Prevention of Thromboembolic Events in COVID-19

Background: COVID-19 has developed into a global pandemic with respiratory compromise and systemic coagulopathy causing significant morbidity and mortality. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on all COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March and June 2020. Findings: Of 1265 COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients identified, 138 (10.9%) had a thromboembolism. Mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with thrombosis was 31.9%, significantly higher than COVID-19 patients who did not have thrombosis 10% (p<0.0001). The incidence of thrombosis was significantly less in those who received steroids at 14% as compared to other COVID-19 therapies: tocilizumab 25% (p=0.0031), hydroxychloroquine 42% (p<0.0001), and remdesivir 72% (p<0.0001). There was no difference in mortality in patients who had prophylactic enoxaparin 40.5% than therapeutic enoxaparin 51.7% (p= 0.3491). Adjusting for demographics, a logistics model showed no mortality difference in patients who had either dosing of anticoagulation (p=0.5810). The bleeding rate was 12.3%, significantly higher than reported bleeding rates for hospitalized nonCOVID-19 patients on anticoagulants at 7.2% (p<0.05). Interpretation: Our study shows the incidence of thrombosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was higher than the general population. The lowest incidence of thrombosis occurred in COVID-19 patients who received steroids. There was no mortality difference in patients who received prophylactic versus therapeutic anticoagulation prior to thrombosis, but there was a high incidence of bleeding events. Funding: No outside funding was used

Download Full-text

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001678 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. e001678

Author(s):

Nazariy Koval ◽

Mariana Alves ◽

Rui Plácido ◽

Ana G Almeida ◽

João Eurico Fonseca ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Antiphospholipid Syndrome ◽

Vitamin K ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Vitamin K Antagonists ◽

Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Prevention Of Thromboembolic Events

BackgroundDespite vitamin K antagonists (VKA) being the gold standard in the prevention of thromboembolic events in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), non-vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants/direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been used off-label.ObjectiveWe aimed to perform a systematic review comparing DOACs to VKA regarding prevention of thromboembolic events, occurrence of bleeding events and mortality in patients with APS.MethodsAn electronic database search was performed through MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science. After data extraction, we pooled the results using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I². The outcomes considered were all thromboembolic events as primary, and major bleeding, all bleeding events and mortality as secondary. Evidence confidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.ResultsWe included 7 studies and a total of 835 patients for analyses. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased in DOACs arm, compared with VKA—RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.62, I²—24%, n=719, 6 studies. In studies using exclusively rivaroxaban, which was the most representative drug in all included studies, the thromboembolic risk was increased threefold (RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.37). The risks of major bleeding, all bleeding events and mortality were not significantly different from control arm. The grade of certainty of our results is very low.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests DOACs use, particularly rivaroxaban, among patients with APS, is less effective than VKA since it is associated with 69% increased risk of thromboembolic events.Trial registration numberCRD42020216178.

Download Full-text

Risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the prospective, multicentre observational PREvention oF thromboembolic events - European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022478 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e022478 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Miklos Rohla ◽

Thomas W Weiss ◽

Ladislav Pecen ◽

Giuseppe Patti ◽

Jolanta M Siller-Matula ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Prevention Of Thromboembolic Events ◽

Major Bleeding Events ◽

Anticoagulated Patients ◽

European Registry

ObjectivesWe identified factors associated with thromboembolic and bleeding events in two contemporary cohorts of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), treated with either vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs).DesignProspective, multicentre observational study.Setting461 centres in seven European countries.Participants5310 patients receiving a VKA (PREvention oF thromboembolic events - European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF), derivation cohort) and 3156 patients receiving a NOAC (PREFER in AF Prolongation, validation cohort) for stroke prevention in AF.Outcome measuresRisk factors for thromboembolic events (ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism) and major bleeding (gastrointestinal bleeding, intracerebral haemorrhage and other life-threatening bleeding).ResultsThe mean age of patients enrolled in the PREFER in AF registry was 72±10 years, 40% were female and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc Score was 3.5±1.7. The incidence of thromboembolic and major bleeding events was 2.34% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.74%) and 2.84% (95% CI 2.41% to 3.33%) after 1-year of follow-up, respectively.Abnormal liver function, prior stroke or transient ischaemic attack, labile international normalised ratio (INR), concomitant therapy with antiplatelet or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, heart failure and older age (≥75 years) were independently associated with both thromboembolic and major bleeding events.With the exception of unstable INR values, these risk factors were validated in patients treated with NOACs (PREFER in AF Prolongation Study, 72±9 years, 40% female, CHA2DS2-VASc 3.3±1.6). For each single point decrease on a modifiable bleeding risk scale we observed a 30% lower risk for major bleeding events (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76, p<0.01) and a 28% lower rate of thromboembolic events (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82, p<0.01).ConclusionAttending to modifiable risk factors is an important treatment target in anticoagulated AF patients to reduce thromboembolic and bleeding events. Initiation of anticoagulation in those at risk of stroke should not be prevented by elevated bleeding risk scores.

