COVID-19 and thrombosis: searching for evidence

Early in the pandemic, COVID-19-related increases in rates of venous and arterial thromboembolism were seen. Many observational studies suggested a benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized patients using various dosing strategies. Randomized trials were initiated to compare the efficacy of these different options in acutely ill and critically ill inpatients as the concept of immune-mediated inflammatory microthrombosis emerged. We present a case-based review of how we approach thromboembolic prophylaxis in COVID-19 and briefly discuss the epidemiology, the pathophysiology, and the rare occurrence of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

Nonoperative Management of Blunt Hepatic Trauma: Comparison of Level I and II Trauma Centers

Introduction Most blunt liver injuries are treated with nonoperative management (NOM), and angiointervention (AI) has become a common adjunct. This study evaluated the use of AI, blood product utilization, pharmacological venous thromboembolic prophylaxis (VTEp), and outcomes in severe blunt liver trauma managed nonoperatively at level I versus II trauma centers. Methods American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) study (2013-2016), including adult patients with severe blunt liver injuries (AIS score>/= 3) treated with NOM, was conducted. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics, severity of liver injury (AIS), use of AI, blood product utilization, and VTEp were collected. Outcomes included survival, complications, failure of NOM, blood product utilization, and length of stay (LOS). Results Study included 2825 patients: 2230(78.9%) in level I and 595(21.1%) in level II centers. There was no difference in demographics, clinical presentation, or injury severity between centers. Angiointervention was used in 6.4% in level I and 7.2% in level II centers (P=.452). Level II centers were less likely to use LMWH for VTEp (.003). There was no difference in mortality or failure of NOM. In level II centers, there was a significantly higher 24-hour blood product utilization (PRBC P = .015 and platelets P = .002), longer ventilator days (P = .012), and longer ICU (P< .001) and hospital LOS (P = .024). The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia was significantly higher in level II centers (P = .003). Conclusion Utilization of AI and NOM success rates is similar in level I and II centers. However, the early blood utilization, ventilator days, and VAP complications are significantly higher in level II centers.

Ibrutinib in patients with atrial fibrillation – the challenge of thromboembolic prophylaxis

Ibrutinib is a novel drug used in haematological malignancies. Its use is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), which, in turn, exposes patients to embolic risk, including stroke. Reducing this risk requires anticoagulant therapy which is a matter of concern in the context of the increased bleeding risk of patients with haematological malignancies. In this context the presence of thrombocytopenia related to haematological disorder, ibrutinib-anticoagulants and ibrutinib-platelets interactions contribute to the amplification of the problem. The correct assessment of the thrombosis vs. haemorrhage balance represents a significant challenge for the clinician. In this paper we discuss practical issues related to anticoagulation in patients treated with ibrutinib and incident AF.

Compliance with American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: a level I trauma center experience

Background Recommendations are for nearly universal venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill hospitalized patients because of their well-recognized risks. In those intensive care units (ICUs) where patient care is more uniformly directed, it may be expected that VTE prophylaxis would more closely follow this standard over units that are less uniform, such as open-model ICUs. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study on all patients aged 18+ admitted to an open ICU between 6/1/2017 and 5/31/2018. Patients were excluded if they had instructions to receive comfort measures only or required therapeutic anticoagulant administration. Prophylaxis administration practices, including administration of mechanical and/or pharmacologic prophylaxis and delayed (≥48 h post-ICU admission) initiation of pharmacologic prophylaxis, were compared between patients admitted to the ICU by the trauma service versus other departments. Root causes for opting out of pharmacological prophylaxis were documented and compared between the two study groups. Results One-hundred two study participants were admitted by the trauma service, and 98 were from a non-trauma service. Mechanical (98% trauma vs. 99% non-trauma, P = 0.99) and pharmacologic (54% vs. 44%, P = 0.16) prophylaxis rates were similar between the two admission groups. The median time from ICU admission to pharmacologic prophylaxis initiation was 53 h for the trauma service and 10 h for the non–trauma services (P ≤ 0.01). In regression analyses, trauma-service admission (odds ratio (OR) = 2.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–6.83) and increasing ICU length of stay (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.05–1.21) were independently associated with pharmacologic prophylaxis use. Trauma-service admission (OR = 8.30, 95% CI 2.18–31.56) and increasing hospital length of stay (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.03–1.28) were independently associated with delayed prophylaxis initiation. Conclusions Overall, the receipt of VTE prophylaxis of any type was close to 100%, due to the nearly universal use of mechanical compression devices among ICU patients in this study. However, when examining pharmacologic prophylaxis specifically, the rate was considerably lower than is currently recommended: 54% among the trauma services and 44% among non-trauma services.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy: thromboembolism prophylaxis and poor prognosis in ICU

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulation abnormalities which are indicators of higher mortality especially in severe cases. Methods We studied patients with proven COVID-19 disease in the intensive care unit of Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China from 30 to 2019 to 31 March 2020. Results Of 180 patients, 89 (49.44 %) had died, 85 (47.22 %) had been discharged alive, and 6 (3.33 %) were still hospitalised by the end of data collection. A D-dimer concentration of > 0.5 mg/L on admission was significantly associated with 30 day mortality, and a D-dimer concentration of > 5 mg/L was found in a much higher proportion of non-survivors than survivors. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) scoring systems were dichotomised as < 4 or ≥ 4 and < 5 or ≥ 5, respectively, and the mortality rate was significantly different between the two stratifications in both scoring systems. Enoxaparin was administered to 68 (37.78 %) patients for thromboembolic prophylaxis, and stratification by the D-dimer concentration and DIC score confirmed lower mortality in patients who received enoxaparin when the D-dimer concentration was > 2 than < 2 mg/L or DIC score was ≥ 5 than < 5. A low platelet count and low serum calcium concentration were also related to mortality. Conclusions A D-dimer concentration of > 0.5 mg/L on admission is a risk factor for severe disease. A SIC score of > 4 and DIC score of > 5 may be used to predict mortality. Thromboembolic prophylaxis can reduce mortality only in patients with a D-dimer concentration of > 2 mg/L or DIC score of ≥ 5.