ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To compare the severity of pulmonary embolism (PE) and the long-term complications between patients with and without COVID-19, and to investigate whether the tools for risk stratification of death are valid in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively included hospitalized patients with PE from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2022. Comparisons for acute episode characteristics, risk stratification of the PE, outcomes, and long-term complications were made between COVID and non-COVID patients. RESULTS: We analyzed 116 (27.5%) COVID patients and 305 (72.4%) non-COVID patients. In patients with COVID-19, the traditional risk factors for PE were absent, and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis was lower. COVID patients showed significantly higher lymphocyte count, lactate dehydrogenase, lactic acid, and D-dimer levels. COVID patients had PE of smaller size (12.3% vs. 25.5% main pulmonary artery, 29.8% vs. 37.1% lobar, 44.7% vs. 29.5% segmental and 13.2% vs. 7.9% subsegmental, respectively; p < 0.001), less right ventricular dysfunction (7.7% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.007) and higher sPESI score (1.66 vs. 1.11; p < 0.001). The need for mechanical ventilation was significantly higher in COVID patients (8.6% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001); However, the in-hospital death was less (5.2% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.074). The incidence of long-term complications was lower in COVID cohort (p < 0.001). PE severity assessed by high sPESI and intermediate and high-risk categories were independently associated with in-hospital mortality in COVID patients. CONCLUSION: The risk of in-hospital mortality and the incidence of long-term complications were lower in COVID-19. The usual tools for risk stratification of PE are valid in COVID patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Embolism , Humans , Hospital Mortality , COVID-19/complications , Retrospective Studies , Pulmonary Embolism/complications , Pulmonary Artery , Risk AssessmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature. METHODS: A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level <3000â¯ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis, ARDS, and death. The optimal dosage of thromboprophylaxis in patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin in prophylactic, intermediate and therapeutic doses in non-critical patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and Participants: The PROTHROMCOVID multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled noncritical hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia from February 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021, at 18 centers in Spain. Methods: Patients were randomized to prophylactic tinzaparin 4500IU or intermediate dose 100IU/kg or therapeutic tinzaparin 175IU/kg during hospitalization, followed by 7 days of prophylactic tinzaparin at discharge. The patients were stratified at the time of randomization according to age, sex and the presence or absence of hypertension.The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of symptomatic systemic thrombotic events, need for invasive or non invasive mechanical ventilation or not, including high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, or death within 30 days. The main safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by non-blinded investigators through imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 311 patients randomized, 300 were included in the analysis (mean [SD]age, 56.7 [14.6] years;men, 182 [60.7%];women, 118 [39.3%]). 106 patients (35.33%) were assigned to the prophylaxis group, 91 patients (30.33%) were allocated to the intermediate dose group and 103 patients (34.33%) were randomized to the anticoagulant dose group. The composite endpoint thrombotic event, need for invasive (IMV) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) or HFT via nasal cannula or death at 30 days from randomization occurred in 58 patients (19.3%) of the whole population, 19 patients (17.09%) in prophylactic group, 20 (21.98%) in intermediate group and 19 (18.45%) in therapeutic group (P=0.72). No major bleeding were reported in the trial and non-major bleeding occurred in 5 patients (4.71%) in prophilactic, in 3 patients (3.2%) in intermediate arm and in 3 patients (2.9%) in therapeutic, without significant differences in each group (P=0.31). Conclusions: In non-critically ill patients with COVID 19, intermediate or full-dose of tinzaparin do not appear to offer benefit over standard prophylactic doses IU in the likelihood of thrombotic event, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, or death. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Leo Pharma
ABSTRACT
Background and objective Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature. Methods A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies. Results Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level <3000 ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE. Conclusions Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Diving , Masks , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Protective Devices , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Printing, Three-Dimensional , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Young AdultABSTRACT
Recent studies suggest that thrombotic complications are a common phenomenon in the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection. The main objective of our study is to assess cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in non critically ill COVID-19 patients and to identify its predicting factors associated to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We retrospectevely reviewed 452 electronic medical records of patients admitted to Internal Medicine Department of a secondary hospital in Madrid during Covid 19 pandemic outbreak. We included 91 patients who underwent a multidetector Computed Tomography pulmonary angiography(CTPA) during conventional hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of PE was assessed ant the clinical, analytical and radiological characteristics were compared between patients with and without PE. PE incidence was 6.4% (29/452 patients). Most patients with a confirmed diagnosed with PE recieved low molecular weight heparin (LMWH): 79.3% (23/29). D-dimer peak was significatly elevated in PE vs non PE patients (14,480 vs 7230 mcg/dL, p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis of patients who underwent a CTPA we found that plasma D-dimer peak was an independen predictor of PE with a best cut off point of > 5000 µg/dl (OR 3.77; IC95% (1.18-12.16), p = 0.03). We found ninefold increased risk of PE patients not suffering from dyslipidemia (OR 9.06; IC95% (1.88-43.60). Predictive value of AUC for ROC is 75.5%. We found a high incidence of PE in non critically ill hospitalized COVID 19 patients despite standard thromboprophylaxis. An increase in D-dimer levels is an independent predictor for PE, with a best cut-off point of > 5000 µg/ dl.