ABSTRACT
Arcobacter spp. is an emerging pathogen that is increasingly recognized as a cause of human infections. Gastrointestinal manifestations are most described in the case report literature. We present a case of the first documented case of Arcobacter spp. isolated in pericardial fluid in an immunocompromised patient with worsening cardiac tamponade that was successfully managed with an urgent pericardiocentesis and ensuing steroids, antibiotics, and a pericardial drain. The patient had a past medical history of HIV, latent syphilis, PCP pneumonia, ESRD, and hypertension, and presented with worsening dyspnea, subjective fever, myalgias, cough, pleuritic chest pain, and pericardial rub. Diagnostic workup revealed a positive COVID-19 PCR test, elevated high-sensitive cardiac troponins, elevated CRP, elevated D-dimer, and elevated creatinine. An ECG revealed diffuse ST-segment elevation, and imaging showed cardiomegaly with pulmonary vascular congestion and diffuse interstitial edema. Urgent TTE showed a large circumferential pericardial effusion with tamponade physiology present. Culture on aerobic blood agar grew Arcobacter spp. of unknown specific species, and blood cultures were also positive for Arcobacter spp. Treatment involved intravenous meropenem for five days, followed by oral ciprofloxacin, low-dose colchicine, and a tapered dose of ibuprofen. Repeat laboratory data and TTE showed complete resolution of the pericardial effusion and improved left ventricular function. This case highlights the potential for Arcobacter spp. to cause severe infections and the importance of considering it as a possible pathogen in patients with atypical presentations.
ABSTRACT
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).