Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 104
Filter
1.
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis ; JOUR(7), 6.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-2082399

ABSTRACT

Background A rise in hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) in children has led to increased awareness regarding VTE prophylaxis and risk assessment. Despite this, no consensus exists regarding these practices in pediatrics. Objective To describe common practices in VTE prophylaxis, VTE risk assessment models, and anticoagulation dosing strategies in pediatric hospitals that are members of the Children's Hospital Acquired Thrombosis (CHAT) Consortium. Methods An electronic survey of 44 questions evaluating practices surrounding pediatric HA-VTE risk assessment and prevention was distributed between August 9, 2021, and August 30, 2021, to the primary investigators from the 32 institutions within the CHAT Consortium. Results The survey response rate was 100% (n = 32). In total, 85% (n = 27) of the institutions assess HA-VTE, but only 63% (n = 20) have formal hospital guidelines. Within the institutions with formal guidelines, 100% (n = 20) include acute systemic inflammation or infection and presence of a central venous catheter (CVC) as risk factors for VTE. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is prescribed at 87% (28) of institutions, with enoxaparin being the most frequent (96%, n = 27). Variability in responses persisted regarding risk factors, risk assessment, thromboprophylaxis, dosing of prophylactic anticoagulation or anticoagulant drug monitoring. A majority of providers were comfortable providing thromboprophylaxis across all age groups. In addition, the global coronavirus disease 2019 increased the providers' use of prophylactic anticoagulation 78% (n = 25). Conclusion Practices among institutions are variable in regard to use of HA-VTE prophylaxis, risk assessment, or guideline implementation, highlighting the need for further research and a validated risk assessment model through groups like the CHAT Consortium.

2.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 2022 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2078296

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial.

3.
J Clin Med ; 11(20)2022 10 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2071535

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients.

4.
TH Open ; 6(3): e251-e256, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2062315

ABSTRACT

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection causes acute respiratory insufficiency with severe interstitial pneumonia and extrapulmonary complications; in particular, it may predispose to thromboembolic disease. The reported incidence of thromboembolic complications varies from 5 to 30% of cases. Aim We conducted a multicenter, Italian, retrospective, observational study on COVID-19 patients admitted to ordinary wards, to describe the clinical characteristics of patients at admission and bleeding and thrombotic events occurring during the hospital stay. Results The number of hospitalized patients included in the START-COVID-19 Register was 1,135, and the number of hospitalized patients in ordinary wards included in the study was 1,091, with 653 (59.9%) being males and 71 years (interquartile range 59-82 years) being the median age. During the observation, two (0.2%) patients had acute coronary syndrome episodes and one patient (0.1%) had an ischemic stroke; no other arterial thrombotic events were recorded. Fifty-nine patients had symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) (5.4%) events, 18 (30.5%) deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 39 (66.1%) pulmonary embolism (PE), and 2 (3.4%) DVT+PE. Among patients with DVT, eight (44.4%) were isolated distal DVT and two cases were jugular thrombosis. Among patients with PE, seven (17.9%) events were limited to subsegmental arteries. No fatal PE was recorded. Major bleeding events occurred in nine (1.2%) patients and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in nine (1.2%) patients. All bleeding events occurred among patients receiving thromboprophylaxis, more frequently when treated with subtherapeutic or therapeutic dosages. Conclusion Our findings confirm that patients admitted to ordinary wards for COVID-19 infection are at high risk for thromboembolic events. VTE recorded among these patients is mainly isolated PE, suggesting a peculiar characteristic of VTE in these patients.

5.
Cent European J Urol ; 75(2): 128-134, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2044124

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Venous thrombosis is a well-known complication of cancer disease, especially in Urology. However, even though proper antithrombotic prophylaxis is crucial in most urological procedures, we have insufficient high-quality studies on this topic. The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines are outdated and lack data on COVID-19 increased risk of thrombosis. This review aimed to summarize data on thromboprophylaxis after radical prostatectomy, cystectomy, and nephrectomy during COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods: A thorough analysis of the EAU Guidelines of Thromboprophylaxis was performed and compared to PubMed search, considering updated literature on thromboprophylaxis of radical prostatectomy, cystectomy, nephrectomy, as well as COVID-19 influence on venous thrombosis and urological practice. Results: Each patient should be evaluated individually to balance bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. There is still much uncertainty in low and medium-risk patients and all endoscopic procedures, where thromboprophylaxis could be omitted. Patients with COVID infection bear a significantly higher risk of VTE. All patients should be tested for COVID infection prior to a planned surgery during bursts of infections, undependably of vaccination status. Efforts to maintain early cancer diagnosis and treatment during the pandemic should be maintained. Conclusions: The quality of evidence is inadequate, and when deciding on thromboprophylaxis, we need to base it on individual risk, cancer advancement, procedure type, and our own experience.

6.
Clin Pract ; 12(5): 766-781, 2022 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2043609

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently occurs in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and is associated with increased mortality. Several global guidelines recommended prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation rather than intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related acute or critical illness without suspected or confirmed VTE. Even though standard doses of thromboprophylaxis are received, many cases of thrombotic complications are reported; hence, appropriate and adequate thromboprophylaxis is critical for the prevention of VTE in COVID-19. In spite of an increased prevalence of VTE in Indian patients, sufficient data on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and therapeutic approach for VTE in COVID is lacking. In this article, we review the available global literature (search conducted up to 31 May 2021) and provide clinical insights into our approach towards managing VTE in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, in this review, we summarize the incidence and risk factors for VTE with emphasis on the thromboprophylaxis approach in hospitalized patients and special populations with COVID-19 and assess clinical implications in the Indian context.

7.
TH Open ; 6(4): e323-e334, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031841

ABSTRACT

Background Thromboembolism remains a detrimental complication of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) despite the use of prophylactic doses of anticoagulation Objectives This study aimed to compare different thromboprophylaxis strategies in COVID-19 patients Methods We conducted a systematic database search until June 30, 2022. Eligible studies were randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies that compared prophylactic to intermediate or therapeutic doses of anticoagulation in adult patients with COVID-19, admitted to general wards or intensive care unit (ICU). Primary outcomes were mortality, thromboembolism, and bleeding events. Data are analyzed separately in RCTs and non-RCTs and in ICU and non-ICU patients. Results. We identified 682 studies and included 53 eligible studies. Therapeutic anticoagulation showed no mortality benefit over prophylactic anticoagulation in four RCTs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-2.54). Therapeutic anticoagulation didn't improve mortality in ICU or non-ICU patients. Risk of thromboembolism was significantly lower among non-ICU patients who received enhanced (therapeutic/intermediate) anticoagulation (OR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06-0.74). Two additional RCTs (Multiplatform Trial and HEP-COVID), not included in quantitative meta-analysis, analyzed non-ICU patients, and reported a similar benefit with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a significantly higher risk of bleeding events among non-randomized studies (OR = 3.45, 95% CI, 2.32-5.13). Among RCTs, although patients who received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation had higher numbers of bleeding events, these differences were not statistically significant. Studies comparing prophylactic and intermediate-dose anticoagulation showed no differences in primary outcomes. Conclusion There is a lack of mortality benefit with therapeutic-dose over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation in ICU and non-ICU COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic anticoagulation significantly decreased risk of thromboembolism risk in some of the available RCTs, especially among non-ICU patients. This potential benefit, however, may be counter balanced by higher risk of bleeding. Individualized assessment of patient's bleeding risk will ultimately impact the true clinical benefit of anticoagulation in each patient. Finally, we found no mortality or morbidity benefit with intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

8.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 9: 978420, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2022667

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

9.
J Hematol Oncol ; 15(1): 116, 2022 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021317

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 related poor outcomes, including thrombosis and death, due to the advanced age, the presence of comorbidities, and the disease and treatment-related immune deficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study conducted by ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, including patients from 79 centers across 22 countries. Data collection was conducted between April and May 2021. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2 on nasal or pharyngeal swabs. Severe cases of COVID-19 were defined by hospitalization and the need of oxygen or admission into ICU. Development and type of thrombotic events, presence and severity of bleeding complications were reported during treatment for COVID-19. Bleeding events were classified using ISTH definition. STROBE recommendations were used in order to enhance reporting. RESULTS: A total of 793 patients from 79 centers were included in the study with 593 being hospitalized (74.8%). Among these, 511 were defined as having severe COVID: 162 were admitted to the ICU while 349 received oxygen supplementation outside the ICU. Most patients (90.5%) were receiving thromboprophylaxis. During COVID-19 treatment, 11.1% developed a thromboembolic event, while 5.0% experienced bleeding. Thrombosis developed in 21.6% of patients who were not receiving thromboprophylaxis, in contrast to 10.6% of patients who were on thromboprophylaxis. Bleeding episodes were more frequent in patients receiving intermediate/therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) (8.1% vs. 3.8%, respectively) and in elderly. In multivariate analysis, peak D-dimer level and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio were poor prognostic factors for thrombosis occurrence (OR = 1.022, 95%CI 1.007‒1.038 and OR = 1.025, 95%CI 1.001‒1.051, respectively), while thromboprophylaxis use was protective (OR = 0.199, 95%CI 0.061‒0.645). Age and LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration were prognostic factors in multivariate model for bleeding (OR = 1.062, 95%CI 1.017-1.109 and OR = 2.438, 95%CI 1.023-5.813, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19 are at a high risk of thrombosis if thromboprophylaxis is not used, but also at increased risk of bleeding under the LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell , Thrombosis , Venous Thromboembolism , Aged , Anticoagulants , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Hemorrhage , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Vascular ; : 17085381221126235, 2022 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021044

ABSTRACT

Novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) represents a significant risk factor for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized with both moderate and severe/critical COVID-19. Herein, we present a brief updated review on emerging robust data on diverse thromboprophylaxis strategies used to mitigate VTE complications, as well as a personal point of view of current controversies in regards the use of therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation strategies, particularly in the moderately-ill subgroup of patients with COVID-19.

11.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(18)2022 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2010124

ABSTRACT

For over two years, the world has been facing the epidemiological and health challenge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Growing problems are also complications after the development of COVID-19 in the form of post and long- COVID syndromes, posing a challenge for the medical community, both for clinicians and the scientific world. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications, especially thromboembolic complications, which are associated with both thrombosis of small and very small vessels due to immunothrombosis, and the development of venous thromboembolism. Low molecular wight heparin (LMHW) are the basic agents used in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic complications in COVID-19. There is still a great deal of controversy regarding both the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic complications, including the prophylaxis dose or the optimal duration of anticoagulant treatment in patients with an episode of venous thromboembolism.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Venous Thrombosis , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy
12.
Lancet Oncology ; 23(7):E334-E347, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1980468

ABSTRACT

The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group of experts aimed at establishing global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. The 2013, 2016, and 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines have been made available through a free, web-based mobile phone application. The 2022 clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a literature review up to Jan 1, 2022, include guidance for patients with cancer and with COVID-19. Key recommendations (grade 1A or 1B) include: (1) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the initial (first 10 days) treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis;(2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients who are not at high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, in the absence of strong drug-drug interactions or of gastrointestinal absorption impairment;(3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to treat cancer-associated thrombosis;(4) extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWHs to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism after major abdominopelvic surgery in patients not at high risk of bleeding;and (5) primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are treated with anticancer therapy and have a low risk of bleeding.

13.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 28: 10760296221116350, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974064

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare Anti-Xa directed thromboprophylaxis using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (anti-Xa peak goal 0.2-0.5 IU/mL) to alternative anticoagulation strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, single health-system study. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and clinically important bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included dosing comparisons between LMWH cohorts. Main Results: A total of 695 patients were included. No differences were found in the incidence of thrombotic events with any of the dosing strategies. The incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the standard dose thromboprophylaxis, intermediate dose subcutaneous heparin (SQH), and therapeutic anticoagulation cohorts. Forty-nine percent of patients within the anti-Xa directed group had their first anti-Xa peak at goal, while 43% were above goal. Patients who had levels above goal had dose modifications made, therefore anti-Xa directed LMWH resulted in significantly lower total daily doses compared to intermediate dose LMWH. Conclusions: Anti-Xa directed LMWH dosing provided comparable thromboprophylaxis with lower total daily doses of LMWH in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Anticoagulants , Critical Illness , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
14.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes ; 8(8): 909-918, 2022 Nov 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1973139

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched several databases and included observational studies or clinical trials that compared the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of nine studies comprising 9637 patients were included. Metanalysis showed that LMWH administration was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality and 28/30-day mortality compared with UFH administration {[relative risk (RR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32-0.61; I2: 87.9%] and (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; I2: 78.4%), respectively}. Patient with LMWH had shorter duration of hospital and ICU length of stay compared with UFH {[weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.20; 95% CI -3.01 to -1.40; I2:0%] and (WMD -1.41; 95% CI -2.20 to -0.63; I2: 0%), respectively}. The risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation was lower in patients who received LMWH than in those who received UFH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.81; I2: 67.3%). However, there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-1.01; I2: 64.6%). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that administration of LMWH was associated with better outcomes compared with UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective cohorts and RCTs are urgently needed to explore the definitive effect of LMWH to provide direct high-certainty evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021271977.

16.
REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE ; 23(6), 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1939696

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolic (VTE) events have been increasingly reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after hospital discharge. Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most frequent type of post-discharge VTE complication. Levels of procoagulants (fibrinogen, factor VIII, von Willebrand factor), and D-dimer are higher during the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with more severe inflammatory and procoagulant response experience higher VTE rates during hospitalization, while the risk after hospital discharge have not been well characterized. The incidence of VTE events following hospitalization is heterogeneous, ranging from low (3.1 per 1000 discharges), to 1.8%, which appears higher than for other medical condition. This discrepancy was partially explained by the differences in VTE screening and follow-up strategies, and by the period when the information about the VTE was collected. These data were based mainly on observational and retrospective studies;however, evolving data are to come after the completion of the prospective trials. The current guidelines do not recommend routine post-hospital VTE prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients but recommend it for all hospitalized adults. A careful risk-benefit assessment of VTE probability should be performed, to determine whether an individual patient may merit post-discharge thromboprophylaxis. A score such IMPROVE DD can help identify the patient who will potentially benefit but is also important to consider the bleeding risk and the feasibility. The optimal duration and the type of extended thromboprophylaxis is still under debate (from a minimum of 14 days to a maximum of 42 days), and future studies will help to validate these protocols in different populations. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), warfarin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are recommended, but low doses of DOACs rather than LMVII or warfarin were predominantly used in most patients. Finally, the COVID-19 patients should be educated to recognize and advised to seek urgent medical care should VTE events occur after hospital discharge.

17.
Res Social Adm Pharm ; 18(12): 4048-4055, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1937139

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many thrombotic complications are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Antithrombotic treatments are important for prophylaxis against these thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare enoxaparin and rivaroxaban as prophylactic anticoagulants in moderate cases of COVID-19 in terms of efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study involved 124 patients with moderate COVID-19 (pneumonia without hypoxia) divided into two groups. The first group (G1) comprised 66 patients who received enoxaparin subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg every 12 h until discharge from the hospital. The second group (G2) comprised 58 patients who received oral rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg once daily until discharge from the hospital. The outcomes evaluated in this study were as follows: intermediate care unit (IMCU) duration, the number of patients transferred from the IMCU to the intensive care unit (ICU), ICU duration, the total length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and thrombotic and bleeding complications. RESULTS: No significant differences in IMCU duration (p = 0.39), ICU duration (p = 0.96), and total length of hospital stay (p = 0.73) were observed between the two groups. The percentage of patients requiring ICU admission after hospitalization was 21.2% in G1 and 22.4% in G2 (p = 0.87). The mortality rate was 12.1% in G1 and 10.3% in G2 (p = 0.76). The proportion of patients who had thrombotic complications was 9.1% in G1 and 12.1% in G2 (p = 0.59). The incidence of mild bleeding was 3% in G1 and 1.7% in G2 (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Either enoxaparin or rivaroxaban may be used as thromboprophylaxis agents in managing patients with moderate COVID-19. Either medication has no clear advantage over the other.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
18.
Acta Med Indones ; 54(2): 190-209, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1929547

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of anticoagulants has been endorsed by different hematological societies as coagulation abnormalities are key features of COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide the most recent update on available evidence on the clinical benefits and risk of oral and parenteral anticoagulants, as well agents with anticoagulant properties, in hospitalized and post-discharge COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This systematic review synthesizes data on the outcome of anticoagulation in hospitalized and post-discharge COVID-19 patients. Dichotomous variables from individual studies were pooled by risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. RESULTS: We included 32 studies from 2.815 unique citations, including 7 randomized clinical trials. A total of 33.494 patients were included. Outcomes measured include mortality and survival rates, the requirement for ICU care and mechanical ventilation. A pooled meta-analysis favors anticoagulant compared to no anticoagulant with reduced mortality in hospitalized patients (RR 0,55; 95%CI 0,43-0,66; p<0,001). Higher dose of anticoagulant also showed treatment benefit compared to standard prophylactic dose in selected populations (RR 0,68; 95%CI 0,40-0,96; p<0,001). Regular, pre-hospital anticoagulation prior to hospitalization yielded mixed result. There are currently no data on the benefit of anticoagulation on post-discharge COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Determination of the presence of thrombosis in COVID-19 is important, as therapeutic dosage of anticoagulants, rather than prophylatic dose, would be indicated in such clinical situation. Anticoagulants were found to decrease the mortality of hospitalized COVID-19. The results from this study are important in the tailored treatment of COVID-19 patients. Further studies on the need for oral anticoagulation for outpatients or post-discharge is warranted. This study has been registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42020201418).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Aftercare , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Patient Discharge , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
19.
Anticancer Res ; 42(7): 3261-3274, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924868

ABSTRACT

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Thrombosis , Venous Thromboembolism , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Endothelial Cells , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
20.
Expert Rev Hematol ; 15(7): 597-605, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915459

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients, particularly those with high-risk features, are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolic events for approximately 30 days or more after hospital discharge. Extended post-hospital discharge thromboprophylaxis has potential to reduce this risk. AREAS COVERED: Recent cohort, registry, and randomized trial data on the topic of extended post-discharge thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 inpatients are reviewed, and key patient subgroups at high thrombotic risk are highlighted, with antithrombotic guidelines on the topic discussed. EXPERT OPINION: COVID-19 inpatients with cardiovascular risk factors, advanced age, intensive care unit stay, or an IMPROVE VTE score of 4 or more or a score of 2 or 3 plus elevated D-dimers (> twice the upper limit of normal) or an IMPROVE-DD VTE score of ≥4 are at high thrombotic risk in the post-discharge period. These high-risk patient subgroups benefit from extended post-discharge thromboprophylaxis, specifically with rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 35 days. Recent NIH and ISTH guidelines recommend or suggest this approach. Results from other clinical trials are pending.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Aftercare , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Patient Discharge , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL