Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters for Venous Thromboembolism in Adults With Trauma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Trauma is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to contraindications or delay in starting pharmacological prophylaxis among trauma patients with a high risk of bleeding, the inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been utilized as alternative prevention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Albeit, its clinical efficacy has remained uncertain. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic IVC filters in severely injured patients. Methods: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched from August 1, 2012, to October 27, 2021. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment. Relative risk (RR) at 95% confidence interval (CI) pooled in a randomized meta-analysis. A parallel clinical practice guideline committee assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes of interest included VTE, PE, deep venous thrombosis, mortality, and IVC filter complications. Results: We included 10 controlled studies (47 140 patients), of which 3 studies (310 patients) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 were observational studies (46 830 patients). IVC filters demonstrated no significant reduction in PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.28 and RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01-7.84, respectively) by pooling RCTs with low certainty. However, it demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of PE and fatal PE (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.55 and RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.011-0.81, respectively) by pooling observational studies with very low certainty. IVC filter did not improve mortality in both RCTs and observational studies (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.86-2.43 and RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.3-1.31, respectively). Conclusion: In trauma patients, moderate risk reduction of PE and fatal PE was demonstrated among observational data but not RCTs. The desirable effect is not robust to outweigh the undesirable effects associated with IVC filter complications. Current evidence suggests against routinely using prophylactic IVC filters.

Thromboembolic events in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: ecological assessment with a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombosis is a common complication of the novel COVID-19. Pre-COVID-19 studies reported racial differences in the risk of developing thrombosis. This study aimed to describe the geographical variations in the reported incidences and outcomes of thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The final search for randomised clinical trials was carried out in January 2022. Screening eligible articles and data extraction were independently performed in duplicate by multiple reviewers. DESIGN: Scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Libraries were searched using terms related to COVID-19 and thromboembolism. SETTING: Hospitals all over the world. PARTICIPANTS: In-hospital patients with COVID-19. OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and the prophylactic anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: In total, 283 studies were eligible, representing (239 observational studies, 39 case series and 7 interventional studies). The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia (40.8%) and hospital mortality was high (22.7%). However, the incidence of PE was not very high in Asia (3.2%). On the contrary, the incidence of PE was the highest in the Middle East (16.2%) and Europe (14. 6%). Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin was the main treatment provided in all areas. Four of the seven randomised clinical trials were conducted internationally. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia. The incidence of PE was higher in the Middle East and Europe; however, detection bias during the pandemic cannot be ruled out. There were no major differences in the type or dose of prophylactic anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis among the regions.

Post-discharge Thromboembolic Events in COVID-19 Patients: A Review on the Necessity for Prophylaxis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects the respiratory system of patients and is characterized by pneumonia with hypoxemia. Hospitalized patients and particularly those admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) may encounter a cascade of coagulopathies, which may lead to macrovessel thrombotic events such as pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or arterial thromboembolism (ATE). These events can result in serious life-threatening diseases including cerebrovascular stroke and myocardial infarction. Despite all available information about the incidence, prevention, and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized patients, few data are available on the incidence of both symptomatic and subclinical VTE after discharge. Therefore, there is no precise suggestion or guideline for prophylaxis against VTE in post-discharge period, and some controversies exist over the current guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to review and summarize available literature upon incidence, prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches for VTE in COVID-19 patients. Also, the pathogenic mechanisms of VTE in infected individuals with COVID-19 were discussed.

Gone in 60 days: our first experience with a bioconvertible IVC filter.

The Sentry bioconvertible IVC filter (Boston Scientific, MA, USA) contains a bioabsorbable filament which hydrolyses after 60 days, allowing the arms of the filter to spring open, retract into the vessel wall and endothelialise, leaving an unobstructed IVC lumen.It is a novel treatment option for patients at transient risk of pulmonary emboli with a contraindication to anticoagulation. The device provides similar protection to other currently available devices against pulmonary emboli with minimal complications. It represents an effective alternative to retrievable filters, the removal of which is variously not attempted, not possible or associated with high complication rates.We review the literature which underpins the development of the bioconvertible filter. We describe our first deployment of the filter in an 85-year-old female with gastric malignancy (who subsequently underwent a subtotal gastrectomy) with a history of anaemia and previous pulmonary emboli. The availability of a bioconvertible filter constitutes a further step forward in the management of patients with potential or active thromboembolic disease.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Incidence and effects of deep vein thrombosis on the outcome of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been reported to occur at different rates in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Limited data exist regarding comparisons with non-COVID-19 patients with similar characteristics. Our objective was to compare the rates of DVT in patients with and without COVID-19 and to determine the effect of DVT on the outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational cohort study at a single-institution, level 1 trauma center comparing patients with and without COVID-19. The 573 non-COVID-19 patients (age, 61 ± 17 years; 44.9% male) had been treated from March 20, 2019 to June 30, 2019, and the 213 COVID-19 patients (age, 61 ± 16 years; 61.0% male) had been treated during the same interval in 2020. Standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy consisted of 5000 U of heparin three times daily for the medical patients without COVID-19 who were not in the intensive care unit (ICU). The ICU, surgical, and trauma patients without COVID-19 had received 40 mg of enoxaparin daily (not adjusted to weight). The patients with COVID-19 had also received enoxaparin 40 mg daily (also not adjusted to weight), regardless of whether treated in the ICU. The two primary outcomes were the rate of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the COVID-19 group vs that in the historic control and the effect of DVT on mortality. The subgroup analyses included patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pulmonary embolism (PE), and intensive care unit patients (ICU). RESULTS: The rate of DVT and PE for the non-COVID-19 patients was 12.4% (71 of 573) and 3.3% (19 of 573) compared with 33.8% (72 of 213) and 7.0% (15 of 213) for the COVID-19 patients, respectively. Unprovoked PE had developed in 10 of 15 COVID-19 patients (66.7%) compared with 8 of 497 non-COVID-19 patients (1.6%). The 60 COVID-19 patients with ARDS had had an incidence of DVT of 46.7% (n = 28). In contrast, the incidence of DVT for the 153 non-COVID-19 patients with ARDS was 28.8% (n = 44; P = .01). The COVID-19 patients requiring the ICU had had an increased rate of DVT (39 of 90; 43.3%) compared with the non-COVID-19 patients (33 of 123; 33.3%; P = .01). The risk factors for mortality included age, DVT, multiple organ failure syndrome, and prolonged ventilatory support with the following odd ratios: 1.030 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.058), 2.847 (95% CI, 1.356-5.5979), 4.438 (95% CI, 1.973-9.985), and 5.321 (95% CI, 1.973-14.082), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of DVT for COVID-19 patients receiving standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation that was not weight adjusted was high, especially for ICU patients. DVT is one of the factors contributing to increased mortality. These results suggest a reevaluation is necessary of the present standard-dose thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19.

The Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection Compared with Critically Ill Influenza and Community-Acquired Pneumonia Patients: A Retrospective Chart Review.

The rate of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients has been reported to be 30% (deep vein thrombosis 20% and pulmonary embolism 18%). This has been shown to be higher in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Prophylactic anticoagulation may be sufficient at ward level, but not in intensive care. A retrospective chart review was undertaken in a large university hospital. The review included 276 patients from COVID-19 Wave 1, COVID-19 Wave 2, influenza, and community-acquired pneumonia groups. The timeframe included patients admitted between 23 February 2014 and 12 May 2021. Clinical characteristics, outcomes, blood results, rates of venous thromboembolism, and anticoagulation status were recorded. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 Wave 1, COVID-19 Wave 2, influenza, and community-acquired pneumonia was 10.91%, 13.69%, 13.33%, and 6.81%, respectively (p = 0.481). The incidence of pulmonary embolism was 7.27%, 10.95%, 3.33%, and 5.68%, respectively (p = 0.350). The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was 5.45%, 5.48%, 10.00%, and 1.14%, respectively (p = 0.117). Although most patients were prophylactically anticoagulated, venous thromboembolism still occurred. Venous thromboembolism remains an important differential to consider in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The current literature does not advise therapeutic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in the ICU.

Risks of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19: nationwide self-controlled cases series and matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding after covid-19. DESIGN: Self-controlled case series and matched cohort study. SETTING: National registries in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: 1 057 174 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021 in Sweden, matched on age, sex, and county of residence to 4 076 342 control participants. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Self-controlled case series and conditional Poisson regression were used to determine the incidence rate ratio and risk ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for a first deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or bleeding event. In the self-controlled case series, the incidence rate ratios for first time outcomes after covid-19 were determined using set time intervals and the spline model. The risk ratios for first time and all events were determined during days 1-30 after covid-19 or index date using the matched cohort study, and adjusting for potential confounders (comorbidities, cancer, surgery, long term anticoagulation treatment, previous venous thromboembolism, or previous bleeding event). RESULTS: Compared with the control period, incidence rate ratios were significantly increased 70 days after covid-19 for deep vein thrombosis, 110 days for pulmonary embolism, and 60 days for bleeding. In particular, incidence rate ratios for a first pulmonary embolism were 36.17 (95% confidence interval 31.55 to 41.47) during the first week after covid-19 and 46.40 (40.61 to 53.02) during the second week. Incidence rate ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 5.90 (5.12 to 6.80) for deep vein thrombosis, 31.59 (27.99 to 35.63) for pulmonary embolism, and 2.48 (2.30 to 2.68) for bleeding. Similarly, the risk ratios during days 1-30 after covid-19 were 4.98 (4.96 to 5.01) for deep vein thrombosis, 33.05 (32.8 to 33.3) for pulmonary embolism, and 1.88 (1.71 to 2.07) for bleeding, after adjusting for the effect of potential confounders. The rate ratios were highest in patients with critical covid-19 and highest during the first pandemic wave in Sweden compared with the second and third waves. In the same period, the absolute risk among patients with covid-19 was 0.039% (401 events) for deep vein thrombosis, 0.17% (1761 events) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.101% (1002 events) for bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that covid-19 is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. These results could impact recommendations on diagnostic and prophylactic strategies against venous thromboembolism after covid-19.

Randomised comparative effectiveness trial of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after hiP and kneE Replacement (PEPPER): the PEPPER trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: More than 1 million elective total hip and knee replacements are performed annually in the USA with 2% risk of clinical pulmonary embolism (PE), 0.1%-0.5% fatal PE, and over 1000 deaths. Antithrombotic prophylaxis is standard of care but evidence is limited and conflicting. We will compare effectiveness of three commonly used chemoprophylaxis agents to prevent all-cause mortality (ACM) and clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) while avoiding bleeding complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after HiP and KneE Replacement is a large randomised pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with non-inferiority design and target enrolment of 20 000 patients comparing aspirin (81 mg two times a day), low-intensity warfarin (INR (International Normalized Ratio) target 1.7-2.2) and rivaroxaban (10 mg/day). The primary effectiveness outcome is aggregate of VTE and ACM, primary safety outcome is clinical bleeding complications, and patient-reported outcomes are determined at 1, 3 and 6 months. Primary data analysis is per protocol, as preferred for non-inferiority trials, with secondary analyses adherent to intention-to-treat principles. All non-fatal outcomes are captured from patient and clinical reports with independent blinded adjudication. Study design and oversight are by a multidisciplinary stakeholder team including a 10-patient advisory board. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the Medical University of South Carolina provides central regulatory oversight. Patients aged 21 or older undergoing primary or revision hip or knee replacement are block randomised by site and procedure; those on chronic anticoagulation are excluded. Recruitment commenced at 30 North American centres in December 2016. Enrolment currently exceeds 13 500 patients, representing 33% of those eligible at participating sites, and is projected to conclude in July 2024; COVID-19 may force an extension. Results will inform antithrombotic choice by patients and other stakeholders for various risk cohorts, and will be disseminated through academic publications, meeting presentations and communications to advocacy groups and patient participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02810704.

Low in-hospital mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 receiving thromboprophylaxis: data from the multicentre observational START-COVID Register.

COVID-19 infection causes respiratory pathology with severe interstitial pneumonia and extra-pulmonary complications; in particular, it may predispose to thromboembolic disease. The current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, however, the optimal heparin dosage treatment is not well-established. We conducted a multicentre, Italian, retrospective, observational study on COVID-19 patients admitted to ordinary wards, to describe clinical characteristic of patients at admission, bleeding and thrombotic events occurring during hospital stay. The strategies used for thromboprophylaxis and its role on patient outcome were, also, described. 1091 patients hospitalized were included in the START-COVID-19 Register. During hospital stay, 769 (70.7%) patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs: low molecular weight heparin (the great majority enoxaparin), fondaparinux, or unfractioned heparin. These patients were more frequently affected by comorbidities, such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism, neurological disease, and cancer with respect to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. During hospital stay, 1.2% patients had a major bleeding event. All patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs; 5.4%, had venous thromboembolism [30.5% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 66.1% pulmonary embolism (PE), and 3.4% patients had DVT + PE]. In our cohort the mortality rate was 18.3%. Heparin use was independently associated with survival in patients aged ≥ 59 years at multivariable analysis. We confirmed the high mortality rate of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in ordinary wards. Treatment with antithrombotic drugs is significantly associated with a reduction of mortality rates especially in patients older than 59 years.

Impact of persistent D-dimer elevation following recovery from COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Elevated D-dimer is known as predictor for severity of SARS-CoV2-infection. Increased D-dimer is associated with thromboembolic complications, but it is also a direct consequence of the acute lung injury seen in COVID-19 pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rate of persistent elevated D-dimer and its association with thromboembolic complications and persistent ground glass opacities (GGO) after recovery from COVID-19. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter trial, patients underwent blood sampling, measurement of diffusion capacity, blood gas analysis, and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scan following COVID-19. In case of increased D-dimer (>0,5 µg/ml), an additional contrast medium-enhanced CT was performed in absence of contraindications. Results were compared between patients with persistent D-dimer elevation and patients with normal D-dimer level. RESULTS: 129 patients (median age 48.8 years; range 19-91 years) underwent D-Dimer assessment after a median (IQR) of 94 days (64-130) following COVID-19. D-dimer elevation was found in 15% (19/129) and was significantly more common in patients who had experienced a severe SARS-CoV2 infection that had required hospitalisation compared to patients with mild disease (p = 0.049). Contrast-medium CT (n = 15) revealed an acute pulmonary embolism in one patient and CTEPH in another patient. A significant lower mean pO2 (p = 0.015) and AaDO2 (p = 0.043) were observed in patients with persistent D-Dimer elevation, but the rate of GGO were similar in both patient groups (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: In 15% of the patients recovered from COVID-19, persistent D-dimer elevation was observed after a median of 3 months following COVID-19. These patients had experienced a more severe COVID and still presented more frequently a lower mean pO2 and AaDO2.

Anticoagulation for COVID-19 Patients: A Bird's-Eye View.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that can be life-threatening involving immune and inflammatory responses, and that can result in potentially lethal complications, including venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Forming an integrative approach to thrombo-prophylaxis and coagulation treatment for COVID-19 patients ensues. We aim at reviewing the literature for anticoagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection to provide a summary on anticoagulation for this patient population. COVID-19 infection is associated with a state of continuous inflammation, which results in macrophage activation syndrome and an increased rate of thrombosis. Risk assessment models to predict the risk of thrombosis in critically ill patients have not yet been validated. Currently published guidelines suggest the use of prophylactic intensity over intermediate intensity or therapeutic intensity anticoagulant for patients with critical illness or acute illness related to COVID-19 infection. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who are diagnosed with acute VTE are considered to have a provoking factor, and, therefore, treatment duration should be at least 3 months. Patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism should receive parenteral over oral anticoagulants with low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux preferred over unfractionated heparin. In patients with impending hemodynamic compromise due to PE, and who are not at increased risk for bleeding, reperfusion may be necessary. Internists should remain updated on new emerging evidence regarding anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. Awaiting these findings, we invite internists to perform individualized decisions that are unique for every patient and to base them on clinical judgment for risk assessment.

Medically Ill hospitalized Patients for COVID-19 THrombosis Extended ProphyLaxis with rivaroxaban ThErapy: Rationale and Design of the MICHELLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The devastating Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a high prothrombotic state. It is unclear if the coagulation abnormalities occur because of the direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 or indirectly by the cytokine storm and endothelial damage or by a combination of mechanisms. There is a clear indication of in-hospital pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for every patient with COVID-19 after bleed risk assessment. However, there is much debate regarding the best dosage regimen, and there is no consensus on the role of extended thromboprophylaxis. DESIGN: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 35 ± 4 days versus no intervention after hospital discharge in COVID-19 patients who were at increased risk for VTE and have received standard parenteral VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. The composite efficacy endpoint is a combination of symptomatic VTE, VTE-related death, VTE detected by bilateral lower limbs venous duplex scan and computed tomography pulmonary angiogram on day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge and symptomatic arterial thromboembolism (myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, major adverse limb events, and cardiovascular death) up to day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge. The key safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding according to ISTH criteria. SUMMARY: The MICHELLE trial is expected to provide high-quality evidence around the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 and will help guide medical decisions in clinical practice.1.

VTE Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.

High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy is a common abnormality in patients with COVID-19. However, the exact incidence of venous thromboembolic event is unknown in anticoagulated, severe COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: Systematic assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) using complete duplex ultrasound (CDU) in anticoagulated COVID-19 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in 2 French intensive care units (ICU) where CDU is performed as a standard of care. A CDU from thigh to ankle at selected sites with Doppler waveforms and images was performed early during ICU stay in patients admitted with COVID-19. Anticoagulation dose was left to the discretion of the treating physician based on the individual risk of thrombosis. Patients were classified as treated with prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation. Pulmonary embolism was systematically searched in patients with persistent hypoxemia or secondary deterioration. RESULTS: From March 19 to April 11, 2020, 26 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 were screened for VTE. Eight patients (31%) were treated with prophylactic anticoagulation, whereas 18 patients (69%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. The overall rate of VTE in patients was 69%. The proportion of VTE was significantly higher in patients treated with prophylactic anticoagulation when compared with the other group (100% vs 56%, respectively, P = .03). Surprisingly, we found a high rate of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients treated with therapeutic anticoagulation, with 56% of VTE and 6 pulmonary embolisms. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest considering both systematic screening of VTE and early therapeutic anticoagulation in severe ICU COVID-19 patients.

Thrombotic risk in patients with COVID-19.

Emerging evidences prove that the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is strictly linked to coagulopathy even if pneumonia appears as the major clinical manifestation. The exact incidence of thromboembolic events is largely unknown, so that a relative significant number of studies have been performed in order to explore thrombotic risk in COVID-19 patients. Cytokine storm, mediated by pro-inflammatory interleukins, tumor necrosis factor α and elevated acute phase reactants, is primarily responsible for COVID-19-associated hypercoagulopathy. Also comorbidities, promoting endothelial dysfunction, contribute to a higher thromboembolic risk. In this review we aim to investigate epidemiology and clarify the pathophysiological pathways underlying hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients, providing indications on the prevention of thromboembolic events in COVID-19. Furthermore we aim to reassume the pathophysiological paths involved in COVID-19 infection.

Thromboprophylaxis strategies to improve the prognosis of COVID-19.

The outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (Covid-19) has deeply challenged the world population, but also our medical knowledge. Special attention has been paid early to an activation of coagulation, then to an elevated rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. These data suggested that anticoagulant drugs should be evaluated in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. The publication of unexpected high rates of VTE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, despite receiving thromboprophylaxis, open the way to dedicated trials, evaluating modified regimens of thromboprophylaxis. Moreover, the further improvement in our comprehension of the disease, particularly the pulmonary endothelial dysfunction increased the hope that anticoagulant drugs may also protect patients from pulmonary thrombosis. In this comprehensive review, we cover the different situations where thromboprophylaxis standard may be modified (medically-ill inpatients, ICU inpatients, outpatients), and describe some of the current randomized controls trials evaluating new regimens of thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, including the preliminary available results. We also discuss the potential of anticoagulant drugs to target the thromboinflammation described in patients with severe COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Prophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: An Emerging Issue.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 virus disease (coronavirus disease 2019; COVID-19) is associated with increased coagulation activity, resulting in an excessive risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and poor prognosis. The most common manifestation of VTE is pulmonary embolism (PE), with approximately one in five hospitalised patients being at risk. These reports led to the empirical use of prophylactic anticoagulation, even in the absence of established or clinically suspected disease. This review summarises current aspects and recommendations regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis for PE in patients with COVID-19.

Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Discharged after COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of COVID-19, so that the importance of adequate in-hospital thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is well established. However, the incidence of VTE after discharge and whether postdischarge thromboprophylaxis is beneficial and safe are unclear. In this prospective observational single-center study, we report the incidence of VTE 6 weeks after hospitalization and the use of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 were invited to a multidisciplinary follow-up clinic 6 weeks after discharge. D-dimer and C-reactive protein were measured, and all patients were screened for deep vein thrombosis with venous duplex-ultrasound. Additionally, selected high-risk patients received computed tomography pulmonary angiogram or ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan to screen for incidental pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Of 485 consecutive patients hospitalized from March through June 2020, 146 patients were analyzed, of which 39% had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 28% of patients, but was used more frequently after ICU stay (61%) and in patients with higher maximal D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels during hospitalization. Six weeks after discharge, elevated D-dimer values were present in 32% of ward and 42% of ICU patients. Only one asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (0.7%) and one symptomatic pulmonary embolism (0.7%) were diagnosed with systematic screening. No bleedings were reported. CONCLUSION: In patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, systematic screening for VTE 6 weeks after discharge revealed a low incidence of VTE. A strategy of selectively providing postdischarge thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients seems safe and potentially effective.