In critically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic anticoagulation did not increase organ support–free days

Author(s):  
Anthony A. Donato
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick R. Lawler ◽  
Ewan C. Goligher ◽  
Jeffrey S. Berger ◽  
Matthew D. Neal ◽  
Bryan J. McVerry ◽  
...  

Background Thrombo-inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for Covid-19. Methods In an open-label adaptive multiplatform randomized controlled trial, non-critically ill patients hospitalized for Covid-19, defined by the absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment, were randomized to a pragmatic strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome combined survival to hospital discharge and days free of organ support through 21 days, which was evaluated with Bayesian statistical models according to baseline D-dimer. Results The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for superiority were met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in groups defined by high (≥2-fold elevated) and low (<2-fold elevated) D-dimer. Among 2219 participants in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic anticoagulation increased organ support-free days compared to thromboprophylaxis was 99.0% (adjusted odds ratio 1.29, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.61). The adjusted absolute increase in survival to hospital discharge without organ support with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.6% (95% credible interval 0.7 to 8.1). In the primary adaptive stopping groups, the final probabilities of superiority for therapeutic anticoagulation were 97.3% in the high D-dimer group and 92.9% in the low D-dimer group. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% and 0.9% of participants randomized to therapeutic anticoagulation and thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Conclusions In non-critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increases the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of organ support.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jirak ◽  
Zornitsa Shomanova ◽  
Robert Larbig ◽  
Daniel Dankl ◽  
Nino Frank ◽  
...  

Aims: Thromboembolic events, including stroke, are typical complications of COVID-19. Whether arrhythmias, frequently described in severe COVID-19, are disease-specific and thus promote strokes is unclear. We investigated the occurrence of arrhythmias and stroke during rhythm monitoring in critically ill patients with COVID-19, compared with severe pneumonia of other origins.Methods and Results: This retrospective study included 120 critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation in three European tertiary hospitals, including n =60 COVID-19, matched according to risk factors for the occurrence of arrhythmias in n = 60 patients from a retrospective consecutive cohort of severe pneumonia of other origins. Arrhythmias, mainly atrial fibrillation (AF), were frequent in COVID-19. However, when compared with non-COVID-19, no difference was observed with respect to ventricular tachycardias (VT) and relevant bradyarrhythmias (VT 10.0 vs. 8.4 %, p = ns and asystole 5.0 vs. 3.3%, p = ns) with consequent similar rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (6.7 vs. 10.0%, p = ns). AF was even more common in non-COVID-19 (AF 18.3 vs. 43.3%, p = 0.003; newly onset AF 10.0 vs. 30.0%, p = 0.006), which resulted in a higher need for electrical cardioversion (6.7 vs. 20.0%, p = 0.029). Despite these findings and comparable rates of therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC), the incidence of stroke was higher in COVID-19 (6.7.% vs. 0.0, p = 0.042). These events also happened in the absence of AF (50%) and with TAC (50%).Conclusions: Arrhythmias were common in severe COVID-19, consisting mainly of AF, yet less frequent than in matched pneumonia of other origins. A contrasting higher incidence of stroke independent of arrhythmias also observed with TAC, seems to be an arrhythmia-unrelated disease-specific feature of COVID-19.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
Yosuf W. Subat ◽  
Hamza Rayes ◽  
Andrew C. Hanson ◽  
Madeline Q. Johnson ◽  
Phillip J. Schulte ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (9) ◽  
pp. 1512-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando G. Zampieri ◽  
◽  
Theodore J. Iwashyna ◽  
Elizabeth M. Viglianti ◽  
Leandro U. Taniguchi ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Ronco ◽  
Zaccaria Ricci ◽  
Faeq Husain-Syed

Critically ill patients developing severe forms multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) may not be adequately supported by pharmacologic management. In these complex cases, a single form of extracorporeal organ support (ECOS) may be required, but multiple organ support therapy (MOST) is currently seen as a feasible approach. Severe renal dysfunction is a typical syndrome requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the context of MODS. After more than a decade of RRT application in various intensive care settings, ECOS are not anymore seen as extraordinary or particularly aggressive techniques in MODS patients. Nowadays, a significant increase in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal is occurring. When renal and cardio-pulmonary ECOS are used together, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to minimize negative interactions and unwanted adverse effects. In this editorial, we focus on the organ crosstalk between the native and artificial organs, including the advantages and disadvantages of organ support on multiorgan function. Much of current experience on MOST has been gained upon RRT connected to other organ support therapies. Overall, available literature has not definitely established the ideal timing of these interventions, and whether early implementation impacts organ recovery and optimizes resource utilization is still a matter of open debate: it is possible that future research will be devoted to identify patient groups that may benefit from short- and long-term multiple organ support. Video Journal Club “Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco” at  https://www.karger.com/Journal/ArticleNews/490694?sponsor=52


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4267-4267
Author(s):  
Adrienne Kaufman ◽  
Yael Kusne ◽  
Molly Klanderman ◽  
Heidi E. Kosiorek ◽  
Thomas Oliver ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk for venous thromboembolic events. Thrombotic events contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection, and have prompted investigation into strategies for mitigating thrombosis risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Our team reviewed the charts of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia at a tertiary hospital in metropolitan Phoenix Arizona between 2020-2021, to assess frequency and efficacy of utilizing a VTE prophylaxis algorithm designed to prevent thrombosis in patients infected with COVID-19. Methods: A total of 846 patients were retrospectively evaluated to determine if they were treated with guideline-appropriate anticoagulation while hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as if they developed venous or arterial thrombotic events, or major or minor bleeds. 317 patients were excluded for taking therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission, or for having a COVID-19 diagnosis &gt;7 days after admission. Appropriate anticoagulation was determined by an institutionally designed COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm, based on platelet count, d-dimer, bleeding risk, and level of medical care required. Regimen options included: no anticoagulation, prophylactic enoxaparin (40 mg SQ daily) or heparin in the setting of kidney dysfunction, weight-based dosing of enoxaparin (40 mg SQ BID if BMI&gt;40), intermediate intensity enoxaparin without thrombus (30 mg BID if BMI&lt;40, or 40 mg BID if BMI&gt;40), and therapeutic anticoagulation (for example enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID) with thrombus. Demographics: Demographic data and clinical characteristics were collected for 529 patients. Average age was 59 years old, and the majority were men (58.4%). Most patients were White (58.3%), followed by Hispanic (17.8%), or Native American (15.7%). Fewer patients had a normal BMI (21.3%; BMI 18.5 - 24.9) compared to those who were overweight (31.2%; BMI 25-29.9) or obese (43.1% BMI &gt; 30). Other comorbidities included Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (N= 172, 32.5%), hypertension (N = 271, 51.2%), and hyperlipidemia (N = 176, 33.3%). Results: A total of 42 patients (8%), were diagnosed with a venous thrombosis during hospitalization. Patients admitted to the ICU were significantly more likely to have a thrombotic event of any type compared to non-ICU patients (21.6% to 5.7%; p &lt; 0.001). Specifically, critically ill patients had higher incidences of deep vein thrombosis (9.5% to 0.7%), pulmonary emboli (8.1% to 4.8%), and superficial thrombi (2.7% to 0.2%). Only 1.1% of patients (6/529) experienced any bleeding, of which 3 were classified as a major bleed. Discussion: Among patients hospitalized at our institution with COVID-19, the majority were anticoagulated appropriately according to the COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm. Overall incidence of thrombosis in the study population was 8%. A significantly higher percent of critically ill patients had thrombi, supporting reports of correlation between severity of illness and thrombosis risk. The two regimens of anticoagulation least adhered to were weight-based and intermediate-based dosing, likely reflecting a departure from the hospital's thromboprophylaxis regimens prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are needed to characterize whether identifiable risk factors correlate with the incidence of thrombosis, and whether treatment with lower than recommended doses of anticoagulation, based on the COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm, were associated with thrombosis. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document