Acetylsalicylic Acid Compared with Enoxaparin for the Prevention of Thrombosis and Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, aspirin) is a well-known and frequently studied drug for primary and secondary prevention of disease due to its anti-inflammatory and coagulopathic effects. COVID-19 complications are attributed to the role of thrombo-inflammation. Studies regarding the use of low-dose ASA in COVID-19 are limited. For this reason, we propose that the use of low-dose ASA may have protective effects in COVID-19-related thromboembolism and lung injury. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of low-dose ASA compared with enoxaparin, an anticoagulant, for the prevention of thrombosis and mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on COVID-19-confirmed hospitalized patients at the Mansoura University Quarantine Hospital, outpatients, and home-isolated patients from September to December 2020 in Mansoura governorate, Egypt. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of ASA compared with enoxaparin on thromboembolism, and mechanical ventilation needs. RESULTS: This study included 225 COVID-19 patients. Use of ASA-only (81-162 mg orally daily) was significantly associated with reduced thromboembolism (OR 0.163, p = 0.020), but both low-dose ASA and enoxaparin, and enoxaparin-only (0.5 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) daily as prophylactic dose or 1 mg/kg SC every 12 hours as therapeutic dose) were more protective (odds ratio [OR] 0.010, OR 0.071, respectively, p < 0.001). Neither ASA-only nor enoxaparin-only were associated with a reduction in mechanical ventilation needs. Concomitant use of low-dose ASA and enoxaparin was associated with reduced mechanical ventilation (OR 0.032, 95% CI 0.004-0.226, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose ASA-only use may reduce the incidence of COVID-19-associated thromboembolism, but the reduction may be less than that of enoxaparin-only, and both ASA and enoxaparin. Concomitant use of ASA and enoxaparin demonstrates promising results with regard to the reduction of thrombotic events, and mechanical ventilation needs.

Validity of ROX index in prediction of risk of intubation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: One important concern during the management of COVID-19 pneumonia patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is early anticipation of the need for intubation. ROX is an index that can help in identification of patients with low and those with high risk of intubation. So, this study was planned to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the ROX index for prediction of COVID-19 pneumonia outcome (the need for intubation) and, in addition, to underline the significant association of the ROX index with clinical, radiological, demographic data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-nine RT-PCR positive COVID-19 patients were enrolled. The following data were collected: medical history, clinical classification of COVID-19 infection, the ROX index measured daily and the outcome assessment. RESULTS: All patients with severe COVID-19 infection (100%) were intubated (50% of them on the 3rd day of admission), but only 38% of patients with moderate COVID-19 infection required intubation (all of them on the 3rd day of admission). The ROX index on the 1st day of admission was significantly associated with the presence of comorbidities, COVID-19 clinical classification, CT findings and intubation (p ≤ 0.001 for each of them). Regression analysis showed that sex and ROX.1 are the only significant independent predictors of intubation [AOR (95% CI): 16.9 (2.4- 117), 0.77 (0.69-0.86)], respectively. Cut-off point of the ROX index on the 1st day of admission was ≤ 25.26 (90.2% of sensitivity and 75% of specificity). CONCLUSIONS: ROX is a simple noninvasive promising tool for predicting discontinuation of high-flow oxygen therapy and could be used in the assessment of progress and the risk of intubation in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia.