Anti-factor Xa vs aPTT for heparin monitoring in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the correlation of anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) measures with heparin dosing in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating adult patients managed on ECMO for at least 24 hours who received unfractionated heparin for systemic anticoagulation and were monitored per protocol using anti-Xa and/or aPTT coagulation assays. The primary outcome was the correlation between aPTT and anti-Xa measures. The secondary outcomes included, but were not limited to, the number of hemorrhagic and thrombotic events. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were included in this study. In the 227 events where both laboratory values were collected, a weak correlation was found between anti-Xa and aPTT (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.4, P = 0). In the 12 hemorrhagic events that occurred, aPTT was collected for only 10 events. Fifty percent of those events were associated with supratherapeutic aPTT, while none of the hemorrhagic events were associated with a supratherapeutic anti-Xa level. Two thrombotic events occurred, one of which had subtherapeutic anti-Xa and aPTT and the other of which had neither an anti-Xa nor aPTT measure on the day the event occurred. CONCLUSION: In a population of patients on ECMO, many of whom had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a weak association between aPTT and anti-Xa measures. Hemorrhagic evens were more common than thrombotic events; however, a relationship between these events and aPTT or anti-Xa levels was not determined. The applicability of these findings to an ECMO population without COVID-19 is unknown and will require further study.

Edoxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, management of anticoagulation therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was simplified to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulation, mainly owing to the risk of drug-drug interactions. However, not all oral anticoagulants carry the same risk. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, and multicenter study that consecutively included hospitalized patients with AF anticoagulated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation or edoxaban concomitantly with empirical COVID-19 therapy. Time-to-event (mortality, total bleeds, and admissions to ICU) curves, using an unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model adjusted for potential confounders were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included (80.3 ± 7.7 years, 50.0% men, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 2.6 ± 1.0). During hospitalization, patients were taking azithromycin (98.7%), hydroxychloroquine (89.7%), and ritonavir/lopinavir (81.5%). The mean length of hospital stay was 14.6 ± 7.2 days, and total follow-up was 31.6 ± 13.4 days; 12.9% of patients required admission to ICU, 18.5% died, and 9.9% had a bleeding complication (34.8% major bleeding). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients taking LMWH (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 13.3 ± 6.5 days; P = .005), but mortality and total bleeds were similar in patients treated with edoxaban and those treated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates, arterial and venous thromboembolic complications, and bleeds did not significantly differ between AF patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with edoxaban or LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. However, the duration of hospitalization was significantly lower with edoxaban. Edoxaban had a similar therapeutic profile to LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation and may provide additional benefits.

Integral assays of hemostasis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on admission and during heparin thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Blood coagulation abnormalities play a major role in COVID-19 pathophysiology. However, the specific details of hypercoagulation and anticoagulation treatment require investigation. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of the coagulation system by means of integral and local clotting assays in COVID-19 patients on admission to the hospital and in hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: Thrombodynamics (TD), thromboelastography (TEG), and standard clotting assays were performed in 153 COVID-19 patients observed in a hospital setting. All patients receiving treatment, except extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients (n = 108), were administered therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) depending on body weight. The ECMO patients (n = 15) were administered unfractionated heparin (UFH). RESULTS: On admission, the patients (n = 30) had extreme hypercoagulation by all integral assays: TD showed hypercoagulation in ~75% of patients, while TEG showed hypercoagulation in ~50% of patients. The patients receiving treatment showed a significant heparin response based on TD; 77% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 15% were normal, and 8% remained in hypercoagulation. TEG showed less of a response to heparin: 24% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 59% were normal and 17% remained in hypercoagulation. While hypocoagulation is likely due to heparin treatment, remaining in significant hypercoagulation may indicate insufficient anticoagulation for some patients, which is in agreement with our clinical findings. There were 3 study patients with registered thrombosis episodes, and all were outside the target range for TD parameters typical for effective thromboprophylaxis (1 patient was in weak hypocoagulation, atypical for the LMWH dose used, and 2 patients remained in the hypercoagulation range despite therapeutic LMWH doses). CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 have severe hypercoagulation, which persists in some patients receiving anticoagulation treatment, while significant hypocoagulation is observed in others. The data suggest critical issues of hemostasis balance in these patients and indicate the potential importance of integral assays in its control.

Fondaparinux Sodium: Recent Advances in the Management of Thrombosis.

Fondaparinux sodium is a chemically synthesized selective factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events, that is, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and superficial vein thrombosis, in acutely ill (including those affected by COVID-19 or cancer patients) and those undergoing surgeries. Since its approval in 2002, the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux is well demonstrated by many clinical studies, establishing the value of fondaparinux in clinical practice. Some of the advantages with fondaparinux are its chemical nature of synthesis, minimal risk of contamination, 100% absolute bioavailability subcutaneously, instant onset of action, a long half-life, direct renal excretion, fewer adverse reactions when compared with direct oral anticoagulants, and being an ideal alternative in conditions where oral anticoagulants are not approved for use or in patients intolerant to low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). In the last decade, the real-world use of fondaparinux has been explored in other conditions such as acute coronary syndromes, bariatric surgery, in patients developing vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and in pregnant women with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or those intolerant to LMWH. The emerging data from these studies have culminated in recent updates in the guidelines that recommend the use of fondaparinux under various conditions. This paper aims to review the recent data and the subsequent updates in the recommendations of various guidelines on the use of fondaparinux sodium.

The Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Patients with Chronic Diseases Admitted to ICU: a Cohort Retrospective Study.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection is causing significant morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. A comprehensive investigation of the disease characteristics, especially among vulnerable disease groups, could help better manage the disease and reduce the pathogen's effect. This retrospective study examined the impact of COVID-19 infection on three groups of patients with chronic diseases. We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 535 COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD), chronic kidney diseases (CKD), and Cancer that were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Of the total cases, 433 patients (80.93%) were discharged from the ICU, and 102 patients (19.06%) were declared dead. Patients' symptoms, their clinical laboratory findings, number and type of medications, length of ICU stay, and outcome were collected and analyzed. Most COVID-19 patients included in our study were associated with other comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and heart disease and failure. Upon ICU admission, the main COVID-19-related symptoms in CVD, CKD, and cancer patients were cough (55.73, 50.42, and 50.5%, respectively), Shortness of Breath (SOB) (59.38, 43.1, and 43.7%, respectively), and fever (41.15%, 48.75%, and 28.2%, respectively). In terms of lab findings, D-dimer, LDH, and inflammatory markers, in particular, were outside the normal range. Treatment options for patients with COVID-19 in ICU were mainly antibiotics, synthetic glucocorticoids, and Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH). Furthermore, CKD patients had a longer ICU stay (13.93 ± 15.87 days) which illustrates the poorer outcome in this group of patients compared with the others. In conclusion, our results highlighted the significant risk factors among COVID-19 patients within the three groups. This can guide physicians in prioritizing ICU admission and help in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Heparin for Preventing Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

A high rate of thromboembolism and a high risk of death have been reported regarding hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we noticed that clinicians in some comparative studies used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether DOACs are better than recommended heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, a direct comparison of the prophylactic effects and safety between DOACs and heparin is needed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to December 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing the efficacy or safety of DOACs with that of heparin in preventing thromboembolism for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. We assessed endpoints and publication bias using Stata 14.0. Five studies comprising 1360 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate cases were identified in the databases. Comparing the embolism incidence, we found that DOACs had a better effect than heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), in preventing thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43-0.91], P = 0.014). Considering safety, DOACs resulted in less bleeding than heparin during hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.11-2.44], P = 0.411). Similar mortality was discovered in the 2 groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59-1.51], P = 0.797). In noncritically hospitalized patients with COVID-19, DOACs are superior to heparin, even LMWH, in preventing thromboembolism. Compared with heparin, DOACs have a lower trend of bleeding and yield a similar mortality rate. Therefore, DOACs may be a better alternative for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of two heparin regimens for prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.