Download Full-text

Anticoagulation Prior to COVID-19 Infection Has No Impact on 6 Months Mortality: A Propensity Score–Matched Cohort Study

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm11020352 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 352

Author(s):

Marcin Protasiewicz ◽

Konrad Reszka ◽

Wojciech Kosowski ◽

Barbara Adamik ◽

Wojciech Bombala ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Medical Records ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Matched Cohort ◽

Anticoagulant Treatment ◽

Antithrombotic Treatment ◽

Bleeding Rate ◽

High Incidence

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high incidence of thromboembolic events in humans. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate if anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection may impact clinical profile, as well as mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was based on retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching (PSM), a group of 236 patients receiving any anticoagulant treatment prior to COVID-19 infection (AT group) was compared to 236 patients without previous anticoagulation (no AT group). In 180 days, the observation we noted comparable mortality rate in AT and no AT groups (38.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.51). Similarly, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in admission in the intensive care unit (14.1% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.20), intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.0% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.38), catecholamines usage (14.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.86), and bleeding rate (6.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.37) in both groups. Our results suggest that antithrombotic treatment prior to COVID-19 infection is unlikely to be protective for morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Prevention of Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1657555 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 78 (01) ◽

pp. 377-381 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Birgitte Gade Koefoed ◽

Annette Lemche Gulløv ◽

Palle Petersen

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Prevention Of Thromboembolic Events

Download Full-text

Anticoagulation after VA-ECMO decannulation, providing new insights

European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care ◽

10.1093/ehjacc/zuab020.168 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

A Maestro-Benedicto ◽

A Duran-Cambra ◽

M Vila-Perales ◽

J Sans-Rosello ◽

J Carreras-Mora ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽

Cardiogenic Shock ◽

Anticoagulation Therapy ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Membrane Oxygenation ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Va Ecmo ◽

A Prospective Study

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. INTRODUCTION Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is an essential tool for the management of refractory cardiogenic shock. Little is known about the incidence of thromboembolic events after V-A ECMO decannulation, although some studies report a high incidence of cannula-related venous thrombosis after venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Due to this fact, in our institution anticoagulation therapy is systematically prescribed for at least 3 months after VA-ECMO per protocol. AIM The main objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of 3-month anticoagulation therapy after VA-ECMO decannulation. METHODS We performed a prospective study that included 27 consecutive patients who were successfully treated with VA-ECMO in a medical ICU between 2016 and 2019 and were prescribed 3-month anticoagulation therapy per protocol after decannulation. Exclusion criteria was dying on ECMO or while on the ICU. Data analysis included demographics, mean days on ECMO, 3-month survival, and thromboembolic and bleeding events (excluding immediate post-decannulation bleeding, since anticoagulation was prescribed 24h after). RESULTS Our cohort consisted mainly of men (N = 21, 78%), with a mean age of 60 ± 11 years and a mean time on VA-ECMO of 8 ± 3 days, who primarily suffered from post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (N = 9, 34%) or acute myocardial infarction (N = 6, 23%). 5 patients (18%) received a heart transplant. Regarding anticoagulation, 15 patients (60%) had other indications apart from the protocol, like incidental thrombus diagnosis (N = 7, 26%) or valve surgery (N = 5, 18%). Anticoagulation therapy was not feasible in 1 patient (4%) with severe thrombopenia. No patients had severe or life-threatening bleeding events in the follow-up, although 8 patients (30%) had bleeding events, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding (N = 4, 15%), requiring withdrawal of anticoagulation in 1 patient. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 7%; two patients with low-risk pulmonary embolisms. During the 3-month follow-up survival rate was 95%. CONCLUSIONS This is the only study to date addressing the strategy of 3-month anticoagulation therapy after VAECMO, showing it is feasible and safe and may be helpful in reducing or ameliorate thromboembolic complications in the follow-up, although it is not exempt of complications. Abstract Figure. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis

Download Full-text

Acute coronary syndrome patients with two minor high-bleeding risk criteria have the same bleeding rate that patients with one major criteria

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1311 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

A Cordero ◽

J.M Garcia-Acuna ◽

M Rodriguez-Manero ◽

B Cid ◽

B Alvarez Alvarez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Major Bleeding ◽

Academic Research ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Post Discharge ◽

Bleeding Rate ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

High Bleeding Risk ◽

Minor Criteria

Abstract Background In 2019 the Academic Research Consortium of high-bleeding risk (ARC-HBR) proposed a new and binary definition of high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients based on the presence of 1 major or 2 minor criteria. Methods Prospective study of all consecutive patients admitted for ACS in two different centers. We analyzed bleeding incidence in patients with 1 major criteria (1MC) vs. 2 minor criteria (2mC) using the 2019 ARC-HBR consensus. Bleeding events were collected according those fitting definitions 3 or 5 of the BARC consortium. Results We included 8,724 patients included and 40.9% we classified as HBR; 20.9% for 1MC and 20.0% for 2mC. In-hospital mayor bleeding rate was 8.6%; no-HBR patients had 0.3%, 2mC 15.1% and 1MC 29.7% (p<0.001 for the comparison). In contrast, the statistically highest in-hospital mortality was observed in patients with 2mC (11.4%), followed by patients with 1MC (8.0%) and no-HBR patients (2.0%). During follow-up (median time 57.8 months) all-cause mortality rate was 21.0% and cardiovascular dead 14.2%. The incidence of post-discharge major bleeding was 10.5%. No-HBR patients had the lowest bleeding rate (7.4%) and no difference was observed in patients with 1MC (14.6%) or 2mC (15.8%) (figure). The multivariate analysis, adjusted by age, gender, medical treatment, atrial fibrillation and revascularization and considering all-cause mortality as competing risk, showed independent association of 1MC (sHR: 1.46, 95% 1.22–1.75) and 2mC (sHR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.63) with post-discharge major bleeding. Conclusions HBR patients according to the 2019 ARC-HBR containing 2mC or 1MC are at similar and higher risk of in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding events Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review of Anticoagulation Strategies for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Care.

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/a-1477-3760 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alexandra Jayne Nelson ◽

Brian W Johnston ◽

Alicia Achiaa Charlotte Waite ◽

Gedeon Lemma ◽

Ingeborg Dorothea Welters

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Critical Care ◽

Critically Ill ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Critically Ill Patients ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Major Bleeding Events ◽

The Impact ◽

Anticoagulated Patients

Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill patients. There is a paucity of data assessing the impact of anticoagulation strategies on clinical outcomes for general critical care patients with AF. Our aim was to assess the existing literature to evaluate the effectiveness of anticoagulation strategies used in critical care for AF. Methodology. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases. Studies reporting anticoagulation strategies for AF in adults admitted to a general critical care setting were assessed for inclusion. Results. Four studies were selected for data extraction. A total of 44087 patients were identified with AF, of which 17.8-49.4% received anticoagulation. The reported incidence of thromboembolic events was 0-1.4% for anticoagulated patients, and 0-1.3% in non-anticoagulated patients. Major bleeding events were reported in three studies and occurred in 7.2-8.6% of the anticoagulated patients and up to 7.1% of the non-anticoagulated patients. Conclusions. There was an increased incidence of major bleeding events in anticoagulated patients with AF in critical care compared to non-anticoagulated patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of reported thromboembolic events within studies, between patients who did and did not receive anticoagulation. However, the outcomes reported within studies were not standardised, therefore, the generalisability of our results to the general critical care population remains unclear. Further data is required to facilitate an evidence-based assessment of the risks and benefits of anticoagulation for critically ill patients with AF.

Download Full-text