ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

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

Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis and Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Pooled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases thrombosis in hospitalized patients prompting adoption of different thromboprophylaxis strategies. Safety and efficacy of escalated-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are not established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the pooled incidence of thrombosis/bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for standard-dose, intermediate-dose, therapeutic anticoagulation, and no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to August 29, 2020 for studies reporting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis or bleeding. Pooled event rates were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-five observational studies were included. The pooled incidence rates of total venous thromboembolism (N = 4,685) were: no prophylaxis 41.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.1-57.2, I 2 = 76%), standard-dose prophylaxis 19.8% (95% CI: 13.2-28.6, I 2 = 95%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 11.9% (95% CI: 4.3-28.6, I 2 = 91%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 10.5% (95% CI: 4.2-23.8, I 2 = 82%, p = 0.003). The pooled incidence rates of arterial thrombosis (N = 1,464) were: no prophylaxis 11.3% (95% CI: 5.2-23.0, I 2 = 0%), standard-dose prophylaxis 2.5% (95% CI: 1.4-4.3, I 2 = 45%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 2.1% (95% CI: 0.5-7.7, I 2 = 45%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2-8.8, I 2 = 0, p = 0.009). The pooled bleeding event rates (N = 6,393) were nonsignificantly higher in therapeutic-dose anticoagulants compared with standard-dose prophylaxis, (6.3 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.083). CONCLUSION: Thrombosis rates were lower in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Thrombosis and bleeding rates for patients receiving intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation were similar to those who received standard-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

COVID-19 and Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Literature Studies.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have a wide spectrum of clinical presentations, leading in some cases to a critical condition with poor long-term outcomes and residual disability requiring post-acute rehabilitation. A major concern in severe COVID-19 is represented by a concomitant prothrombotic state. However, contrasting data are available about the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). A detailed search on the association of COVID-19 with thromboembolic complications was conducted in the main electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The weighted mean prevalence (WMP) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated with the random-effects model. Twenty studies enrolling 1,988 COVID-19 patients were included. The WMP of VTE was 31.3% (95% CI: 24.3-39.2%). The WMP of DVT was 19.8% (95% CI: 10.5-34.0%), whereas the WMP of PE was 18.9% (95% CI: 14.4-24.3%). Similar results were obtained when specifically analyzing studies on patients admitted to intensive care units and those on patients under antithrombotic prophylaxis. Regression models showed that an increasing age was associated with a higher prevalence of VTE (Z-score: 3.11, p = 0.001), DVT (Z-score: 2.33, p = 0.002), and PE (Z-score: 3.03, p = 0.002), while an increasing body mass index was associated with an increasing prevalence of PE (Z-score = 2.01, p = 0.04). Male sex did not impact the evaluated outcomes. The rate of thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients is definitely high. Considering the risk of fatal and disabling complications, adequate screening procedures and antithrombotic strategies should be implemented.

Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0-10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20-43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10-70%) and 27% (95% CI 17-40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.

Thrombolysis in severe COVID-19 pneumonia with massive pulmonary embolism.

OBJECTIVE: No guidelines exist for the management of massive pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19. We present a COVID-19 patient with refractory acute respiratory syndrome (ARDS), and life-threatening PE who underwent successful thrombolysis. CASE PRESENTATION: A previously healthy 47 year old male was admitted to our hospital due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia [confirmed by Real-Time-Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (RT-PCR)]. He had rapidly evolving ARDS [partial arterial pressure of oxygen to fractional inspired concentration of oxygen ratio: 175], and sepsis. Laboratory results showed lymphocytopenia, and increased D-dimer levels (7.7 µg/ml; normal: 0-0.5 µg/ml). The patient was treated in the intensive care unit. On day-1, ARDS-net/prone positioning ventilation, and empiric anti-COVID treatment integrating prophylactic anticoagulation was administered. On hospital day-2, the patient developed shock with worsening oxygenation. Point-of-care-ultrasound depicted a large thrombus migrating from the right atrium to the pulmonary circulation. Intravenous alteplase (100 mg over 2 h) was administered as rescue therapy. The patient made an uneventful recovery, and was discharged to home isolation (day-20) on oral rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Thrombolysis may have a critical therapeutic role for massive PE in COVID-19; however the risk of potential bleeding should not be underestimated. Point-of-care ultrasound has a pivotal role in the management of refractory ARDS in COVID-19.

Thromboprophylaxis: balancing evidence and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A common and potent consideration has recently entered the landscape of the novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19): venous thromboembolism (VTE). COVID-19 has been associated to a distinctive related coagulopathy that shows unique characteristics. The research community has risen to the challenges posed by this « evolving COVID-19 coagulopathy ¼ and has made unprecedented efforts to promptly address its distinct characteristics. In such difficult time, both national and international societies of thrombosis and hemostasis released prompt and timely responses to guide recognition and management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy. However, latest guidelines released by the international Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) on May 27, 2020, followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) on June 2, 2020 showed some discrepancies regarding thromboprophylaxis use. In this forum article, we would like to offer an updated focus on thromboprophylaxis with current incidence of VTE in ICU and non-ICU patients according to recent published studies; highlight the main differences regarding ISTH and CHEST guidelines; summarize and describe which are the key ongoing RCTs testing different anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19; and finally set a proposal for COVID-19 coagulopathy specific risk factors and dedicated trials.

How haemophilia A impacts severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) treatment: a case report.

The typical symptoms of COVID-19 mimic those of the common season flu. In addition, several changes in the coagulation processes have been observed. To date, it's not fully clear how COVID-19 may affect patients with hereditary bleeding disorders. Anticoagulation in patients with haemophilia is still debated, but in this case could be needed. We are reporting a case of an elderly patient with mild haemophilia A hospitalized for Sars-Cov-2. On the 15th day of hospitalization, we observed an increase of all coagulation parameters. An antithrombotic prophylaxis at low dosage was immediately started, then increased at prophylactic dosage. Even if much more data are needed to ascertain the real thrombotic risk of haemophilia A in COVID-19 patients, it's clear that the FVIII and vWF should be strictly monitored in order to promptly establish an adequate treatment and avoid the onset of thromboembolic events, even fatal, causing many deaths in COVID-19 patients.