Clinical Correlates of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Undergoing Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Background: It is reasonable to place an Inferior Vena Cava Filter (IVCF) when an acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs occurs in a patient with absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation. An additional potential reason for placing an IVCF is the need to stop therapeutic anticoagulation in a patient with acute DVT who must undergo urgent non-deferrable surgery. However, IVCFs are often used outside of such established indications and many authors argue about their actual utility, especially in terms of survival. In this retrospective study, we looked for clinical correlates of in-hospital mortality among patients who underwent IVCF placement, limiting our analysis to the cases for which a correct indication to IVCF placement existed. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the electronic database of our University Hospital, searching for consecutive hospitalized patients who had acute DVT and underwent IVCF placement because of an established contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and/or because it was necessary to stop anticoagulation due to urgent surgery. The search covered the period between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. Results: The search resulted in the identification of 168 individuals. An established contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation was present in 116 patients (69.0%), while urgent non-deferrable surgery was the reason for IVCF placement in 52 patients (31.0%). A total of 24 patients (14.3%) died during the same hospital stay in which the IVCF was placed. Mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with a contraindication to anticoagulation than in patients who underwent IVCF placement because of urgent surgery (19.0% vs. 3.8%, OD 5.85 vs. 0.17). In-hospital mortality was also significantly higher among patients with chronic kidney disease and those who needed blood cell transfusion during hospitalization. Conclusions: This study provides novel information on clinical correlates of in-hospital mortality among patients with acute DVT who undergo IVCF. Prospective observational studies are needed to substantiate these findings.

A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Different Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Catheter-Related Thrombosis of the Upper Extremities in Women With Gynecologic and Breast Cancer.

Background: Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) of the upper extremities is a frequent complication among cancer patients that carry a central venous catheter (CVC) and may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of CVC function. Despite its clinical impact, no anticoagulant treatment scheme has been rigorously evaluated in these patients. In addition, there is no proven evidence that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious and safe in this setting because cancer patients with CRT of the upper extremities were not included in the clinical trials that led to the approval of DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: We performed a single center retrospective cohort study on women with gynecologic or breast cancer treated with either low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, or DOACs for CRT of the upper extremities. Only patients who received anticoagulation at the proper therapeutic dose and for at least 3 months were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of preservation of line function, residual thrombosis, and recurrence of VTE (including PE). Safety was evaluated in terms of death, major bleeding (MB), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Results: We identified 74 women who fulfilled the criteria to be included in the analysis. Of these, 31 (41.9%) had been treated with fondaparinux, 21 (28.4%) with enoxaparin, and 22 (29.7%) with the DOAC edoxaban. We found no differences between patients treated with the three different therapeutic approaches, in terms of preservation of line function, incidence of residual thrombosis, and VTE recurrence (including PE). Safety was similar as well, with no MBs recorded in any treatment group. Conclusion: These results, although retrospective and based on a relatively small sample size, indicate that, in women with gynecologic or breast cancer, CRT of the upper extremities may be treated with similar effectiveness and safety with fondaparinux, enoxaparin, and edoxaban. Further studies are needed to substantiate these findings.

Predicting in-hospital mortality from Coronavirus Disease 2019: A simple validated app for clinical use.

BACKGROUNDS: Validated tools for predicting individual in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 are lacking. We aimed to develop and to validate a simple clinical prediction rule for early identification of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We enrolled 2191 consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from three Italian dedicated units (derivation cohort: 1810 consecutive patients from Bergamo and Pavia units; validation cohort: 381 consecutive patients from Rome unit). The outcome was in-hospital mortality. Fine and Gray competing risks multivariate model (with discharge as a competing event) was used to develop a prediction rule for in-hospital mortality. Discrimination and calibration were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and by Brier score in both the derivation and validation cohorts. Seven variables were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality: age (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.07-1.09), male sex (HR 1.62, 95%CI 1.30-2.00), duration of symptoms before hospital admission <10 days (HR 1.72, 95%CI 1.39-2.12), diabetes (HR 1.21, 95%CI 1.02-1.45), coronary heart disease (HR 1.40 95% CI 1.09-1.80), chronic liver disease (HR 1.78, 95%CI 1.16-2.72), and lactate dehydrogenase levels at admission (HR 1.0003, 95%CI 1.0002-1.0005). The AUC was 0.822 (95%CI 0.722-0.922) in the derivation cohort and 0.820 (95%CI 0.724-0.920) in the validation cohort with good calibration. The prediction rule is freely available as a web-app (COVID-CALC: https://sites.google.com/community.unipa.it/covid-19riskpredictions/c19-rp). CONCLUSIONS: A validated simple clinical prediction rule can promptly and accurately assess the risk for in-hospital mortality, improving triage and the management of patients with COVID-19.

Incidence of deep vein thrombosis among non-ICU patients hospitalized for COVID-19 despite pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: A remarkably high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported among critically ill patients with COVID-19 assisted in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, VTE burden among non-ICU patients hospitalized for COVID-19 that receive guideline-recommended thromboprophylaxis is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of VTE among non-ICU patients hospitalized for COVID-19 that receive pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: We performed a systematic screening for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by lower limb vein compression ultrasonography (CUS) in consecutive non-ICU patients hospitalized for COVID-19, independent of the presence of signs or symptoms of DVT. All patients were receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with either enoxaparin or fondaparinux. RESULTS: The population that we screened consisted of 84 consecutive patients, with a mean age of 67.6 ± 13.5 years and a mean Padua Prediction Score of 5.1 ± 1.6. Seventy-two patients (85.7%) had respiratory insufficiency, required oxygen supplementation, and had reduced mobility or were bedridden. In this cohort, we found 10 cases of DVT, with an incidence of 11.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.98-18.82). Of these, 2 were proximal DVT (incidence rate 2.4%, 95% CI -0.87-5.67) and 8 were distal DVT (incidence rate 9.5%, 95% CI 3.23-5.77). Significant differences between subjects with and without DVT were D-dimer > 3000 µg/L (P < .05), current or previous cancer (P < .05), and need of high flow nasal oxygen therapy and/or non-invasive ventilation (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: DVT may occur among non-ICU patients hospitalized for COVID-19, despite guideline-recommended thromboprophylaxis.

Differences in Clinical Presentation, Rate of Pulmonary Embolism, and Risk Factors Among Patients With Deep Vein Thrombosis in Unusual Sites.

Unusual site deep vein thrombosis (USDVT) is an uncommon form of venous thromboembolism with heterogeneous signs and symptoms, unknown rate of pulmonary embolism (PE), and poorly defined risk factors. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 107 consecutive cases of USDVTs, discharged from our University Hospital over a period of 2 years. Patients were classified based on the site of thrombosis and distinguished between patients with cerebral vein thrombosis, jugular vein thrombosis, thrombosis of the deep veins of the upper extremities, and abdominal vein thrombosis. We found statistically significant differences between groups in terms of age (P < .0001) and gender distribution (P < .05). We also found that the rate of symptomatic patients was significantly different between groups (P < .0001). Another interesting finding was the significant difference between groups in terms of rate of PE (P < .01). Finally, we found statistically significant differences between groups in terms of risk factors for thrombosis, in particular cancer (P < .01). Unprovoked cases were differently distributed among groups (P < .0001). This study highlights differences between patients with USDVT, which depend on the site of thrombosis, and provides data which might be useful in clinical practice.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries: safety and prognostic relevance of invasive coronary provocative tests.

Aims: Functional alterations of epicardial coronary arteries or coronary microcirculation represent a frequent cause of myocardial infarction and non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). We aimed at assessing the prognostic value of intracoronary provocative tests in patients presenting with MINOCA and in which other causes of MINOCA have been excluded. Methods and results: We prospectively evaluated patients with a diagnosis of MINOCA, excluding patients with aetiologies other than suspected coronary vasomotor abnormalities. Immediately after coronary angiography, an invasive provocative test using acetylcholine or ergonovine was performed. The incidence of death from any cause, cardiac death, and recurrence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was assessed at follow-up. We also assessed angina status using Seattle Angina Questionnaires (SAQ). We enrolled 80 consecutive patients [mean age 63.0 ± 10.7 years, 40 (50%) male]. Provocative test was positive in 37 (46.2%) patients without any complication. Among patients with a positive test, epicardial spasm was detected in 24 (64.9%) patients and microvascular spasm in 13 (35.1%) patients. After a median follow-up of 36.0 (range 12.0-60.0) months, patients with a positive test had a significantly higher occurrence of death from any cause [12 (32.4%) vs. 2 (4.7%); P = 0.002], cardiac death [7 (18.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%); P = 0.005], and readmission for ACS [10 (27.0%) vs. 3 (7.0%); P = 0.015] as well as a worse angina status as assessed by SAQ [Seattle score: 88.0 (33.0-100.0) vs. 100.0 (44.0-100.0); P = 0.001] when compared with patients with a negative test. Conclusions: We demonstrate that in patients presenting with MINOCA and suspected coronary vasomotor abnormalities, a positive provocative test for spasm is safe and identifies a high-risk subset of patients.