Pharmacology of Heparin and Related Drugs: An Update.

Heparin has been used extensively as an antithrombotic and anticoagulant for close to 100 years. This anticoagulant activity is attributed mainly to the pentasaccharide sequence, which potentiates the inhibitory action of antithrombin, a major inhibitor of the coagulation cascade. More recently it has been elucidated that heparin exhibits anti-inflammatory effect via interference of the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps and this may also contribute to heparin's antithrombotic activity. This illustrates that heparin interacts with a broad range of biomolecules, exerting both anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant actions. Since our previous review, there has been an increased interest in these nonanticoagulant effects of heparin, with the beneficial role in patients infected with SARS2-coronavirus a highly topical example. This article provides an update on our previous review with more recent developments and observations made for these novel uses of heparin and an overview of the development status of heparin-based drugs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This state-of-the-art review covers recent developments in the use of heparin and heparin-like materials as anticoagulant, now including immunothrombosis observations, and as nonanticoagulant including a role in the treatment of SARS-coronavirus and inflammatory conditions.

The Effectiveness of the Intermediate and Therapeutic Doses of Enoxaparin in COVID-19 Patients: A Comparative Study of Factor Xa Inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Management of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients is critical. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis is already recommended, and anti-Factor Xa (anti-FXa) monitoring has been used to titrate LMWH doses. METHODS: Through a cross-sectional study, we evaluated anti-FXa activity in patients admitted to the ICU, receiving intermediate dose (30, 40, 50 mg, subcutaneously [SC], twice daily) or therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg, SC, Q12h) of enoxaparin to find whether the patients in these two groups achieved anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range. RESULTS: The occurrence of deep vein thrombosis was 26% in the therapeutic-dose group and 17% in the intermediate-dose group. D-dimer values were nearly 3.5-fold higher in those who received a therapeutic dose of anticoagulants than in those who received intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis. Patients in the therapeutic-dose group had significantly higher IL-6 levels (p ≤ 0.001). More than one-third of the patients in the therapeutic-dose group (n = 8; 42.18%) and approximately half of the patients in the intermediate-dose group (n = 12; 52.2%) achieved the target range level of anti-FXa. Patients who received therapeutic doses were more likely to have anti-FXa levels above the expected range (47.4 vs 13% in the intermediate-dose group; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic dose of enoxaparin in critically ill COVID-19-infected patients did not reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events and, on the other hand, may predispose these patients to increased risk of bleeding by increasing anti-FXa activity above the desired level. Administration of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis is suggested to achieve anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range.

Efficacy and safety of nafamostat mesilate anticoagulation in blood purification treatment of critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nafamostat mesilate (NM), a broad-spectrum and potent serine protease inhibitor, can be used as an anticoagulant during extracorporeal circulation, as well as a promising drug effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NM administration in critically ill patients who underwent blood purification therapy (BPT). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed were comprehensively searched from inception to August 20, 2021, for potential studies. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven observational studies with 2723 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrated that conventional therapy (CT) significantly increased hospital mortality compared with NM administration (RR = 1.25, p = 0.0007). In subgroup analyses, the in-hospital mortality of the NM group was significantly lower than that of the anticoagulant-free (NA) group (RR = 1.31, p = 0.002). The CT interventions markedly elevated the risk ratio of bleeding complications by 45% (RR = 1.45, p = 0.010) compared with NM interventions. In another subgroup analysis, NM used exhibited a significantly lower risk of bleeding complications than those of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) used (RR = 4.58, p = 0.020). The filter lifespan was decreased significantly (MD = -10.59, p < 0.0001) in the NA groups compared with the NM groups. Due to the poor quality of the included RCTs, these results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Given the better survival outcomes, lower risk of bleeding, NM anticoagulation seems to be a safe and efficient approach for BPT patients and could yield a favorable filter lifespan. More multi-center RCTs with large samples are required for further validation of this study.

Tinzaparin-a review of its molecular profile, pharmacology, special properties, and clinical uses.

