scholarly journals Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mouhand F. H. Mohamed ◽  
Shaikha D. Al-Shokri ◽  
Khaled M. Shunnar ◽  
Sara F. Mohamed ◽  
Mostafa S. Najim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Exploratory Analysis ◽  
Systematic Screening ◽  
Therapeutic Anticoagulation ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis.Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 25/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, in an exploratory analysis, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared with therapeutic anticoagulation.Results: The review comprised 24 studies and over 2,500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.39; I2 94%], of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63; I2 91%), of deep venous thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32; I2 96%), and of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20; I2 90%). Exploratory analysis of few studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared with therapeutic anticoagulation [odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57; I2 0%].Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages may reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation; however, this is to be ascertained by ongoing randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mouhand F.H. Mohamed ◽  
Shaikha D. Al-Shokri ◽  
Khaled M. Shunnar ◽  
Sara F. Mohamed ◽  
Mostafa S. Najim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Systematic Screening ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Therapeutic Anticoagulation ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 22/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared to therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: The review comprised of 24 studies and over 2500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 (95% CI 0.24, 0.39 I2 94%), of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63 I2 91%), of deep-venous-thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32 I2 96%), of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20 I2 90%). In a subgroup of studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared to therapeutic anticoagulation (OR 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57 I2 0%). Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages seem to reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared to standard prophylactic anticoagulation; ongoing randomized controlled trials will further confirm this.

scholarly journals Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changgang Wu ◽  
Yunlong Liu ◽  
Xiangjing Cai ◽  
Wenming Zhang ◽  
Yongjie Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulative status, particularly for critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. However, the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients under routine prophylactic anticoagulation remains unknown. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prevalence of VTE in these patients by pooling the results of these observational studies.Methods: Observational studies that reported the prevalence of VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19 were identified by searching the PubMed and Embase databases. A random-effect model was used to pool the results by incorporating the potential heterogeneity.Results: A total of 19 studies with 1,599 patients were included. The pooled results revealed that the prevalence of VTE, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was 28.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0–36.8%], 25.6% (95% CI: 17.8–33.4%), and 16.4% (95% CI: 10.1–22.7%), respectively. Limited to studies, in which all patients received routine prophylactic anticoagulation, and the prevalence for VTE, DVT, and PE was 30.1% (95% CI: 19.4–40.8%), 27.2% (95% CI: 16.5–37.9%), and 18.3% (95% CI: 9.8%−26.7%), respectively. The prevalence of DVT was higher in studies with routine screening for all patients, when compared to studies with screening only in clinically suspected patients (47.5% vs. 15.1%, P < 0.001).Conclusion: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 have a high prevalence of VTE, despite the use of present routine prophylactic anticoagulation.

scholarly journals Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 814-821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed Shahzad Hasan ◽  
Sam Radford ◽  
Chia Siang Kow ◽  
Syed Tabish Razi Zaidi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Therapeutic Anticoagulation ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Abstract Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0–10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%) and 27% (95% CI 17–40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.

scholarly journals High burden of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. jclinpath-2020-207023
Author(s):  
Camila Barbosa Oliveira ◽  
Camilla Albertina Dantas Lima ◽  
Gisele Vajgel ◽  
Antonio Victor Campos Coelho ◽  
Paula Sandrin-Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

AimsHospitalised patients with COVID-19 have a variable incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) according to studies from different nationalities. The present systematic review and meta-analysis describes the incidence of AKI, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality among patients with COVID-19-associated AKI.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic database PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science to identify English articles published until 25 May 2020. In case of significant heterogeneity, the meta-analyses were conducted assuming a random-effects model.ResultsFrom 746 screened publications, we selected 21 observational studies with 15 536 patients with COVID-19 for random-effects model meta-analyses. The overall incidence of AKI was 12.3% (95% CI 7.3% to 20.0%) and 77% of patients with AKI were critically ill (95% CI 58.9% to 89.0%). The mortality among patients with AKI was 67% (95% CI 39.8% to 86.2%) and the risk of death was 13 times higher compared with patients without AKI (OR=13.3; 95% CI 6.1 to 29.2). Patients with COVID-19-associated AKI needed for RRT in 23.4% of cases (95% CI 12.6% to 39.4%) and those cases had high mortality (89%–100%).ConclusionThe present study evidenced an incidence of COVID-19-associated AKI higher than previous meta-analysis. The majority of patients affected by AKI were critically ill and mortality rate among AKI cases was high. Thus, it is extremely important for health systems to be aware about the impact of AKI on patients’ outcomes in order to establish proper screening, prevention of additional damage to the kidneys and adequate renal support when needed.

scholarly journals The relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autism: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Autism ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1933-1944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Jenkinson ◽  
Elizabeth Milne ◽  
Andrew Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Limited Effectiveness ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Weighted Effect Size ◽  
Weighted Effect ◽  
Meta Analyses

The association between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety has proved robust in neurotypical populations and has led to effective interventions targeting intolerance of uncertainty. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate this association in autistic people, given the high prevalence of anxiety in this population and the limited effectiveness of therapies used currently to treat anxiety in autism. A protocol was published on the Prospero database (CRD42019125315), and electronic databases were searched using terms related to intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety and autism. Included in the systematic review were 12 studies, of which 10 were included in a meta-analysis. Results showed that anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty were consistently elevated in autistic participants. Examining the correlation between these two constructs, the meta-analysis revealed a large sample-weighted effect size, r = 0.62, 95% confidence interval = [0.52, 0.71], p < 0.001. The strength of this association was comparable to meta-analyses conducted on neurotypical populations, and therefore, it was concluded intolerance of uncertainty may be an appropriate target for intervention for autistic individuals. However, conclusions were limited due to the small number of relevant studies that were available and due to issues with methodological quality. Lay abstract People who find it especially hard to cope with the unexpected or unknown are said to have an intolerance of uncertainty. Autistic individuals often report a preference for certainty and experience levels of anxiety that can interfere with their daily life. Understanding more about the link between the intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autistic people might lead to better treatments for anxiety being developed. Therefore, this work aimed to review previous research in order to explore this link. Twelve studies were found and their results were compared and contrasted. The autistic people who participated in the studies completed questionnaires that suggested a large number of them experienced very high levels of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty. Of 10 studies that used relevant statistics, nine found a statistically significant link between anxiety and the intolerance of uncertainty. In general, the strength of the link was about the same as previous research found in people who did not have a diagnosis of autism. This might mean that interventions that aim to help people who are intolerant of uncertainty could be effective for autistic individuals.

scholarly journals Risk of Clinically Relevant Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Gratz ◽  
Marion Wiegele ◽  
Mathias Maleczek ◽  
Harald Herkner ◽  
Herbert Schöchl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Bleeding Events

Background: Early during the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, reports suggested alarmingly high incidences for thromboembolic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the clinical relevance of these events was not reported in several studies. Additionally, more recent research showed contradictory results and suggested substantially lower rates of venous thromboembolism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to summarize evidence on the incidence of clinically relevant venous thromboembolism (VTE)—defined as VTE excluding isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE) and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT)—in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the incidence of clinically relevant PE and/or DVT in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Scientific reports published in the English language between January and October 2020 were included. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate incidence estimates of clinically relevant VTE and bleeding events. We also performed exploratory meta-regression and subgroup analyses of different diagnostic approaches and additional factors that possibly influenced the incidence of these outcomes.Results: Fifty-four articles (5,400 patients) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 41 had a high risk of bias. The majority of included patients were male, &gt; 60 years, and overweight. Twenty-one studies reported the use of prophylactic doses of heparin. Pooled incidences for clinically relevant PE were estimated at 8% (95% CI, 4–11%), for proximal DVT at 14% (95% CI, 9–20%), and—after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias—for the composite outcome of VTE at 18% (95% CI, 13–24%). Clinically relevant bleeding occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI, 2–9%).Conclusions: We summarized currently available data on the rate of clinically relevant VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Pooled incidence estimates were lower than those reported by previous review articles. In the absence of evidence-based anticoagulation guidelines for critically ill patients with COVID-19, the results of our study provide clinically important information for an individual risk-benefit assessment in this context.Registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO on June 22, 2020 (CRD42020193353; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Critical and Noncritical COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

TH Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. e286-e294
Author(s):  
Eman M. Mansory ◽  
Suthan Srigunapalan ◽  
Alejandro Lazo-Langner
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Systematic Screening ◽  
Screening Analysis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Deep Vein

Abstract Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been observed as a frequent complication in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection requiring hospital admission. Aim This study was aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of VTE in hospitalized intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients. Materials and Methods PubMed was searched up to November 13, 2020, and updated in December 12, 2020. We included studies that evaluated the epidemiology of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Results A total of 91 studies reporting on 35,017 patients with COVID-19 was included. The overall frequency of VTE in all patients, ICU and non-ICU, was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.103–14.605), 24.1% (95% CI: 20.070–28.280), and 7.7% (95% CI: 5.956–9.700), respectively. PE occurred in 8.5% (95% CI: 6.911–10.208), and proximal DVT occurred in 8.2% (95% CI: 6.675–9.874) of all hospitalized patients. The relative risk for VTE associated with ICU admission was 2.99 (95% CI: 2.301–3.887, p <0.001). DVT and PE estimated in studies that adopted some form of systematic screening were higher compared with studies with symptom-triggered screening. Analysis restricted to studies in the 5th quintile of sample size reported significantly lower VTE estimates. Conclusion This study confirmed a high risk of VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to the ICU. Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis suggests that previously reported frequencies of VTE in COVID-19 might have been overestimated.

scholarly journals The prevalence of substance use disorders and substance use in anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Devoe ◽  
Gina Dimitropoulos ◽  
Alida Anderson ◽  
Anees Bahji ◽  
Jordyn Flanagan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Anorexia Nervosa ◽  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Binge Eating ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
English Summary ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Aim Individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) often present with substance use and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the prevalence of substance use and SUDs in AN has not been studied in-depth, especially the differences in the prevalence of SUDs between AN types [e.g., AN-R (restrictive type) and AN-BP (binge-eating/purge type]. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of SUDs and substance use in AN samples. Method Systematic database searches of the peer-reviewed literature were conducted in the following online databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to January 2021. We restricted review eligibility to peer-reviewed research studies reporting the prevalence for either SUDs or substance use in individuals with AN. Random-effects meta-analyses using Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformations were performed on eligible studies to estimate pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria, including 14,695 individuals identified as having AN (mean age: 22.82 years). Random pooled estimates showed that substance use disorders had a 16% prevalence in those with AN (AN-BP = 18% vs. AN-R = 7%). Drug abuse/dependence disorders had a prevalence of 7% in AN (AN-BP = 9% vs. AN-R = 5%). In studies that looked at specific abuse/dependence disorders, there was a 10% prevalence of alcohol abuse/dependence in AN (AN-BP = 15% vs. AN-R = 3%) and a 6% prevalence of cannabis abuse/dependence (AN-BP = 4% vs. AN-R = 0%). In addition, in terms of substance use, there was a 37% prevalence for caffeine use, 29% prevalence for alcohol use, 25% for tobacco use, and 14% for cannabis use in individuals with AN. Conclusion This is the most comprehensive meta-analysis on the comorbid prevalence of SUDs and substance use in persons with AN, with an overall pooled prevalence of 16%. Comorbid SUDs, including drugs, alcohol, and cannabis, were all more common in AN-BP compared to AN-R throughout. Therefore, clinicians should be aware of the high prevalence of SUD comorbidity and substance use in individuals with AN. Finally, clinicians should consider screening for SUDs and integrating treatments that target SUDs in individuals with AN. Plain English Summary Individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) may also present with substance use or have a substance use disorder (SUDs). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of substance use and substance use disorders in individuals with AN. We examined published studies that reported the prevalence of either substance use or SUDs in individuals with AN. We found that substance use disorders had a 16% prevalence and that drug abuse/dependence disorders had a prevalence of 7% in those with AN. These rates were much higher in individuals with binge-eating/purging type compared to the restrictive AN. However, many specific substance use disorders and substance use types were low in individuals with AN. Nonetheless, clinicians should be aware of the high prevalence of SUD comorbidity and substance use in individuals with AN.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document