Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Curr Vasc Pharmacol ; 20(1): 96-110, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372047

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is common among patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy has not yet been defined. OBJECTIVE: To identify published guidance reports by national and international societies regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in COVID-19 patients in different settings (outpatients, hospitalized, post-discharge). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (Pubmed/EMBASE) was conducted independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Among 1942 initially identified articles, 33 guidance documents were included: 20 published by national and 13 by international societies. These documents provide recommendations mainly for hospitalized (97% of reports) and post-discharge (75%) COVID-19 patients, and less so for outpatients (34%). Thrombotic and bleeding risk stratification prior to any treatment decision is the cornerstone of all suggested thromboprophylaxis strategies; 81% of the documents recommend thromboprophylaxis for all hospitalized patients with a prophylactic dosage of low molecular weight heparin irrespective of VTE risk. Intermediate or therapeutic dose intensity is recommended in high VTE risk patients by 56% and 28% of documents, respectively. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis is suggested in case of high bleeding risk or contraindication to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (59% of documents). Extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients with high VTE risk after hospital discharge (63% of documents). For non-hospitalized outpatients, 28% of documents recommend pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for high VTE risk. CONCLUSION: The current guidance identifies thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients, especially during hospitalization, as of major importance for the prevention of VTE. Recommendations are derived from limited evidence from observational studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Aftercare , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Humans , Patient Discharge , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
2.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med ; 31: 26-31, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-956955

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection for vulnerable aortic stenosis patients and intensive care resource utilization has led to cardiac surgery deferral. Untreated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis has a dismal prognosis. TAVR offers an attractive alternative to surgery as it is not reliant on intensive care resources. We set out to explore the safety and operational efficiency of restructuring a TAVR service and redeploying it to a new non-surgical site during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The institutional prospective service database was retrospectively interrogated for the first 50 consecutive elective TAVR cases prior to and after our institution's operational adaptations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Our endpoints were VARC-2 defined procedural complications, 30-day mortality or re-admission and service efficiency metrics. RESULTS: The profile of patients undergoing TAVR during the pandemic was similar to patients undergoing TAVR prior to the pandemic with the exception of a lower mean age (79 vs 82 years, p < 0.01) and median EuroScore II (3.1% vs 4.6%, p = 0.01). The service restructuring and redeployment contributed to the pandemic-mandated operational efficiency with a reduction in the distribution of pre-admission hospital visits (3 vs 3 visits, p < 0.001) and the time taken from TAVR clinic to procedure (26 vs 77 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to the pre-COVID-19 service. No statistically significant difference was noted in peri-procedural complications and 30-day outcomes, while post-operative length of stay was significantly reduced (2 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to pre-COVID-19 practice. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR service restructuring and redeployment to align with pandemic-mandated healthcare resource rationalization is safe and feasible.


Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , COVID-19 , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Valve/surgery , Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve Stenosis/epidemiology , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL