Corrigendum: D-dimer trends elaborate the heterogeneity of risk in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a multi-national case series from different waves.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1103842.].

Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group. RESULTS: Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).

A Comparison of COVID-19 and Influenza-Associated Myocarditis: A Nationwide Study in the United States.

We aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of adult patients hospitalized with myocarditis and either concomitant corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or influenza, and elucidate clinical predictors associated with adverse outcomes in both groups. The study used the national inpatient sample (NIS) from 2019 to 2020 to identify 27,725 adult myocarditis hospitalizations, of which 5840 had concomitant COVID-19 and 1045 had concomitant influenza. After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality from myocarditis was significantly higher in COVID-19 compared to influenza. Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities and be older than those with influenza-associated myocarditis. Predictors of mortality were also different in both groups.

The End of Endomyocardial Biopsy?: A Practical Guide for Noninvasive Heart Transplant Rejection Surveillance.

Noninvasive heart transplant rejection surveillance using gene expression profiling (GEP) to monitor immune activation is widely used among heart transplant programs. With the new development of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) assays, more programs are transitioning to a predominantly noninvasive rejection surveillance protocol with a reduced frequency of endomyocardial biopsies. As a result, many practical questions arise that potentially delay implementation of these valuable new tools. The purpose of this review is to provide practical guidance for clinicians transitioning toward a less invasive acute rejection monitoring protocol after heart transplantation, and to answer 10 common questions about the GEP and dd-cfDNA assays. Evidence supporting GEP and dd-cfDNA testing is reviewed, as well as guidance on test interpretation and future directions.

D-dimer trends elaborate the heterogeneity of risk in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multi-national case series from different waves.

Introduction: Variable D-dimer trends during hospitalization reportedly result in distinct in-hospital mortality. In this multinational case series from the first and second waves, we show the universality of such D-dimer trends. Methods: We reviewed 405 patients with COVID-19 during the first wave admitted to three institutions in the United States, Italy, and Colombia, and 111 patients admitted to the U.S. site during the second wave and 55 patients during the third wave. D-dimer was serially followed during hospitalization. Results: During the first wave, 66 (15%) patients had a persistently-low pattern, 33 (8%) had early-peaking, 70 (16%) had mid-peaking, 94 (22%) had fluctuating, 30 (7%) had late-peaking, and 112 (26%) had a persistently-high pattern. During the second and third waves, similar patterns were observed. D-dimer patterns were significantly different in terms of in-hospital mortality similarly in all waves. Patterns were then classified into low-risk patterns (persistently-low and early-peaking), where no deaths were observed in both waves, high-risk patterns (mid-peaking and fluctuating), and malignant patterns (late-peaking and persistently-high). Overall, D-dimer trends were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital mortality in the first wave (overall: HR: 1.73) and stayed the same during the second (HR: 1.67, p < 0.001) and the third (HR: 4.4, p = 0.001) waves. Conclusion: D-dimer behavior during COVID-19 hospitalization yielded universal categories with distinct mortality risks that persisted throughout all studied waves of infection. Monitoring D-dimer behavior may be useful in the management of these patients.

Use of Cardiopulmonary Stress Testing for Patients With Unexplained Dyspnea Post-Coronavirus Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The authors used cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to define unexplained dyspnea in patients with post-acute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC). We assessed participants for criteria to diagnose myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients who recover from coronavirus disease (COVID) remain symptomatic. This syndrome is named PASC. Its etiology is unclear. Dyspnea is a frequent symptom. METHODS: The authors performed CPET and symptom assessment for ME/CFS in 41 patients with PASC 8.9 ± 3.3 months after COVID. All patients had normal pulmonary function tests, chest X-ray, and chest computed tomography scans. Peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), slope of minute ventilation to CO2 production (VE/VCO2 slope), and end tidal pressure of CO2 (PetCO2) were measured. Ventilatory patterns were reviewed with dysfunctional breathing defined as rapid erratic breathing. RESULTS: Eighteen men and 23 women (average age: 45 ± 13 years) were studied. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 59% ± 9%. Peak VO2 averaged 20.3 ± 7 mL/kg/min (77% ± 21% predicted VO2). VE/VCO2 slope was 30 ± 7. PetCO2 at rest was 33.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg. Twenty-four patients (58.5%) had a peak VO2 <80% predicted. All patients with peak VO2 <80% had a circulatory limitation to exercise. Fifteen of 17 patients with normal peak VO2 had ventilatory abnormalities including peak respiratory rate >55 (n = 3) or dysfunctional breathing (n = 12). For the whole cohort, 88% of patients (n = 36) had ventilatory abnormalities with dysfunctional breathing (n = 26), increased VE/VCO2 (n = 17), and/or hypocapnia PetCO2 <35 (n = 25). Nineteen patients (46%) met criteria for ME/CFS. CONCLUSIONS: Circulatory impairment, abnormal ventilatory pattern, and ME/CFS are common in patients with PASC. The dysfunctional breathing, resting hypocapnia, and ME/CFS may contribute to symptoms. CPET is a valuable tool to assess these patients.

Prognostic Impact of Prior Heart Failure in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pre-existing heart failure (HF) are likely at higher risk for adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but data on this population are sparse. OBJECTIVES: This study described the clinical profile and associated outcomes among patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at 1 of 5 Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York City between February 27 and June 26, 2020. Clinical characteristics and outcomes (length of stay, need for intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality) were captured from electronic health records. For patients identified as having a history of HF by International Classification of Diseases-9th and/or 10th Revisions codes, manual chart abstraction informed etiology, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). RESULTS: Mean age was 63.5 years, and 45% were women. Compared with patients without HF, those with previous HF experienced longer length of stay (8 days vs. 6 days; p < 0.001), increased risk of mechanical ventilation (22.8% vs. 11.9%; adjusted odds ratio: 3.64; 95% confidence interval: 2.56 to 5.16; p < 0.001), and mortality (40.0% vs. 24.9%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.88; 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 2.78; p = 0.002). Outcomes among patients with HF were similar, regardless of LVEF or renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor use. CONCLUSIONS: History of HF was associated with higher risk of mechanical ventilation and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, regardless of LVEF.