Improving guideline-concordant thromboprophylaxis prescribing for children admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in hospitalized children has increased by 130%-200% over the last two decades. Given this increase, many centers utilize electronic clinical decision support (CDS) to prognosticate VTE risk and recommend prophylaxis. SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is a risk factor for VTE; however, CDS developed before the COVID-19 pandemic may not accurately prognosticate VTE risk in children with COVID-19. This study's objective was to identify areas to improve thromboprophylaxis recommendations for children with COVID-19. METHODS: Inpatients with a positive COVID-19 test at admission were identified at a quaternary-care pediatric center between March 1, 2020 and January 20, 2022. The results of the institution's automated CDS thromboprophylaxis recommendations were compared to institutional COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis guidelines and to the actual thromboprophylaxis received. CDS optimization was performed to improve adherence to COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 329 patients included in this study, 106 (28.2%) were prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis, 167 (50.8%) were identified by the institutional COVID-19 guidelines as requiring pharmaco-prophylaxis, and 45 (13.2%) were identified by the CDS as needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. On univariate analysis, only age 12 years or more was associated with recipient of appropriate prophylaxis (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.13-2.82, p = .013). Five patients developed VTEs; three had symptoms at presentation, two were identified as high risk for VTE by both the automated and best practice assessments but were not prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Automated thromboprophylaxis recommendations developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may not identify all COVID-19 patients needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. Existing CDS tools need to be updated to reflect COVID-19-specific risk factors for VTEs.

Thrombotic events following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: An association between thrombotic events and SARS-CoV-2 infection and the adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines has been established, leading to concern over the risk of thrombosis after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of arterial thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), splanchnic thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) following BNT162b2 vaccination in New Zealand. METHODS: This was a self-controlled case series using national hospitalisation and immunisation records to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). The study population included individuals aged ≥12 years, unvaccinated, or vaccinated with BNT162b2, who were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events of interest from 19 February 2021 through 19 February 2022. The risk period was 0-21 days after receiving a primary or booster dose of BNT162b2. RESULTS: 6039 individuals were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events examined, including 5127 with VTE, 605 with arterial thrombosis, 272 with splanchnic thrombosis, and 35 with CVT. The proportion of individuals vaccinated with at least one dose of BNT162b2 ranged from 82.7 % to 91.4 %. Compared with the control unexposed period, the IRR (95 % CI) of VTE, arterial thrombosis, splanchnic thrombosis, and CVT were 0.87 (0.76-1.00), 0.73 (0.56-0.95), 0.71 (0.43-1.16), and 0.87 (0.31-2.50) in the 21 days after BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. There was no statistically significant increased risk of thrombosis following BNT162b2 in different ethnic groups in New Zealand. CONCLUSION: The BNT162b2 vaccine was not found to be associated with thrombosis in the general population or different ethnic groups in New Zealand, providing reassurance for the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

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.

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.

[Practice guidelines of thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19].

Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to thrombotic complications through multiple mechanisms. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most important causes of death or poor prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prognosis of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients can be improved with VTE and bleeding risk assessment, as well as appropriate VTE prophylaxis. However, in current clinical practice, there still is much room for progress in choose of appropriate prevention methods, anticoagulant regimens, doses, and courses based on the severity and specific condition of COVID-19 patients and dynamically balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. In the past three years, a series of authoritative guidelines related to VTE and COVID-19 and high-quality, evidence-based medical research evidence have been released both in domestic and internationally. Based on this, in order to better guide the clinical practice in China, multi-discipline expert discussions and Delphi expert demonstrations formulated the"Thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an update of the CTS guidelines", aiming to address the issues of thrombosis risk and prevention strategies caused by COVID-19, anticoagulant management of hospitalized patients, diagnosis and treatment of thrombosis, anticoagulant management of special populations, interaction and adjustment strategies of antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs and anticoagulant drugs, follow-up after discharge and many other aspects of clinical situations. Recommendations and clinical guidelines are provided for appropriate thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulation management strategies for VTE in patients with COVID-19.

Management, control, and decision making in unexpected recurrent venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 was spread worldwide, as a pandemic, from December 2019. Venous thromboembolism events can inflict patients with coronavirus disease 2019 during the hospitalization or convalescent period. Therefore, monitoring of these patients, in terms of venous thromboembolism events signs and symptoms, and timely management of antithrombotic agents are of great importance. CASE REPORT: A 45-year-old Iranian man, who is the first author of this case report, was infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and displayed the typical signs and symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. Although reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for coronavirus disease 2019, and specific immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were negative at first, chest computed tomography scan showed the characteristic pattern of lung involvement of a coronavirus disease 2019 infection including bilateral and multilobar ground-glass opacities. At that time, there were no signs or symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism, so these were not investigated. About 30 hours after hospital discharge, the patient presented back to the hospital with acute-onset chest pain. We instantly tested his blood for D-dimer, and sent him to take a Doppler sonography of his lower legs and a chest computed tomography angiography in search of pulmonary thromboembolism and deep-vein thrombosis. Although we could confirm pulmonary thromboembolism with computed tomography angiography in our patient, there were no signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolism in his lower legs, and color Doppler sonography of lower limbs was normal. So, the patient was treated with rivaroxaban as an antithrombotic agent. After some days, he was discharged in good condition. About 1 month later, he was referred to our hospital because of left lower limb edema. Although he was under antithrombotic therapy, color Doppler sonography of lower limbs revealed acute deep-vein thrombosis of the left leg. Hence, we decided to shift antithrombotic therapy from rivaroxaban to warfarin, as it is more potent than rivaroxaban in recurrent venous thromboembolism and when taking new oral anticoagulants. Unlike rivaroxaban, which needs no blood test to monitor its efficacy but has a warning for signs and symptoms of bleeding, warfarin therapy must be monitored carefully by regular blood tests for prothrombin time and international normalized ratio to maintain them in the therapeutic range. The patient was informed about the bleeding cautions, and required regular check of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio to maintain them in the proper and advised range of treatment (international normalized ratio therapeutic range 2-3). CONCLUSION: In the case of unexpected recurrent venous thromboembolism in coronavirus disease 2019, especially when patients are taking rivaroxaban or other new oral anticoagulants, such drugs should be substituted by warfarin, with routine follow-up, to maintain the value of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range.

Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19, risk factors and association with inflammatory biomarkers.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected millions of people worldwide resulting in a substantial number of hospitalizations. Venous thromboembolism including pulmonary embolism is a known complication of COVID-19 pneumonia although its incidence in such patients is unclear. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we looked at the incidence of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients and its associations with various risk factors including demographics, comorbidities, inflammatory markers and coagulation profiles. We analyzed data from 193 patients of mixed ethnicity with a mean age of 51, mostly South Asians (62%) and Arabs (29%). Diabetes and hypertension were the most prevalent comorbidities accounting for 46% (N = 88) and 36% (N = 71) respectively. Critical COVID-19 illness was diagnosed in 67% of patients. The frequency of COVID-19 related pulmonary embolism was 21.8% (N = 42). We found no association of pulmonary embolism with demographic, comorbid or inflammatory variables. Only a raised D-Dimer was found to be associated with pulmonary embolism. Having a pulmonary embolism had no impact on the length of stay, critical illness, or mortality. Receiving steroids or being on standard thromboprophylaxis or weight/D-Dimer adjusted thromboprophylaxis also had no impact on the frequency of pulmonary embolism. Nine incidents of major bleeding were recorded independent of therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia had a relatively high incidence of pulmonary embolism. D-dimer was the only associated laboratory parameter associated with pulmonary embolism. However, further research is needed to evaluate its predictive and prognostic utility, particularly in an older population.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 during 2020; a retrospective cross-sectional study in a Swedish health care system.

To establish the impact of COVID-19 on the pre-test probability for VTE in patients with suspected VTE. This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years and older undergoing diagnostic tests for VTE in an integrated healthcare system covering a population of 465,000 during the calendar year of 2020. We adjusted for risk factors such as age, sex, previous VTE, ongoing anticoagulant treatment, malignancy, Charlson score, ward care, ICU care and wave of COVID-19. In total, 303 of 5041 patients had a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 around the time of investigation. The prevalence of VTE in COVID-positive patients was 10.2% (36/354), 14.7% (473/3219) in COVID-19 negative patients, and 15.6% (399/2589) in patients without a COVID-19 test. A COVID-positive status was not associated with an increased risk for VTE (crude odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95%CI 0.19-1.16). We found no increased VTE risk in COVID-positive patients. This indicates that COVID-19 status should not influence VTE workup.The study was pre-registered on May 26, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT04400877.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the risk and predictors of VTE among individuals with less severe COVID-19 managed in outpatient settings are less well understood. Objectives: To assess the risk of VTE among outpatients with COVID-19 and identify independent predictors of VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 2 integrated health care delivery systems in Northern and Southern California. Data for this study were obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records. Participants included nonhospitalized adults aged 18 years or older with COVID-19 diagnosed between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2021. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics identified from integrated electronic health records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate per 100 person-years of diagnosed VTE, which was identified using an algorithm based on encounter diagnosis codes and natural language processing. Multivariable regression using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to identify variables independently associated with VTE risk. Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. Results: A total of 398 530 outpatients with COVID-19 were identified. The mean (SD) age was 43.8 (15.8) years, 53.7% were women, and 54.3% were of self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. There were 292 (0.1%) VTE events identified over the follow-up period, for an overall rate of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.30) per 100 person-years. The sharpest increase in VTE risk was observed during the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days). In multivariable models, the following variables were associated with a higher risk for VTE in the setting of nonhospitalized COVID-19: age 55 to 64 years (HR 1.85 [95% CI, 1.26-2.72]), 65 to 74 years (3.43 [95% CI, 2.18-5.39]), 75 to 84 years (5.46 [95% CI, 3.20-9.34]), greater than or equal to 85 years (6.51 [95% CI, 3.05-13.86]), male gender (1.49 [95% CI, 1.15-1.96]), prior VTE (7.49 [95% CI, 4.29-13.07]), thrombophilia (2.52 [95% CI, 1.04-6.14]), inflammatory bowel disease (2.43 [95% CI, 1.02-5.80]), body mass index 30.0-39.9 (1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.34]), and body mass index greater than or equal to 40.0 (3.07 [1.95-4.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of outpatients with COVID-19, the absolute risk of VTE was low. Several patient-level factors were associated with higher VTE risk; these findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from more intensive surveillance or VTE preventive strategies.

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.

[Thromboprophylaxis and management of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: clinical pathway and practices].

Inpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are prone to various complications during clinical treatment, especially venous thromboembolism (VTE), which significantly increases the risk of unexpected death. In recent years, a series of authoritative guidelines and high-quality evidence-based medicine research evidence have been published internationally. This working group has recently formulated the Guidelines for Thrombosis Prevention and Anticoagulant Management of Hospitalized Patients with Novel Coronavirus Infection with multidisciplinary experts in the fields of VTE prevention, critical care and evidence-based medicine from international and domestic experts. Based on this, the working group elaborated on 13 clinical issues in urgent need of attention and solution in current clinical practice on the basis of the guidelines and defined standardized operational paths, including VTE risk and bleeding risk assessment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, VTE prevention and anticoagulant management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with different severity and special patient populations complicated with pregnancy, malignant tumors, underlying diseases or organ insufficiency, usage of antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs or thrombocytopenia, in addition to VTE prevention and anticoagulant management of discharged COVID-19 patients, anticoagulant management of COVID-19 patients complicated with VTE during hospitalization, anticoagulant management in patients undergoing VTE therapy with COVID-19, risk factors of bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, clinical classification and corresponding management. In particular, by referring to the latest international guidelines and research evidence, this paper provides clear implementation recommendations on how to accurately determine the standard preventive dose anticoagulation and therapeutic dose anticoagulation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This paper is expected to provide standardized operational procedures and implementation norms for healthcare workers to managing thrombus prevention and anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

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.

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.

Predictive value of inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of coagulation markers for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients has been investigated with conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the correlation between biomarkers and VTE and the predictive value of D-dimer for VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Complete blood count, inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers at admission were collected. VTE was defined as diagnosed pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Events were defined as in-hospital death or ICU admission. Predictors of VTE were identified with Pearson prediction models. A ROC curve was constructed to assess the predictive value of D-dimer. RESULTS: 1651 participants were included, 111 VTE were identified. Events incidence was higher in the VTE group (49.5% vs 28.2%, p < 0.001). Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR, 0.001; 95% CI 0.000-0.002; p 0.019) and D-dimer (0.00005; 95% CI 0.00002-0.00008; p < 0.001), Geneva score (0.026; 95% CI 0.012-0.040; p < 0.001) and Wells score (0.047; 95% CI 0.033-0.061; p < 0.001) were associated with VTE. D-dimer had a goor predictive value for VTE (ROC area 0.85, 95% CI 0.816-0.893), with an optimal cut-off value of 2677µg/L (Youden index of 0,602). CONCLUSIONS: Among coagulation biomarkers D-dimer had the best predictive value for VTE, but higher cut-off values should be used in COVID-19.

Venous thromboembolism after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thrombophilia.

Patients with thrombophilia remain concerned about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk with COVID-19 vaccinations. The aim of this study was to examine VTE outcomes in patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia who were vaccinated for COVID-19. Vaccinated patients ≥18 years between November 1, 2020 and November 1, 2021 were analyzed using electronic medical records across the Mayo Clinic enterprise. The primary outcome was imaging confirmed acute VTE occurring 90 days before and after the date of the first vaccine dose. Thrombophilia patients were identified through laboratory testing results and ICD-10 codes. A total of 792 010 patients with at least one COVID-19 vaccination were identified. Six thousand sixty-seven of these patients were found to have a thrombophilia, among whom there was a total of 39 VTE events after compared to 51 VTE events before vaccination (0.64% vs. 0.84%, p = .20). In patients with Factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation, VTE occurred in 27 patients before and in 29 patients after vaccination (0.61 vs. 0.65%, p = .79). In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, VTE occurred in six patients before and four patients after vaccination (0.59% vs. 0.39%, p = .40). No difference was observed in the overall VTE rate when comparing the postvaccination 90 days to the prevaccination 90 days, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.53-1.23). In this subgroup of COVID-19 vaccinated patients with thrombophilia, there was no increased risk for acute VTE postvaccination compared to the prevaccination timeframe. These results are consistent with prior studies and should offer additional reassurance to patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia.