mixed methods surveys. Presenter evaluations consisted of session debriefs and two structured focus groups. Conference evaluations consisted of attendance, demographics, and pre- or postmultiple-choice questions on topic learning objectives. RESULTS: In 6 weeks, the initiative produced five conferences: antivirals, anticoagulation, pulmonology, provider resilience, and resource scarcity ethics. The average attendance was 100 (range 57-185). Among attendees providing both pre- and postconference data, group-level knowledge appeared to increase: antiviral (n = 46) pre-/postcorrect 82.6%/97.8% and incorrect 10.9%/2.2%, anticoagulation (n = 60) pre-/postcorrect 75%/93.3% and incorrect 15%/6.7%, and pulmonary (n = 21) pre-/postcorrect 66.7%/95.2% and incorrect 33.3%/4.8%. Although pulmonary management comfort appeared to increase, comfort managing of antivirals and anticoagulation was unchanged. At the conclusion of the pilot, leadership trainees reported improved self-confidence organizing multi-institutional collaborations, median (interquartile range) 58.5 (50-64) compared with baseline 34 (26-39), but did not report improved confidence in other educational or leadership skills. CONCLUSION: During crisis, trainees built a multi-institutional virtual education platform for the purposes of sharing pandemic experiences and knowledge. Accomplishment of initiative goals was mixed. Lessons learned from the process and goals may improve future disaster educational initiatives.

Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis and Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Pooled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases thrombosis in hospitalized patients prompting adoption of different thromboprophylaxis strategies. Safety and efficacy of escalated-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are not established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the pooled incidence of thrombosis/bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for standard-dose, intermediate-dose, therapeutic anticoagulation, and no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to August 29, 2020 for studies reporting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis or bleeding. Pooled event rates were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-five observational studies were included. The pooled incidence rates of total venous thromboembolism (N = 4,685) were: no prophylaxis 41.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.1-57.2, I 2 = 76%), standard-dose prophylaxis 19.8% (95% CI: 13.2-28.6, I 2 = 95%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 11.9% (95% CI: 4.3-28.6, I 2 = 91%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 10.5% (95% CI: 4.2-23.8, I 2 = 82%, p = 0.003). The pooled incidence rates of arterial thrombosis (N = 1,464) were: no prophylaxis 11.3% (95% CI: 5.2-23.0, I 2 = 0%), standard-dose prophylaxis 2.5% (95% CI: 1.4-4.3, I 2 = 45%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 2.1% (95% CI: 0.5-7.7, I 2 = 45%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2-8.8, I 2 = 0, p = 0.009). The pooled bleeding event rates (N = 6,393) were nonsignificantly higher in therapeutic-dose anticoagulants compared with standard-dose prophylaxis, (6.3 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.083). CONCLUSION: Thrombosis rates were lower in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Thrombosis and bleeding rates for patients receiving intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation were similar to those who received standard-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

Outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3377 patients.

Outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy infected with COVID-19 have not been aggregated. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the risk of death and other important outcomes for these patients. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 20 August 2020 to identify reports of patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. The primary outcome was a pooled mortality estimate, considering all patients and only hospitalized patients. Secondary outcomes included risk of intensive care unit admission and ventilation in hospitalized patients. Subgroup analyses included mortality stratified by age, treatment status, and malignancy subtype. Pooled prevalence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-four adult and 5 pediatric studies (3377 patients) from Asia, Europe, and North America were included (14 of 34 adult studies included only hospitalized patients). Risk of death among adult patients was 34% (95% CI, 28-39; N = 3240) in this sample of predominantly hospitalized patients. Patients aged ≥60 years had a significantly higher risk of death than patients <60 years (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.45-2.27; N = 1169). The risk of death in pediatric patients was 4% (95% CI, 1-9; N = 102). RR of death comparing patients with recent systemic anticancer therapy to no treatment was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.83-1.64; N = 736). Adult patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19, especially hospitalized patients, have a high risk of dying. Patients ≥60 years have significantly higher mortality; pediatric patients appear to be relatively spared. Recent cancer treatment does not appear to significantly increase the risk of death.

Postdischarge thrombosis and hemorrhage in patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic state with a high incidence of thrombotic events during hospitalization; however, data examining rates of thrombosis after discharge are limited. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of discharged patients with confirmed COVID-19 not receiving anticoagulation. The cohort included 163 patients with median time from discharge to last recorded follow-up of 30 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17-46 days). The median duration of index hospitalization was 6 days (IQR, 3-12 days) and 26% required intensive care. The cumulative incidence of thrombosis (including arterial and venous events) at day 30 following discharge was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-7.6); the cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism alone at day 30 postdischarge was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.1-4.6). The 30-day cumulative incidence of major hemorrhage was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-5.1) and of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds was 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0-9.1). We conclude that the rates of thrombosis and hemorrhage appear to be similar following hospital discharge for COVID-19, emphasizing the need for randomized data to inform recommendations for universal postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

Deep vein thrombosis protocol optimization to minimize healthcare worker exposure in coronavirus disease-2019.

OBJECTIVE: There are no societal ultrasound (US) guidelines detailing appropriate patient selection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) imaging in patients with COVID-19, nor are there protocol recommendations aimed at decreasing exposure time for US technologists. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific protocol optimization recommendations limiting US technologist exposure while optimizing patient selection. METHODS: A novel two-pronged algorithm was implemented to limit the DVT US studies on patients with COVID-19 prospectively, which included direct physician communication with the care team and a COVID-19-specific imaging protocol was instated to reduce US technologist exposure. To assess the pretest risk of DVT, the sensitivity and specificity of serum d-dimer in 500-unit increments from 500 to 8000 ng/mL and a receiver operating characteristic curve to assess performance of serum d-dimer in predicting DVT was generated. Rates of DVT, pulmonary embolism, and scan times were compared using t-test and Fisher's exact test (before and after implementation of the protocol). RESULTS: Direct physician communication resulted in cancellation or deferral of 72% of requested examinations in COVID-19-positive patients. A serum d-dimer of >4000 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 70% (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.86) for venous thromboembolism. Using the COVID-19-specific protocol, there was a significant (50%) decrease in the scan time (P < .0001) in comparison with the conventional protocol. CONCLUSIONS: A direct physician communication policy between imaging physician and referring physician resulted in deferral or cancellation of a majority of requested DVT US examinations. An abbreviated COVID-19-specific imaging protocol significantly decreased exposure time to the US technologist.

Incidence of thrombosis and hemorrhage in hospitalized cancer patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a recognized prothrombotic state. Patients hospitalized with active cancer are predisposed to thrombosis but whether active cancer further amplifies thrombotic risk with COVID-19 is not known. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cumulative incidences of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without active cancer at 28 days. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 was performed. Active cancer required cancer-directed therapy within previous 6 months. The cumulative incidences of thrombosis or hemorrhage were estimated considering death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Patients without cancer (n = 353) and active cancer (n = 45) were comparable in terms of age, sex, antibiotics administered, length of hospitalization, and critical care. The most common malignancies were lymphoid (17.8%), gastrointestinal (15.6%), lung (13.3%), and genitourinary (13.3%). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 18.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2%-27.9%) in the non-cancer cohort and 14.2% (95% CI, 4.7%-28.7%) in the cancer cohort. The cumulative incidence of major and fatal bleeding at day 28 was 20.8% (95% CI, 12.1%-31.0%) in the non-cancer group and 19.5% (95% CI, 5.5%-39.8%) in the cancer cohort. Three patients experienced fatal bleeds, all of whom were in the non-cancer cohort. Survival was significantly shorter in the group with active cancer (P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a similarly high incidence of thrombosis and bleeding among patients admitted with COVID-19 with or without active cancer.

Blood type and outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

This study aimed to determine if there is an association between ABO blood type and severity of COVID-19 defined by intubation or death as well as ascertain if there is variability in testing positive for COVID-19 between blood types. In a multi-institutional study, all adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 across five hospitals were identified and included from March 6th to April 16th, 2020. Hospitalization, intubation, and death were evaluated for association with blood type. Univariate analysis was conducted using standard techniques and logistic regression was used to determine the independent effect of blood type on intubation and/or death and positive testing. During the study period, there were 7648 patients who received COVID-19 testing throughout the institutions. Of these, 1289 tested positive with a known blood type. A total of 484 (37.5%) were admitted to hospital, 123 (9.5%) were admitted to the ICU, 108 (8.4%) were intubated, 3 (0.2%) required ECMO, and 89 (6.9%) died. Of the 1289 patients who tested positive, 440 (34.2%) were blood type A, 201 (15.6%) were blood type B, 61 (4.7%) were blood type AB, and 587 (45.5%) were blood type O. On univariate analysis, there was no association between blood type and any of the peak inflammatory markers (peak WBC, p = 0.25; peak LDH, p = 0.40; peak ESR, p = 0.16; peak CRP, p = 0.14) nor between blood type and any of the clinical outcomes of severity (admission p = 0.20, ICU admission p = 0.94, intubation p = 0.93, proning while intubated p = 0.58, ECMO p = 0.09, and death p = 0.49). After multivariable analysis, blood type was not independently associated with risk of intubation or death (referent blood type A; blood type B: AOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.42-1.26, blood type AB: AOR: 0.78, CI: 0.33-1.87, blood type O: AOR: 0.77, CI: 0.51-1.16), rhesus factor positive (Rh+): AOR: 1.03, CI: 0.93-1.86. Blood type A had no correlation with positive testing (AOR: 1.00, CI: 0.88-1.13), blood type B was associated with higher odds of testing positive for disease (AOR: 1.28, CI: 1.08-1.52), AB was also associated with higher odds of testing positive (AOR: 1.37, CI: 1.02-1.83), and O was associated with a lower risk of testing positive (AOR: 0.84, CI: 0.75-0.95). Rh+ status was associated with higher odds of testing positive (AOR: 1.23, CI: 1.003-1.50). Blood type was not associated with risk of intubation or death in patients with COVID-19. Patients with blood types B and AB who received a test were more likely to test positive and blood type O was less likely to test positive. Rh+ patients were more likely to test positive.