PURPOSE: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are a group of heterogenous moieties, long used in the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. They derive from heparin and since they are prepared by different methods of depolymerization, they differ in pharmacokinetic properties and anticoagulant profiles, and thus are not clinically interchangeable. METHODS: In this review we provide an overview of tinzaparin's main characteristics and uses. RESULTS: Tinzaparin which is produced by the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be used for the treatment and prevention of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE); it has been also used in special populations such as elders, obese, pregnant women, and patients with renal impairment and/or cancer with favorable outcomes in both safety and efficacy, with a once daily dose regimen. Furthermore, LMWHs are extensively used in clinical practice for both thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis treatment of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Tinzaparin features support the hypothesis for having a role in immunothrombosis treatment (i.e. in the context of cancer ,COVID-19), interfering not only with coagulation cascade but also exhibiting anti-inflammatory potency.

A Review of Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants and Their Use in Solid Organ Transplantation.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has increased dramatically since their introduction because of the growing evidence of proven efficacy and enhanced safety compared with warfarin and the low-molecular-weight heparins in the general population. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of quality data regarding the safety and efficacy of the DOACs in patients awaiting organ transplant and those who received a solid organ transplant. This review aims to evaluate the available literature and considerations regarding anticoagulation use in transplant recipients, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative DOAC use.

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

The Effect of Heparin Full-Dose Anticoagulation on Survival of Hospitalized, Non-critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-analysis of High Quality Studies.

BACKGROUND: International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.98; P = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was "moderate." CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993.

A consensus viewpoint on the role of direct factor Xa inhibitors in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of cancer-related death. Historically, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were the gold standard therapy for cancer-associated VTE, but recent evidence supports the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE and this is now reflected in many guidelines. However, uptake of direct factor Xa inhibitors varies and guidance on the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in specific cancer sub-populations and clinical situations is lacking. This review presents consensus expert opinion alongside evaluation of evidence to support healthcare professionals in the use of direct factor Xa inhibitors in cancer-associated VTE. METHODS: Recent guidelines, meta-analyses, reviews and clinical studies on anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE were used to direct clinically relevant topics and evidence to be systematically discussed using nominal group technique. The consensus manuscript and recommendations were developed based on these discussions. RESULTS: Considerations when prescribing anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE include cancer site and stage, systemic anti-cancer therapy (including vascular access), drug-drug interactions, length of anticoagulation, quality of life and needs during palliative care. Treatment of patients with kidney or liver impairment, gastrointestinal disorders, extremes of bodyweight, elevated bleeding or recurrence risk, VTE recurrence and COVID-19 is discussed. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE patients should be carefully selected with consideration given to the relative benefits of specific drugs when individualizing care. Direct factor Xa inhibitors are typically the treatment of choice for preventing VTE recurrence in non-cancer patients and should also be considered as such for cancer-associated VTE in most situations.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Deep Venous Thrombosis after Conservative Treatment of Clavicular Fracture in COVID-19 Negative Children: Two Case Reports.

A 13-year-old girl suffered fracture of her left clavicle. A figure-of-8 bandage was placed during initial treatment. Six days after trauma her distal arm, elbow and proximal forearm were swollen, pain and tenderness of distal part of brachial vein was recognized during clinical examination. Duplex ultrasonography revealed partial thrombosis of the brachial vein. Bandage was immediately removed and administration of LMWH (enoxaparin) was started. Complete recanalization was achieved after a few days. The fracture was healed without further complication, patient was without sonographic and clinical signs of post-thrombotic syndrome. The second case report describes a 14-year-old boy. Initially, the fixation was a figure-of-8 bandage. 5 days after the injury he had swollen arm and elbow on the injured side, according to duplex ultrasonography deep venous thrombosis of the axillary and the brachial vein was recognized. There was only partial recanalization at the first sonographic follow up, the patient was converted to Warfarin for 3 months after injury after initial LMWH therapy. At the last follow-up, fracture of the left clavicle was healed and there were no DUSG or clinical signs of post-thrombotic syndrome. Key words: clavicle, deep venous thrombosis of the upper extremity, anticoagulant therapy.