The Effectiveness of the Intermediate and Therapeutic Doses of Enoxaparin in COVID-19 Patients: A Comparative Study of Factor Xa Inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Management of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients is critical. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis is already recommended, and anti-Factor Xa (anti-FXa) monitoring has been used to titrate LMWH doses. METHODS: Through a cross-sectional study, we evaluated anti-FXa activity in patients admitted to the ICU, receiving intermediate dose (30, 40, 50 mg, subcutaneously [SC], twice daily) or therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg, SC, Q12h) of enoxaparin to find whether the patients in these two groups achieved anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range. RESULTS: The occurrence of deep vein thrombosis was 26% in the therapeutic-dose group and 17% in the intermediate-dose group. D-dimer values were nearly 3.5-fold higher in those who received a therapeutic dose of anticoagulants than in those who received intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis. Patients in the therapeutic-dose group had significantly higher IL-6 levels (p ≤ 0.001). More than one-third of the patients in the therapeutic-dose group (n = 8; 42.18%) and approximately half of the patients in the intermediate-dose group (n = 12; 52.2%) achieved the target range level of anti-FXa. Patients who received therapeutic doses were more likely to have anti-FXa levels above the expected range (47.4 vs 13% in the intermediate-dose group; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic dose of enoxaparin in critically ill COVID-19-infected patients did not reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events and, on the other hand, may predispose these patients to increased risk of bleeding by increasing anti-FXa activity above the desired level. Administration of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis is suggested to achieve anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylaxis range.

Trauma and COVID-19: Clinical and Paraclinical similarities between Trauma Patients with Positive and Negative PCR Tests.

Objective: To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve). Methods: This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate. Results: Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (p>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], p=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. p=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], p=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41). Conclusion: Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.