Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Integral Use of Thromboelastography With Platelet Mapping to Guide Appropriate Treatment, Avoid Complications, and Improve Survival of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Coagulopathy.

OBJECTIVES: Coagulopathy of coronavirus disease 2019 is largely described as hypercoagulability, yet both thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications occur. Although therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulant interventions have been recommended, empiric use of antifactor medications (heparin/enoxaparin) may result in hemorrhagic complications, including death. Furthermore, traditional (antifactor) anticoagulation does not address the impact of overactive platelets in coronavirus disease 2019. The primary aim was to evaluate if algorithm-guided thromboelastography with platelet mapping could better characterize an individual's coronavirus disease 2019-relatedcoagulopathic state and, secondarily, improve outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 100), receiving thromboelastography with platelet mapping assay upon admission to an 800-bed tertiary-care hospital, were followed prospectively by a hospital-based thromboelastography team. Treating clinicians were provided with the option of using a pre-established algorithm for anticoagulation, including follow-up thromboelastography with platelet mapping assays. Two groups evolved: 1) patients managed by thromboelastography with platelet mapping algorithm (algorithm-guided-thromboelastography); 2) those treated without thromboelastography with platelet mapping protocols (non-algorithm-guided). Outcomes included thrombotic/hemorrhagic complications, pulmonary failure, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, dialysis requirement, and nonsurvival. INTERVENTIONS: Standard-of-care therapy with or without algorithm-guided-thromboelastography support. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although d-dimer, C-reactive protein, and ferritin were elevated significantly in critically ill (nonsurvivors, acute kidney injury, pulmonary failure), they did not distinguish between coagulopathic and noncoagulopathic patients. Platelet hyperactivity (maximum amplitude-arachidonic acid/adenosine diphosphate > 50 min), with or without thrombocytosis, was associated with thrombotic/ischemic complications, whereas severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100,000/µL) was uniformly fatal. Hemorrhagic complications were observed with decreased factor activity (reaction time > 8 min). Non-algorithm-guided patients had increased risk for subsequent mechanical ventilation (relative risk = 10.9; p < 0.0001), acute kidney injury (relative risk = 2.3; p = 0.0017), dialysis (relative risk = 7.8; p < 0.0001), and death (relative risk = 7.7; p < 0.0001), with 17 of 28 non-algorithm-guided patients (60.7%) dying versus four algorithm-guided-thromboelastography patients (5.6%) (p < 0.0001). Thromboelastography with platelet mapping-guided antiplatelet treatment decreased mortality 82% (p = 0.0002), whereas non-algorithm-guided (compared with algorithm-guided-thromboelastography) use of antifactor therapy (heparin/enoxaparin) resulted in 10.3-fold increased mortality risk (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Thromboelastography with platelet mapping better characterizes the spectrum of coronavirus disease 2019 coagulation-related abnormalities and may guide more tailored, patient-specific therapies in those infected with coronavirus disease 2019.