Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) can lead to systemic coagulation activation and thrombotic complications.
Objectives
To investigate the incidence of objectively confirmed venous ...thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19.
Methods
Single‐center cohort study of 198 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19.
Results
Seventy‐five patients (38%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). At time of data collection, 16 (8%) were still hospitalized and 19% had died. During a median follow‐up of 7 days (IQR, 3‐13), 39 patients (20%) were diagnosed with VTE of whom 25 (13%) had symptomatic VTE, despite routine thrombosis prophylaxis. The cumulative incidences of VTE at 7, 14 and 21 days were 16% (95% CI, 10‐22), 33% (95% CI, 23‐43) and 42% (95% CI 30‐54) respectively. For symptomatic VTE, these were 10% (95% CI, 5.8‐16), 21% (95% CI, 14‐30) and 25% (95% CI 16‐36). VTE appeared to be associated with death (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.02‐5.5). The cumulative incidence of VTE was higher in the ICU (26% (95% CI, 17‐37), 47% (95% CI, 34‐58), and 59% (95% CI, 42‐72) at 7, 14 and 21 days) than on the wards (any VTE and symptomatic VTE 5.8% (95% CI, 1.4‐15), 9.2% (95% CI, 2.6‐21), and 9.2% (2.6‐21) at 7, 14, and 21 days).
Conclusions
The observed risk for VTE in COVID‐19 is high, particularly in ICU patients, which should lead to a high level of clinical suspicion and low threshold for diagnostic imaging for DVT or PE. Future research should focus on optimal diagnostic and prophylactic strategies to prevent VTE and potentially improve survival.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, IZUM, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Background
Coagulopathy is a common abnormality in patients with COVID‐19. However, the exact incidence of venous thromboembolic event is unknown in anticoagulated, severe COVID‐19 patients.
...Objectives
Systematic assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) using complete duplex ultrasound (CDU) in anticoagulated COVID‐19 patients.
Patients and methods
We performed a retrospective study in 2 French intensive care units (ICU) where CDU is performed as a standard of care. A CDU from thigh to ankle at selected sites with Doppler waveforms and images was performed early during ICU stay in patients admitted with COVID‐19. Anticoagulation dose was left to the discretion of the treating physician based on the individual risk of thrombosis. Patients were classified as treated with prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation. Pulmonary embolism was systematically searched in patients with persistent hypoxemia or secondary deterioration.
Results
From March 19 to April 11, 2020, 26 consecutive patients with severe COVID‐19 were screened for VTE. Eight patients (31%) were treated with prophylactic anticoagulation, whereas 18 patients (69%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. The overall rate of VTE in patients was 69%. The proportion of VTE was significantly higher in patients treated with prophylactic anticoagulation when compared with the other group (100% vs 56%, respectively, P = .03). Surprisingly, we found a high rate of thromboembolic events in COVID‐19 patients treated with therapeutic anticoagulation, with 56% of VTE and 6 pulmonary embolisms.
Conclusion
Our results suggest considering both systematic screening of VTE and early therapeutic anticoagulation in severe ICU COVID‐19 patients.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, IZUM, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Purpose
Little evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods
All patients ...referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.
Results
150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 53; 71 years, SAPSII 49 37; 64 points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (
n
= 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (
n
= 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%,
p
< 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups.
Conclusion
Despite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Submassive Pulmonary Embolism Rali, Parth M; Criner, Gerard J
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine,
09/2018, Volume:
198, Issue:
5
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Pulmonary embolism (PE) presents a spectrum of hemodynamic consequences, ranging from being asymptomatic to a life-threatening medical emergency. Management of submassive and massive PE often ...involves clinicians from multiple specialties, which can potentially delay the development of a unified treatment plan. In addition, patients with submassive PE can deteriorate after their presentation and require escalation of care. Underlying comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, and interstitial lung disease can impact the patient's hemodynamic ability to tolerate submassive PE. In this review, we address the definitions, risk stratification (clinical, laboratory, and imaging), management approaches, and long-term outcomes of submassive PE. We also discuss the role of the PE response team in management of patients with PE.
In a randomized trial, 1006 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism were assigned to tenecteplase or placebo in addition to standard heparin therapy. The tenecteplase group had a lower ...rate of hemodynamic decompensation but more frequent major hemorrhage and stroke.
Acute pulmonary embolism occurs frequently and may cause death or serious disability.
1
Case fatality rates vary widely,
2
,
3
but approximately 10% of all patients with acute pulmonary embolism die within 3 months after the diagnosis.
4
,
5
Acute right ventricular pressure overload at diagnosis is an important determinant of the severity and early clinical outcome of pulmonary embolism.
6
High-risk pulmonary embolism
7
is characterized by overt hemodynamic instability and warrants immediate advanced therapy, including consideration of fibrinolysis. In contrast, for patients presenting without systemic hypotension or hemodynamic compromise, standard anticoagulation is generally considered adequate treatment.
8
However, patients who have acute right ventricular . . .
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There have been many advances in the field of PE in the last few years, requiring a careful ...assessment of their impact on patient care. However, variations in recommendations by different clinical guidelines, as well as lack of robust clinical trials, make clinical decisions challenging. The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium is an international association created to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. In this consensus practice document, we provide a comprehensive review of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE, including both clinical data and consensus opinion to provide guidance for clinicians caring for these patients.
Abstract
Aims
While pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be a major issue in COVID-19, data remain sparse. We aimed to describe the risk factors and baseline characteristics of patients with PE in a ...cohort of COVID-19 patients.
Methods and results
In a retrospective multicentre observational study, we included consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients without computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-proven PE diagnosis and those who were directly admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) were excluded. Among 1240 patients (58.1% men, mean age 64 ± 17 years), 103 (8.3%) patients had PE confirmed by CTPA. The ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in the PE group (for both P < 0.001). In an univariable analysis, traditional venous thrombo-embolic risk factors were not associated with PE (P > 0.05), while patients under therapeutic dose anticoagulation before hospitalization or prophylactic dose anticoagulation introduced during hospitalization had lower PE occurrence odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14–0.91, P = 0.04; and OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06–0.18, P < 0.001, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, the following variables, also statistically significant in univariable analysis, were associated with PE: male gender (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003–1.069, P = 0.04), anticoagulation with a prophylactic dose (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.85, P < 0.001) or a therapeutic dose (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82–0.92, P < 0.001), C-reactive protein (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, P = 0.001), and time from symptom onset to hospitalization (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.006–1.038, P = 0.002).
Conclusion
PE risk factors in the COVID-19 context do not include traditional thrombo-embolic risk factors but rather independent clinical and biological findings at admission, including a major contribution to inflammation.
Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
IMPORTANCE D-dimer measurement is an important step in the diagnostic strategy of clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but its clinical usefulness is limited in elderly patients. ...OBJECTIVE To prospectively validate whether an age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff, defined as age × 10 in patients 50 years or older, is associated with an increased diagnostic yield of D-dimer in elderly patients with suspected PE. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PATIENTS A multicenter, multinational, prospective management outcome study in 19 centers in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland between January 1, 2010, and February 28, 2013. INTERVENTIONS All consecutive outpatients who presented to the emergency department with clinically suspected PE were assessed by a sequential diagnostic strategy based on the clinical probability assessed using either the simplified, revised Geneva score or the 2-level Wells score for PE; highly sensitive D-dimer measurement; and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Patients with a D-dimer value between the conventional cutoff of 500 µg/L and their age-adjusted cutoff did not undergo CTPA and were left untreated and formally followed-up for a 3-month period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the failure rate of the diagnostic strategy, defined as adjudicated thromboembolic events during the 3-month follow-up period among patients not treated with anticoagulants on the basis of a negative age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff result. RESULTS Of the 3346 patients with suspected PE included, the prevalence of PE was 19%. Among the 2898 patients with a nonhigh or an unlikely clinical probability, 817 patients (28.2%) had a D-dimer level lower than 500 µg/L (95% CI, 26.6%-29.9%) and 337 patients (11.6%) had a D-dimer between 500 µg/L and their age-adjusted cutoff (95% CI, 10.5%-12.9%). The 3-month failure rate in patients with a D-dimer level higher than 500 µg/L but below the age-adjusted cutoff was 1 of 331 patients (0.3% 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%). Among the 766 patients 75 years or older, of whom 673 had a nonhigh clinical probability, using the age-adjusted cutoff instead of the 500 µg/L cutoff increased the proportion of patients in whom PE could be excluded on the basis of D-dimer from 43 of 673 patients (6.4% 95% CI, 4.8%-8.5%) to 200 of 673 patients (29.7% 95% CI, 26.4%-33.3%), without any additional false-negative findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Compared with a fixed D-dimer cutoff of 500 µg/L, the combination of pretest clinical probability assessment with age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff was associated with a larger number of patients in whom PE could be considered ruled out with a low likelihood of subsequent clinical venous thromboembolism. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134068
We report 3 patients with coronavirus disease who had a decline in respiratory status during their hospital course that responded well to intravenous steroids and interleukin-6 receptor antagonist ...therapy. These patients later showed development of persistent hypoxia with increased levels of d-dimer levels and were given a diagnosis of pulmonary embolisms.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
