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.

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.

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.

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.

HIGH HEPARANASE LEVEL IN SURVIVORS OF COVID-19 - INDICATOR OF VASCULAR AND PULMONARY RECOVERY?

ABSTRACT: Background: Severe progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes respiratory failure and critical illness. Recently, COVID-19 has been associated with heparanase (HPSE)-induced endothelial barrier dysfunction and inflammation, so called endothelitis, and therapeutic treatment with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) targeting HPSE has been postulated. Because, up to this date, clinicians are unable to measure the severity of endothelitis, which can lead to multiorgan failure and concomitant death, we investigated plasma levels of HPSE and heparin-binding protein (HBP) in COVID-19 intensive care patients to render a possible link between endothelitis and these plasma parameters. Therefore, a prospective prolonged cohort study was conducted, including 47 COVID-19 patients from the intensive care unit. Plasma levels of HPSE, and HBP were measured daily by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in survivors (n = 35) and nonsurvivors (n = 12) of COVID-19 from admission until discharge or death. All patients were either treated with heparin or LMWH, aiming for an activated partial thromboplastin time of ≥60 seconds or an anti-Xa level of >0.8 IU/mL using enoxaparin, depending on the clinical status of the patient (patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or >0.1 µg/kg/min noradrenaline received heparin, all others enoxaparin). Results: We found significantly higher plasma levels of HPSE and HBP in survivors and nonsurvivors of COVID-19, compared with healthy controls. Still, interestingly, plasma HPSE levels were significantly higher ( P < 0.001) in survivors compared with nonsurvivors of COVID-19. In contrast, plasma HBP levels were significantly reduced ( P < 0.001) in survivors compared with nonsurvivors of COVID-19. Furthermore, when patients received heparin, they had significantly lower HPSE ( P = 2.22 e - 16) and significantly higher HBP ( P = 0.00013) plasma levels as when they received LMWH. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that patients, who recover from COVID-19-induced vascular and pulmonary damage and were discharged from the intensive care unit, have significantly higher plasma HPSE level than patients who succumb to COVID-19. Therefore, HPSE is not suitable as marker for disease severity in COVID-19 but maybe as marker for patient's recovery. In addition, patients receiving therapeutic heparin treatment displayed significantly lower heparanse plasma level than upon therapeutic treatment with LMWH.

Analysis of Prior Aspirin Treatment on in-Hospital Outcome of Geriatric COVID-19 Infected Patients.

Background and Objectives: Aspirin (ASA) is a commonly used antithrombotic drug that has been demonstrated to reduce venous thromboembolism. The aim was to analyze if geriatric COVID-19 patients undergoing a 100 mg/day Aspirin (ASA) treatment prior to hospitalization differ in hospital outcome compared to patients without previous ASA therapy. Materials and Methods: An observational retrospective study was carried out using an anonymized database including geriatric COVID-19 patients (March to April 2020) admitted to Madrid Hospitals Group. A group of COVID-19 patients were treated with low ASA (100 mg/day) prior to COVID-19 infection. Results: Geriatric ASA-treated patients were older (mean age over 70 years; n = 41), had higher frequency of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and upon admission had higher D-dimer levels than non-ASA-treated patients (mean age over 73 years; n = 160). However, patients under ASA treatment did not show more frequent pulmonary thromboembolism (PE) than non-ASA-treated patients. ASA-treated geriatric COVID-19-infected patients in-hospital < 30 days all-cause mortality was more frequent than in non-ASA-treated COVID-19 patients. In ASA-treated COVID-19-infected geriatric patients, anticoagulant therapy with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) significantly reduced need of ICU care, but tended to increase in-hospital < 30 days all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Prior treatment with a low dose of ASA in COVID-19-infected geriatric patients increased frequency of in-hospital < 30 days all-cause mortality, although it seemed to not increase PE frequency despite D-dimer levels upon admission being higher than in non-ASA users. In ASA-treated geriatric COVID-19-infected patients, addition of LMWH therapy reduced frequency of ICU care, but tended to increase in-hospital < 30 days all-cause mortality.

Use of low molecular weight heparin and hemoglobin fall in COVID-19 patients: A STROBE-compliant study.

In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), anticoagulation was suggested as a mitigating strategy. However, little research has been conducted on the adverse consequences of anticoagulant medication. This study aimed to investigate the adverse effect of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on hemoglobin fall in COVID-19 treatment. The electronic medical records of COVID-19 patients with pneumonia were collected (including clinical characteristics, vaccination status, complete blood count, coagulation profile, inflammatory cytokines, serum biochemical indicators, and computerized tomography imaging score). Whether they received LMWH, patients were divided into the LMWH group and the control group. Count data were represented as frequency distribution, and a 2-tailed test was used to compare the 2 groups. Spearman rank correlation was used to evaluate the interrelation between changes in hemoglobin and LMWH. The confounding factors were excluded by logistic regression analysis. A total of 179 COVID-19 pneumonia patients were enrolled (81 in the LMWH group and 98 in the control group). The change in hemoglobin was -6.0g/L (IQR -10.8 to 1.0) in the LMWH group and -2.0g/L (IQR -7.0 to 4.0) in the control group (P < .001, between-group difference, -5.0 g/L; 95% confidence interval, -7.0 to -3.0, calculated with the use of the Mann-Whitney U test and the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of confidence intervals for pseudo-medians). The results of multivariate regression analysis showed that after adjusting for confounding factors, LMWH use was not associated with a decrease in hemoglobin (P > .05). In nonsevere COVID-19 patients with pneumonia, the preventive use of LMWH did not lower hemoglobin.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Resistance and Its Viscoelastic Assessment in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients present an inflammatory and procoagulant status with a high rate of relevant macro- and microvascular thrombosis. Furthermore, high rates of heparin resistance have been described; yet, individualized anticoagulation by drug monitoring has not been sufficiently researched. We analyzed data from critically ill COVID-19 patients treated at Innsbruck Medical University Hospital with routinely adapted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses according to anti-Xa peak levels, and regularly performed ClotPro analyses (a viscoelastic hemostatic whole blood test). A total of 509 anti-Xa peak measurements in 91 patients were categorized as below (<0.008 IU/mL/mg), within (0.008-0-012 IU/mL/mg) or above (> 0.012 IU/mL/mg) expected ranges with respect to the administered LMWH doses. Besides intergroup comparisons, correlations between anti-Xa levels and ClotPro clotting times (CTs) were performed (226 time points in 84 patients). Anti-Xa peak levels remained below the expected range in the majority of performed measurements (63.7%). Corresponding patients presented with higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer but lower antithrombin levels when compared with patients achieving or exceeding the expected range. Consequently, higher enoxaparin doses were applied in the sub-expected anti-Xa range group. Importantly, 47 (51.6%) patients switched between groups during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Anti-Xa levels correlated weakly with IN test CT and moderately with Russell's viper venom (RVV) test CT. Critically ill COVID-19 patients present with a high rate of LMWH resistance but with a variable LMWH response during their ICU stay. Therefore, LMWH-anti-Xa monitoring seems inevitable to achieve adequate target ranges. Furthermore, we propose the use of ClotPro's RVV test to assess the coagulation status during LMWH administration, as it correlates well with anti-Xa levels but more holistically reflects the coagulation cascade than anti-Xa activity alone.

Challenging treatment for refractory acquired haemophilia A complicated with severe severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 infection.

Immunosuppressive treatment and bypassing agents are used to treat acquired haemophilia A (AHA). On the other hand, COVID-19 infection induces a hypercoagulable state. Managing bleeding, risk of thrombosis, bypassing agents, active infection and immunosuppressive treatment can be challenging. A 72-year-old man was diagnosed with acquired hemophilia A. He received steroids, rituximab and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa). He developed severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Due to thrombotic risk, he received low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and developed an iliopsoas hematoma. Because of the risk of thrombosis, treatment with recombinant porcine FVIII (rpFVIII) was requested. Tocilizumab was administered for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection and unexpected improvement of FVIII levels was noted. Concluding, rpFVIII treatment was well tolerated and effective, easy to monitor and to administer. Tocilizumab may play a role as immunosuppressive treatment for AHA. The role of LMWH remains to be established in patients with coagulopathies.

Extrapulmonary Manifestations of SARS-CoV-2: A Report of 3 Cases and a Literature Review.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 disease, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has been one of the greatest challenges in modern medicine. It is mostly known to affect the pulmonary system, leading to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, but there is a growing body of evidence of extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 disease. CASE REPORT This article presents 3 cases of various extrapulmonary symptoms of COVID-19 disease and a literature review of similar clinical cases. Two patients had a medical history of living-donor kidney transplantation, and 1 patient was a kidney donor. We present symptoms, diagnostic processes, laboratory and imaging results, and treatment approach. Patient 1 was 29-year-old woman with new-onset diabetes mellitus due to SARS-CoV-2, which required temporary insulin treatment. Patient 2 was a 34-year-old man with fever, chronic fatigue, back pain, and abdominal pain. Imagining showed acalculous cholecystitis, epiploic appendagitis of the right colic flexure, and inflammation of pericardial fat pad in the left cardiophrenic angle. Coagulopathy due to COVID-19 was the most probable cause of the described processes. Therapeutic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin were administered. Patient 3 was a 68-year-old male kidney donor who had painless, nodular, reddening lesions on both shins, accompanied by itching on both shins and recurrent fever. The diagnosis of erythema nodosum during COVID-19 was made. After treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin, significant decreases of symptoms were observed. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that SARS-CoV-2 infection can have a varied course and can involve other systems and organs. Physicians should be aware of possible extrapulmonary symptoms associated with infection with this virus. Correct diagnosis is a prerequisite for proper treatment and prevention of unexpected complications.

Thromboembolic events in COVID-19 ambulatory patients: An observational study about incidence, and thromboprophylaxis outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: There are no clear data about the incidence and the prophylactic strategies of arterial and venous thromboembolic events (TE) in COVID-19 ambulatory patients. Thus, we conducted this study to analyze thromboembolic complications in this setting and to assess thromboprophylaxis management and outcomes in the real life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational study including Covid-19 ambulatory patients. We assessed incidence of venous and arterial TE events as well as thromboprophylaxis outcomes and hemorrhagic complications. We defined high risk thrombo-embolic factor according to the Belgian guidelines which are the only guidelines that described thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 ambulatory patients. RESULTS: We included 2089 patients with a mean age of 43±16 years. The incidence of 30 days venous and arterial TE complications in our cohort was 1%. Venous thromboembolic complications occurred in 0.8% and arterial thromboembolic complications occurred in 0.3%.We noted at least one high-risk TE factor in 18.5% of patients but thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 22.5% of the cases, LMWH in 18.1%, and Rivaroxaban in 3.7%. Hemorrhagic events occurred in eight patients (0.3%): five patients showed minor hemorrhagic events and three patients showed major ones (0.14%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the incidence of thromboembolic complications is very low in COVID-19 ambulatory patients. Paradoxically, there is an over prescription of thrombo-prophylaxis in this population.

Anti-Xa Directed Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

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.