Predictors and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in COVID-19; insights from US National COVID cohort collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether COVID-19 patients with pulmonary embolism had higher mortality and assess the utility of D-dimer in predicting acute pulmonary embolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Collaborative COVID-19 retrospective cohort, a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients was studied to compare 90-day mortality and intubation outcomes in patients with and without pulmonary embolism in a multivariable cox regression analysis. The secondary measured outcomes in 1:4 propensity score-matched analysis included length of stay, chest pain incidence, heart rate, history of pulmonary embolism or DVT, and admission laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Among 31,500 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 1117 (3.5%) patients were diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism were noted to have higher mortality (23.6% vs.12.8%; adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) = 1.36, 95% CI [1.20-1.55]), and intubation rates (17.6% vs. 9.3%, aHR = 1.38[1.18-1.61]). Pulmonary embolism patients had higher admission D-dimer FEU (Odds Ratio(OR) = 1.13; 95%CI [1.1-1.15]). As the D-dimer value increased, the specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of the test increased; however, sensitivity decreased (AUC 0.70). At cut-off D-dimer FEU 1.8 mcg/ml, the test had clinical utility (accuracy 70%) in predicting pulmonary embolism. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism had a higher incidence of chest pain and history of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Acute pulmonary embolism is associated with worse mortality and morbidity outcomes in COVID-19. We present D-dimer as a predictive risk tool in the form of a clinical calculator for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism in COVID-19.

Clinical outcomes of inferior vena cava filter in complicated pulmonary embolism.

Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolism patients (N = 254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolism patients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolism patients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT = 8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91-8.69, E-value = 2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT = 8.19, 95% CI 7.52-8.92, E-value = 2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT = 9.76, 95% CI 8.67-11.16, E-value = 2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT = 6.08, 95% CI 5.73-6.47, E-value = 2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88-20.12, E-value = 3.01) (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.