Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US. Interventions: Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data. Results: Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality particularly among hospitalized patients with critical illness and elevated D-dimer (Dd) levels. Conflicting data have yet to elucidate optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing. HEP-COVID (NCT04401293) is a phase 3, multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, pseudo-blinded, active control trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus prophylactic-/intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention of a primary efficacy composite outcome of VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality 30 ± 2 days post-enrollment. Eligible patients have COVID-19 diagnosis by nasal swab or serologic testing, requirement for supplemental oxygen per investigator judgment, and Dd >4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score ≥4. Subjects are randomized to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ)/two times a day (BID) (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 mL/min) or 0.5 mg/kg (CrCl 15-30 mL/min) versus local institutional prophylactic regimens including (1) UFH up to 22,500 IU (international unit) daily (divided BID or three times a day), (2) enoxaparin 30 and 40 mg SQ QD (once daily) or BID, or (3) dalteparin 2,500 IU or 5,000 IU QD. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. Events are adjudicated locally. Based on expected 40% relative risk reduction with treatment-dose compared with prophylactic-dose prophylaxis, 308 subjects will be enrolled (assuming 20% drop-out) to achieve 80% power. Distinguishing design features include an enriched population for the composite endpoint anchored on Dd >4 × ULN, stratification by intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU, and the ability to capture asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis via screening ultrasonography prior to discharge.

Dynamic Angular Petrissage as Treatment for Axillary Web Syndrome Occurring after Surgery for Breast Cancer: a Case Report.

BACKGROUND: In the context of breast cancer, axillary web syndrome (AWS), also called lymphatic cording, typically presents in the weeks after axillary surgery. This painful condition, likely lymphofibrotic in origin, restricts upper extremity range of motion (ROM). There is no established treatment, although physical therapy and other approaches have been used to variable effect. This report describes treatment of a female client with AWS, who had recently undergone a unilateral simple mastectomy with sentinel node biopsy plus axillary dissection. METHODS: The client presented with pain upon movement (self-reported as 5 on the 0-10 Oxford Pain Scale), visible cording and restricted use of the ipsilateral upper extremity. Clinical assessment included determining the extent of AWS cording (taut, from axilla to wrist) and measuring glenohumeral joint ROM (140° flexion by goniometer). A therapeutic massage with movement protocol, termed dynamic angular petrissage, was administered over two sessions: Swedish massage combined with dynamically taking the limb through all possible angles of movement (passive ROM), controlling stretch and tension while simultaneously and segmentally applying petrissage and non-petrissage techniques to the underlying soft tissue. Careful attention was taken to not break the cord. Home care consisted of prescribed exercises performed by the patient. RESULTS: After Session One, pain was reduced (to 0/10), ROM improved (to 170° flexion), and cording was visibly reduced. After Session Two the cord was residually apparent only on hyperextension, with no ROM restrictions in glenohumeral joint flexion. Follow-up at three months revealed absence of visual or palpable evidence of cording, unrestricted glenohumeral joint ROM, and absence of movement-associated pain. CONCLUSION: The signs and symptoms of AWS were quickly and effectively eliminated, without causing any pain or discomfort to the client. We propose that dynamic angular petrissage may be an efficient and safe treatment approach for reducing the pain, mobility restrictions, and cording of AWS.