Sex differences in the prognostic value of troponin and D-dimer in COVID-19 illness.

BACKGROUND: Male sex, elevated troponin levels, and elevated D-dimer levels are associated with more complicated COVID-19 illness and greater mortality; however, while there are known sex differences in the prognostic value of troponin and D-dimer in other disease states, it is unknown whether they exist in the setting of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether sex modified the relationship between troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness (defined as mechanical ventilation, ICU admission or transfer, discharge to hospice, or death). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large, academic health system. We used multivariable regression to assess associations between sex, troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and laboratory covariates. To test whether sex modified the relationship between severe COVID-19 illness and troponin or D-dimer, models with interaction terms were utilized. RESULTS: Among 4,574 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex was associated with higher levels of troponin and greater odds of severe COVID-19 illness, but lower levels of initial D-dimer when compared with female sex. While sex did not modify the relationship between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, peak D-dimer level was more strongly associated with severe COVID-19 illness in male patients compared to female patients (males: OR=2.91, 95%CI=2.63-2.34, p<0.001; females: OR=2.31, 95%CI=2.04-2.63, p<0.001; p-interaction=0.005). CONCLUSION: Sex did not modify the association between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, but did modify the association between peak D-dimer and severe COVID-19 illness, suggesting greater prognostic value for D-dimer in males with COVID-19.

Platelets contribute to disease severity in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Heightened inflammation, dysregulated immunity, and thrombotic events are characteristic of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Given that platelets are key regulators of thrombosis, inflammation, and immunity they represent prime candidates as mediators of COVID-19-associated pathogenesis. The objective of this study was to understand the contribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to the platelet phenotype via phenotypic (activation, aggregation) and transcriptomic characterization. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In a cohort of 3915 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we analyzed blood platelet indices collected at hospital admission. Following adjustment for demographics, clinical risk factors, medication, and biomarkers of inflammation and thrombosis, we find platelet count, size, and immaturity are associated with increased critical illness and all-cause mortality. Bone marrow, lung tissue, and blood from COVID-19 patients revealed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virions in megakaryocytes and platelets. Characterization of COVID-19 platelets found them to be hyperreactive (increased aggregation, and expression of P-selectin and CD40) and to have a distinct transcriptomic profile characteristic of prothrombotic large and immature platelets. In vitro mechanistic studies highlight that the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with megakaryocytes alters the platelet transcriptome, and its effects are distinct from the coronavirus responsible for the common cold (CoV-OC43). CONCLUSIONS: Platelet count, size, and maturity associate with increased critical illness and all-cause mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Profiling tissues and blood from COVID-19 patients revealed that SARS-CoV-2 virions enter megakaryocytes and platelets and associate with alterations to the platelet transcriptome and activation profile.

Platelets amplify endotheliopathy in COVID-19.

Given the evidence for a hyperactive platelet phenotype in COVID-19, we investigated effector cell properties of COVID-19 platelets on endothelial cells (ECs). Integration of EC and platelet RNA sequencing revealed that platelet-released factors in COVID-19 promote an inflammatory hypercoagulable endotheliopathy. We identified S100A8 and S100A9 as transcripts enriched in COVID-19 platelets and were induced by megakaryocyte infection with SARS-CoV-2. Consistent with increased gene expression, the heterodimer protein product of S100A8/A9, myeloid-related protein (MRP) 8/14, was released to a greater extent by platelets from COVID-19 patients relative to controls. We demonstrate that platelet-derived MRP8/14 activates ECs, promotes an inflammatory hypercoagulable phenotype, and is a significant contributor to poor clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Last, we present evidence that targeting platelet P2Y12 represents a promising candidate to reduce proinflammatory platelet-endothelial interactions. Together, these findings demonstrate a previously unappreciated role for platelets and their activation-induced endotheliopathy in COVID-19.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

Rapid response system adaptations at 40 US hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with acute deterioration from novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has posed a particular challenge for rapid response systems (RRSs) due to increased hospital strain and direct risk of infection to RRS team members. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize RRS structure and protocols adaptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Internet-based cross-sectional survey of RRS leaders, physicians, and researchers across the United States. RESULTS: Clinicians from 46 hospitals were surveyed, 40 completed a baseline survey (87%), and 19 also completed a follow-up qualitative survey. Most reported an increase in emergency team resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of sites performing simulation training sessions decreased from 88% before COVID-19 to 53% during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Most RRSs reported pandemic-related adjustments, most commonly through increasing resources and implementation of protocol changes. There was a reduction in the number of sites that performed simulation training.

Point-of-care ultrasound during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multidisciplinary approach between intensivists and echocardiographers.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) led to a large influx of critically ill patients and altered echocardiography laboratory workflow. We developed a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) first approach to patients requiring echocardiography and describe our workflow and findings. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of all POCUS studies performed on critically ill patients with COVID-19. Sonography was performed by intensivists, uploaded and archived, and rapidly reviewed by echocardiographers. We evaluated each study based on the number of views obtained. Additionally, we provide a description of the workflow during the COVID-19 surge at a tertiary care hospital in New York City. RESULTS: Fifty patients had POCUS studies performed by intensivists and reviewed by echocardiographers obviating the need for sonographer-performed studies. Of the 48 cardiac POCUS studies, 17% of patients had 4 of 4 standard views available while 53% had 3 of 4 standard views. The parasternal long-axis view was obtained on 81%, subxiphoid view on 79%, apical 4-chamber view on 71%, and parasternal short-axis view on 63% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our POCUS workflow allowed intensivists to perform cardiac sonography for rapid bedside diagnosis of pathology with immediate interpretation performed by echocardiographers. At least 3 views were obtained in the majority of cases.

In-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused over 1 200 000 deaths worldwide as of November 2020. However, little is known about the clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). AIM: We aimed to characterize outcomes from IHCA in patients with COVID-19 and to identify patient- and hospital-level variables associated with 30-day survival. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study across 11 academic medical centres in the U.S. Adult patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or defibrillation for IHCA between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 who had a documented positive test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival after IHCA. RESULTS: There were 260 IHCAs among COVID-19 patients during the study period. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range 60-77), 71.5% were male, 49.6% were White, 16.9% were Black, and 16.2% were Hispanic. The most common presenting rhythms were pulseless electrical activity (45.0%) and asystole (44.6%). ROSC occurred in 58 patients (22.3%), 31 (11.9%) survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (12.3%) survived to 30 days. Rates of ROSC and 30-day survival in the two hospitals with the highest volume of IHCA over the study period compared to the remaining hospitals were considerably lower (10.8% vs. 64.3% and 5.9% vs. 35.7% respectively, p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: We found rates of ROSC and 30-day survival of 22.3% and 12.3% respectively. There were large variations in centre-level outcomes, which may explain the poor survival in prior studies.

Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to better characterize the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most at risk of severe, outpatient thrombosis by defining the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with arterial or venous thrombosis diagnosed at admission. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. We found a shift in the proportions of thrombosis subtypes from 2019 to 2020, with declines in ST-segment myocardial infarction (from 22.0% to 10.1% of thrombotic events) and stroke (from 48.6% to 37.2%) and an increase in venous thromboembolism (from 29.4% to 52.7%). The patients with COVID-19-associated thrombosis were younger (age, 58 years vs 64 years; P = .043) and were less frequently women (31.3% vs 43.9%; P = .16). However, no differences were found in the body mass index or major comorbidities between those with and without COVID-19. COVID-19-associated thrombosis correlated with greater mortality (15.2% vs 4.3%; P = .016). The biometric profile of patients admitted with COVID-19-associated thrombosis compared with regular thrombosis showed significant changes in the complete blood count, liver function test results, D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and coagulation panels. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization had increased mortality compared with outpatients without COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization. Given the significantly higher inflammatory marker levels, it is possible this is related to different mechanisms of thrombotic disease in these patients. The inflammation could be a therapeutic target to reduce the risk, or aid in the treatment, of thrombosis. We call for more studies elucidating the role that immunothrombosis might be playing in patients with COVID-19.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest among patients with and without COVID-19.

AIMS: To define outcomes of patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of IHCA cases. Patients with COVID-19 were compared to consecutive patients without COVID-19 from the prior year. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 30-day survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 30-days were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with COVID-19 suffering IHCA were identified and compared to 55 consecutive IHCA patients in 2019. The COVID-19 cohort was more likely to require vasoactive agents (67.3% v 32.7%, p = 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (76.4% v 23.6%, p < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (18.2% v 3.6%, p = 0.029) and intensive care unit care (83.6% v 50.9%, p = 0.001) prior to IHCA. Patients with COVID-19 had shorter CPR duration (10 min v 22 min, p = 0.002). ROSC (38.2% v 49.1%, p = 0.336) and 30-day survival (20% v 32.7%, p = 0.194) did not differ. A 30-day cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 was more common among non-COVID patients (27.3% v 9.1%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival were similar between IHCA patients with and without COVID-19. Compared to previously published data, we report greater ROSC and 30-day survival after IHCA in COVID-19.

Thrombosis in hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections versus COVID-19.

We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses nationwide from 2012 to 2014 and compared this to the incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large health system in New York. Non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness was complicated by acute MI in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (5% vs 16%; P< .001). BACKGROUND: Thrombosis is a prominent feature of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The incidence of thrombosis during hospitalization for non-COVID-19 viral respiratory infections is uncertain. We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses compared to COVID-19. METHODS: Adults age >18 years hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness between 2002 and 2014 were identified. The primary study outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events, including myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism (VTE), as defined by ICD-9 codes. The incidence of thrombosis in non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illnesses was compared to the recently published incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 from 3,334 patients hospitalized in New York in 2020. RESULTS: Among 954,521 hospitalizations with viral pneumonia from 2002 to 2014 (mean age 62.3 years, 57.1% female), the combined incidence of arterial and venous thrombosis was 5.0%. Acute MI occurred in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. Patients with thrombosis had higher in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs 3.3%, P< .001) than those without thrombosis. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (median age 64; 39.6% female) in 2020 (5% vs 16%; P< .001) CONCLUSION: In a nationwide analysis of hospitalizations for viral pneumonias, thrombosis risk was lower than that observed in patients with COVID-19. Investigations into mechanisms of thrombosis and risk reduction strategies in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections are necessary.

Simulation-based uptraining improves provider comfort in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 surge required the deployment of large numbers of non-intensive care providers to assist in the management of the critically ill. Institutions took a variety of approaches to "uptraining" such providers though studies describing methods and effectiveness are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five providers underwent a 3 h simulation-based session focused on management of shock, mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and critical care ultrasound. All participants were sent surveys to assess their comfort with various aspects of critical care following return to their usual work environments. RESULTS: One hundred and eight providers of 175 (62%) completed the survey. Overall, 104/108 responders (96%) felt training either significantly or somewhat improved their knowledge in the management of ICU patients. Responders felt most comfortable in the management of hypoxemia in intubated patients and the management of ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (93% strongly agree or agree, and 86% strongly agree or agree, respectively). Fewer responders felt more comfortable using focused echocardiography (70% strongly agree or agree) and lung ultrasonography in following progression of COVID-19 (76% strongly agree or agree). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based training improved provider comfort in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Prevalence and Outcomes of D-Dimer Elevation in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of D-dimer elevation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization, trajectory of D-dimer levels during hospitalization, and its association with clinical outcomes. Approach and Results: Consecutive adults admitted to a large New York City hospital system with a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) between March 1, 2020 and April 8, 2020 were identified. Elevated D-dimer was defined by the laboratory-specific upper limit of normal (>230 ng/mL). Outcomes included critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice, or death), thrombotic events, acute kidney injury, and death during admission. Among 2377 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and ≥1 D-dimer measurement, 1823 (76%) had elevated D-dimer at presentation. Patients with elevated presenting baseline D-dimer were more likely than those with normal D-dimer to have critical illness (43.9% versus 18.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.9-3.1]; P<0.001), any thrombotic event (19.4% versus 10.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6]; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (42.4% versus 19.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.9-3.1]; P<0.001), and death (29.9% versus 10.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.6-2.9]; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events increased with the magnitude of D-dimer elevation; individuals with presenting D-dimer >2000 ng/mL had the highest risk of critical illness (66%), thrombotic event (37.8%), acute kidney injury (58.3%), and death (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal D-dimer was frequently observed at admission with COVID-19 and was associated with higher incidence of critical illness, thrombotic events, acute kidney injury, and death. The optimal management of patients with elevated D-dimer in COVID-19 requires further study.

Thromboelastography Profiles of Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The rate of thromboembolic events among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is high; however, there is no robust method to identify those at greatest risk. We reviewed thromboelastography studies in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 to characterize their coagulation states. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Tertiary ICU in New York City. PATIENTS: Sixty-four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU with thromboelastography performed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients had a clotting index in the hypercoagulable range (clotting index > 3) (median 3.05). Reaction time and K values were below the lower limit of normal in 43.8% of the population consistent with a hypercoagulable profile. The median α angle and maximum amplitude (75.8° and 72.8 mm, respectively) were in the hypercoagulable range. The α angle was above reference range in 70.3% of patients indicative of rapid clot formation. Maximum amplitude, a factor of fibrinogen and platelet count and function, and a measure of clot strength was above reference range in 60.1% of patients. Thirty-one percent had thromboembolic events; thromboelastography parameters did not correlate with events in our cohort. Those with D-dimer values greater than 2,000 were more likely to have shorter reaction times compared with those with D-dimer levels less than or equal to 2,000 (4.8 vs 5.6 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have hypercoagulable thromboelastography profiles with additional derangements related to fibrinogen and platelet function. As the majority of patients have an elevated thromboelastography maximum amplitude, a follow-up study evaluating platelet aggregation would be instructive.

Critical Care Transesophageal Echocardiography in Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an extraordinary strain on healthcare systems across North America. Defining the optimal approach for managing a critically ill COVID-19 patient is rapidly changing. Goal-directed transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is frequently used by physicians caring for intubated critically ill patients as a reliable imaging modality that is well suited to answer questions at bedside. METHODS: A multidisciplinary (intensive care, critical care cardiology, and emergency medicine) group of experts in point-of-care echocardiography and TEE from the United States and Canada convened to review the available evidence, share experiences, and produce a consensus statement aiming to provide clinicians with a framework to maximize the safety of patients and healthcare providers when considering focused point-of-care TEE in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Although transthoracic echocardiography can provide the information needed in most patients, there are specific scenarios in which TEE represents the modality of choice. TEE provides acute care clinicians with a goal-directed framework to guide clinical care and represents an ideal modality to evaluate hemodynamic instability during prone ventilation, perform serial evaluations of the lungs, support cardiac arrest resuscitation, and guide veno-venous ECMO cannulation. To aid other clinicians in performing TEE during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe a set of principles and practical aspects for performing examinations with a focus on the logistics, personnel, and equipment required before, during, and after an examination. CONCLUSIONS: In the right clinical scenario, TEE is a tool that can provide the information needed to deliver the best and safest possible care for the critically ill patients.