Platelet dysfunction and thrombus instability in flow conditions in patients with severe COVID-19.

Severe COVID-19 has been associated with a high rate of thrombotic events but also of bleeding events, particularly when the level of prophylactic anticoagulation was increased. Data on the contribution of platelets to these thrombotic events are discordant between reports, while the involvement of platelets in bleeding events has never been investigated. The objective of the present study was to assess platelet function during the first week of ICU hospitalization in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A total of 35 patients were prospectively included and blood samples were drawn on day (D) 0, D2 and D7. COVID-19 pneumonia was severe with a median PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 91 [68-119] on D0. Platelets from these patients showed evidence of pre-activation and exhaustion with a significant reduction in the surface expression of GPVI, GPIb and GPIIbIIIa, together with a decrease in serotonin content. Platelets from patients with severe COVID-19 were hyporesponsive with a reduced maximal aggregation response to several platelet agonists and decreased adhesion to immobilized fibrinogen. Aggregation of washed platelets and plasma substitution experiments indicated that a plasma factor was at least partially responsible for this hyporeactivity of platelets. Blood flow experiments showed that severe COVID-19 platelets formed smaller, less stable aggregates on a collagen-coated surface, which could explain why some patients develop bleeding events. These findings should prompt us to carefully evaluate the risks and benefits of high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, and to decrease the level of anticoagulation once the initial phase of the disease has resolved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04359992.

Impact du COVID-19 et du confinement sur la transfusion

L'émergence de SARS-CoV-2 a entraîné un afflux massif de patients à l'hôpital et particulièrement en réanimation créant de nombreux problèmes. L'un d'entre eux est la transfusion, tant du côté de l'EFS (sécurité, collecte et stocks) que du transfuseur (soins habituels et demande spécifique inconnue liée au COVID-19). Un des risques était la pénurie avec nécessité de planifier des restrictions transfusionnelles. Nous avons analysé en parallèle l'activité transfusionnelle dans un CHU ainsi que la collecte et la délivrance au niveau de l'EFS entre le 24/02 et le 31/05/2020 et les avons comparées aux données de 2019. L'activité globale a baissé de 33 % sur la période (arrêt des soins réglés hors urgence ou soins ne pouvant être différés et admissions de 2291 patients COVID-19) alors que la transfusion n'a été réduite que de 17 %. Un total de 237 patients COVID-19 (10,3 %) ont nécessité une transfusion, dont 45 pour hémorragie. Parallèlement, la baisse des dons a été contenue à 11 % avec une discrète augmentation des stocks. La diminution de l'activité ne se traduit que par une baisse modérée de l'activité transfusionnelle, celle-ci dépendant principalement de la chirurgie urgente, des syndromes hémorragiques et de la prise en charge des patients en aplasie chimio-induite ou ayant des pathologies hématologiques. Le confinement a entraîné une diminution des dons par suppression des collectes mobiles mais avec un impact limité sur une courte période par mobilisation des donneurs réguliers. Il n'a pas été observé d'inadéquation entre demande et suppléance et il n'a donc pas été nécessaire de mettre en place des restrictions. (French) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Transfusion Clinique et Biologique is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prévention du risque thromboembolique veineux et surveillance de l’hémostase chez les patients hospitalisés pour COVID-19 : propositions réactualisées (avril 2021). Groupe d’intérêt en hémostase périopératoire (GIHP) et groupe d’étude sur l’hémostase et la thrombose (GFHT) Prevention of venous thromboembolism and haemostasis monitoring in patients with COVID-19: Updated proposals (April 2021): From the French working group on perioperative haemostasis (GIHP) and the French study group on thrombosis and haemostasis (GFHT), in collaboration with the French society of anaesthesia and intensive care (SFAR)

<h4>Contexte</h4> La COVID-19 est associée à un risque thromboembolique veineux élevé, en particulier chez les patients sévères. Depuis les premières propositions GIHP/GFHT publiées en avril 2020, de nouvelles connaissances sont apparues. L’objet du présent travail était de réactualiser ces propositions. <h4>Méthodes</h4> Un groupe de travail a défini sept questions et effectué une revue critique de la littérature. Les propositions ont été formulées après consensus entre les membres du groupe de travail et les autres membres du GIHP/GFHT. <h4>Résultats</h4> Chez les patients hospitalisés non sévères et certains patients ambulatoires à risque, nous suggérons l’administration d’une thromboprophylaxie à dose standard. Chez les patients sévères, nous suggérons une thromboprophylaxie à dose intermédiaire ou thérapeutique selon le taux de D-dimères et son évolution. Sept à dix jours après l’admission, nous suggérons de revenir à une dose standard pour réduire le risque hémorragique. Chez les patients présentant un très haut risque thrombotique, ayant reçu une thromboprophylaxie à dose thérapeutique, nous suggérons un dépistage systématique de la thrombose avant la désescalade. Nous suggérons d’ajuster l’anticoagulation au poids des patients. Nous suggérons un monitorage régulier des paramètres d’hémostase, incluant les D-dimères, chez les patients sévères. Nous suggérons un monitorage de l’anticoagulation à dose intermédiaire et thérapeutique par l’activité anti-Xa. <h4>Conclusion</h4> Les propositions réactualisées suivent une approche standard de la thromboprophylaxie, visant à diminuer l’incidence des évènements thromboemboliques veineux symptomatiques. Chez les patients sévères, nous proposons une stratégie séquentielle tenant compte de la relation temporelle entre le risque thrombotique et le risque hémorragique.

Prévention du risque thromboembolique veineux et surveillance de l’hémostase chez les patients hospitalisés pour COVID-19 : propositions réactualisées (avril 2021). Groupe d’intérêt en hémostase périopératoire (GIHP) et groupe d’étude sur l’hémostase et la thrombose (GFHT)

Résumé Contexte La COVID-19 est associée à un risque thromboembolique veineux élevé, en particulier chez les patients sévères. Depuis les premières propositions GIHP/GFHT publiées en avril 2020, de nouvelles connaissances sont apparues. L’objet du présent travail était de réactualiser ces propositions. Méthodes Un groupe de travail a défini sept questions et effectué une revue critique de la littérature. Les propositions ont été formulées après consensus entre les membres du groupe de travail et les autres membres du GIHP/GFHT. Résultats Chez les patients hospitalisés non sévères et certains patients ambulatoires à risque, nous suggérons l’administration d’une thromboprophylaxie à dose standard. Chez les patients sévères, nous suggérons une thromboprophylaxie à dose intermédiaire ou thérapeutique selon le taux de D-dimères et son évolution. Sept à dix jours après l’admission, nous suggérons de revenir à une dose standard pour réduire le risque hémorragique. Chez les patients présentant un très haut risque thrombotique, ayant reçu une thromboprophylaxie à dose thérapeutique, nous suggérons un dépistage systématique de la thrombose avant la désescalade. Nous suggérons d’ajuster l’anticoagulation au poids des patients. Nous suggérons un monitorage régulier des paramètres d’hémostase, incluant les D-dimères, chez les patients sévères. Nous suggérons un monitorage de l’anticoagulation à dose intermédiaire et thérapeutique par l’activité anti-Xa. Conclusion Les propositions réactualisées suivent une approche standard de la thromboprophylaxie, visant à diminuer l’incidence des évènements thromboemboliques veineux symptomatiques. Chez les patients sévères, nous proposons une stratégie séquentielle tenant compte de la relation temporelle entre le risque thrombotique et le risque hémorragique.

Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown regarding blood transfusion.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of a SARS-CoV-2 resulted in a massive afflux of patients in hospital and intensive care units with many challenges. Blood transfusion was one of them regarding both blood banks (safety, collection, and stocks) and consumption (usual care and unknown specific demand of COVID-19 patients). The risk of mismatch was sufficient to plan blood transfusion restrictions if stocks became limited. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Analyses of blood transfusion in a tertiary hospital and blood collection in the referring blood bank between February 24 and May 31, 2020. RESULTS: Withdrawal of elective surgery and non-urgent care and admission of 2291 COVID-19 patients reduced global activity by 33% but transfusion by 17% only. Only 237 (10.3) % of COVID-19 patients required blood transfusion, including 45 (2.0%) with acute bleeding. Lockdown and cancellation of mobile collection resulted in an 11% reduction in blood donation compared to 2019. The ratio of reduction in blood transfusion to blood donation remained positive and stocks were slightly enhanced. DISCUSSION: Reduction of admissions due to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic results only in a moderate decrease of blood transfusion. Incompressible blood transfusions concern urgent surgery, acute bleeding (including some patients with COVID-19, especially under high anticoagulation), or are supportive for chemotherapy-induced aplasia or chronic anemia. Lockdown results in a decrease of blood donation by cancellation of mobile donation but with little impact on a short period by mobilization of usual donors. No mismatch between demand and donation was evidenced and no planned restriction to blood transfusion was necessary.

Impact of High-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Because of the high risk of thrombotic complications (TCs) during SARS-CoV-2 infection, several scientific societies have proposed to increase the dose of preventive anticoagulation, although arguments in favor of this strategy are inconsistent. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the incidence of TC in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and what is the relationship between the dose of anticoagulant therapy and the incidence of TC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to eight French ICUs for COVID-19 were included in this observational study. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from ICU admission to day 14, including anticoagulation status and thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. The effect of high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (either at intermediate or equivalent to therapeutic dose), defined using a standardized protocol of classification, was assessed using a time-varying exposure model using inverse probability of treatment weight. RESULTS: Of 538 patients included, 104 patients experienced a total of 122 TCs with an incidence of 22.7% (95% CI, 19.2%-26.3%). Pulmonary embolism accounted for 52% of the recorded TCs. High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduced risk of TC (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) without increasing the risk of bleeding (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.75). INTERPRETATION: High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is associated with a reduction in thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 without an increased risk of hemorrhage. Randomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with higher doses of anticoagulants are needed to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04405869; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Associated Multiple Organ Damage.

A 56-year-old man presented a particularly severe and multisystemic case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to the common lung and quite common pulmonary embolism and kidney injuries, he presented ocular and intestinal injuries that, to our knowledge, have not been described in COVID-19 patients. Although it is difficult to make pathophysiological hypotheses about a single case, the multiplicity of injured organs argues for a systemic response to pulmonary infection. A better understanding of physiopathology should feed the discussion about therapeutic options in this type of multifocal damage related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Prevention of thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hemostasis monitoring.

COVID-19 is an infection induced by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and severe forms can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) management. Severe forms are associated with coagulation changes, mainly characterized by an increase in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, with a higher risk of thrombosis, particularly pulmonary embolism. The impact of obesity in severe COVID-19 has also been highlighted.In this context, standard doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may be inadequate in ICU patients, with obesity, major inflammation, and hypercoagulability. We therefore urgently developed proposals on the prevention of thromboembolism and monitoring of hemostasis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Four levels of thromboembolic risk were defined according to the severity of COVID-19 reflected by oxygen requirement and treatment, the body mass index, and other risk factors. Monitoring of hemostasis (including fibrinogen and D-dimer levels) every 48 h is proposed. Standard doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/24 h SC) are proposed in case of intermediate thrombotic risk (BMI < 30 kg/m2, no other risk factors and no ARDS). In all obese patients (high thrombotic risk), adjusted prophylaxis with intermediate doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/12 h SC or 6000 IU/12 h SC if weight > 120 kg), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) if renal insufficiency (200 IU/kg/24 h, IV), is proposed. The thrombotic risk was defined as very high in obese patients with ARDS and added risk factors for thromboembolism, and also in case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), unexplained catheter thrombosis, dialysis filter thrombosis, or marked inflammatory syndrome and/or hypercoagulability (e.g., fibrinogen > 8 g/l and/or D-dimers > 3 µg/ml). In ICU patients, it is sometimes difficult to confirm a diagnosis of thrombosis, and curative anticoagulant treatment may also be discussed on a probabilistic basis. In all these situations, therapeutic doses of LMWH, or UFH in case of renal insufficiency with monitoring of anti-Xa activity, are proposed.In conclusion, intensification of heparin treatment should be considered in the context of COVID-19 on the basis of clinical and biological criteria of severity, especially in severely ill ventilated patients, for whom the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism cannot be easily confirmed.

High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Little evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: All patients referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients. RESULTS: 150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 [53; 71] years, SAPSII 49 [37; 64] points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%, p < 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested.