Impact of anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tremblay D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7332896 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The hypercoagulable state observed in COVID-19 could be responsible for morbidity and mortality. In this retrospective study we investigated whether therapeutic anticoagulation prior to infection has a beneficial effect in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study included 1154 COVID-19 patients admitted to 6 hospitals in the Netherlands between March and May 2020. We applied 1:3 propensity score matching to evaluate the association between prior therapeutic anticoagulation use and clinical outcome, with in hospital mortality as primary endpoint. In total, 190 (16%) patients used therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission. In the propensity score matched analyses, we observed no associations between prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation and overall mortality (risk ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval; 0.80-1.30]) or length of hospital stay (7.0 [4-12] vs. 7.0 [4-12] days, P = .69), although we observed a lower risk of pulmonary embolism (0.19 [0.05-0.80]). This study shows that prior use of therapeutic anticoagulation is not associated with improved clinical outcome in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8250934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. How does in-hospital mortality compare with intermediate-versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin versus no antiplatelet therapy, in treatment of COVID-19? Using data from 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (1) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (2) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). Propensity score matching utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates yielded treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate-compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. No conflict of interest exists for any author on this manuscript.
| S-EPMC7814841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in-hospital mortality with intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, and separately with in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate- or prophylactic-dose anticoagulation ("anticoagulation cohort", N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in-hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy ("aspirin cohort", N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient-specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well-balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in-hospital death. Among propensity score-matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate- compared to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308-0.872]). Among propensity-score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in-hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336-0.812]). In this propensity score-matched, observational study of COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in-hospital death.
| S-EPMC8013588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of prior fragility fractures and osteoporosis treatment before total hip arthroplasty (THA) on postoperative complications is unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect of prior fragility fractures and preoperative osteoporosis treatment on short-term complications and secondary fragility fractures after THA.MethodsA propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study was conducted using a commercially available database to (1) characterize the impact of prior fragility fractures on rates of short-term complications after THA and (2) evaluate if osteoporosis treatment before arthroplasty reduces risk of postoperative complications. Rates of periprosthetic fracture, revision THA, and fragility fractures were compared via multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAfter 1:1 propensity score matching, 2188 patients were assigned to each cohort. Patients with a fragility fracture in the 3 years preceding THA were more likely to sustain a periprosthetic fracture (1 year: 1.7% vs 1.0%, odds ratio [OR] 1.89; 2 years: 2.1% vs 1.1%, OR 1.82), fragility fracture (1 year: 4.7% vs 1.1%, OR 3.59; 2 years: 6.7% vs 1.7%, OR 3.21), and revision THA (1 year: 2.7% vs 1.7%, OR 1.65; 2 years: 3.1% vs 1.9%, OR 1.58). Among patients with a prior fragility fracture, only 13.8% received osteoporosis pharmacotherapy before THA. Rates of all complications were statistically comparable postoperatively for patients with and without pre-THA osteoporosis treatment.ConclusionsFragility fractures within 3 years before THA are associated with significantly increased risk of periprosthetic fracture, all-cause revision, and secondary fragility fractures postoperatively. Preoperative osteoporosis treatment may not decrease risk of postoperative complications.
| S-EPMC8379644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 5 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts.ResultsThe analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016).ConclusionEmpiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.
| S-EPMC8087886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, and all COVID-19 patients were recruited who were admitted to the Yichang Third People's Hospital from February 1st to March 31st, 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used for minimizing confounding effects. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, with the secondary outcomes being the time needed for a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test to turn negative and the length of hospital stay.ResultsTotaling 367 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the Yichang Third People's Hospital were identified, of whom 276 were mild or stable COVID-19, and 67 were serious or critically ill. Among them, 255 patients were treated using methylprednisolone, and 188 did not receive any corticosteroid-related treatment. After PSM, no statistically significant difference was found in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Regarding the outcomes, there also were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Patients without the use of methylprednisolone were more quickly to obtain negative results of their nasopharyngeal swab tests of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid after treatment, compared to those receiving methylprednisolone.ConclusionMethylprednisolone could not improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, and the efficacy and safety of the use of methylprednisolone in patients with COVID-19 still remain uncertain, thus the use of corticosteroids clinically in patients with COVID-19 should be with cautions.
| S-EPMC7775059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Examine the possible beneficial effects of early, D-dimer driven anticoagulation in preventing thrombotic complications and improving the overall outcomes of COVID-19 intubated patients. Methods: To address COVID-19 hypercoagulability, we developed a clinical protocol to escalate anticoagulation based on serum D-dimer levels. We retrospectively reviewed all our first 240 intubated patients with COVID-19. Of the 240, 195 were stratified into patients treated based on this protocol (ON-protocol, n = 91) and the control group, patients who received standard thromboprophylaxis (OFF-protocol, n = 104). All patients were admitted to the Stony Brook University Hospital intensive care units (ICUs) between February 7th, 2020 and May 17, 2020 and were otherwise treated in the same manner for all aspects of COVID-19 disease. Results: We found that the overall mortality was significantly lower ON-protocol compared to OFF-protocol (27.47 vs. 58.66%, P < 0.001). Average maximum D-dimer levels were significantly lower in the ON-protocol group (7,553 vs. 12,343 ng/mL), as was serum creatinine (2.2 vs. 2.8 mg/dL). Patients with poorly controlled D-dimer levels had higher rates of kidney dysfunction and mortality. Transfusion requirements and serious bleeding events were similar between groups. To address any possible between-group differences, we performed a propensity-matched analysis of 124 of the subjects (62 matched pairs, ON-protocol and OFF-protocol), which showed similar findings (31 vs. 57% overall mortality in the ON-protocol and OFF-protocol group, respectively). Conclusions: D-dimer-driven anticoagulation appears to be safe in patients with COVID-19 infection and is associated with improved survival. What This Paper Adds: It has been shown that hypercoagulability in patients with severe COVID-19 infection leads to thromboembolic complications and organ dysfunction. Anticoagulation has been variably administered to these patients, but it is unknown whether routine or escalated thromboprophylaxis provides a survival benefit. Our data shows that escalated D-dimer driven anticoagulation is associated with improved organ function and overall survival in intubated COVID-19 ICU patients at our institution. Importantly, we found that timely escalation of this anticoagulation is critical in preventing organ dysfunction and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC7902033 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundRegional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) is the gold standard of anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy but is rarely used for intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in ICU. Few studies assessed the safety and efficacy of RCA during IHD in ICU; however, no data are available comparing RCA to heparin anticoagulation, which are commonly used for IHD. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of RCA compared to heparin anticoagulation during IHD.MethodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive ICU patients treated with either heparin anticoagulation (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) or RCA for IHD from July to September in 2015 and 2017. RCA was performed with citrate infusion according to blood flow and calcium infusion by diffusive influx from dialysate. Using a propensity score analysis, as the primary endpoint we assessed whether RCA improved efficacy, quantified with Kt/V from the ionic dialysance, compared to heparin anticoagulation. The secondary endpoint was safety. Exploratory analyses were performed on the changes in efficacy and safety between the implementation period (2015) and at long term (2017).ResultsIn total, 208 IHD sessions were performed in 56 patients and were compared (124 RCA and 84 heparin coagulation). There was no difference in Kt/V between RCA and heparin (0.95 ± 0.38 vs. 0.89 ± 0.32; p = 0.98). A higher number of circuit clotting (12.9% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.02) and premature interruption resulting from acute high transmembrane pressure (21% vs. 7%; p = 0.02) occurred in the RCA sessions compared to the heparin sessions. In the propensity score-matching analysis, RCA was associated with an increased risk of circuit clotting (absolute differences = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03-0.18]; p = 0.008). There was no difference in efficacy and safety between the two time periods (2015 and 2017).ConclusionRCA with calcium infusion by diffusive influx from dialysate for IHD was easy to implement with stable long-term efficacy and safety but did not improve efficacy and could be associated with an increased risk of circuit clotting compared to heparin anticoagulation in non-selected ICU patients. Randomized trials to determine the best anticoagulation for IHD in ICU patients should be conducted in a variety of settings.
| S-EPMC7822996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, studies on COVID-19 have focused on the epidemiology of the disease and clinical characteristics of patients, as well as on the risk factors associated with mortality during hospitalization in critical COVID-19 cases. However, few research has been performed on the prediction of disease progression in particular group of patients in the early stages of COVID-19.MethodsThe study included 338 patients with COVID-19 treated at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, from December 2019 to March 2020. Predictors of the progression of COVID-19 from mild to severe stages were selected by the logistic regression analysis.ResultsCOVID-19 progression to severe and critical stages was confirmed in 78 (23.1%) patients. The average value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was higher in patients in the disease progression group than in the improvement group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that elevated NLR, LDH and IL-10 were independent predictors of disease progression. The optimal cut-off value of NLR was 3.75. The values of the area under the curve, reflecting the accuracy of predicting COVID-19 progression by NLR was 0.739 (95%CI: 0.605-0.804). The risk model based on NLR, LDH and IL-10 had the highest area under the ROC curve.ConclusionsThe performed analysis demonstrates that high concentrations of NLR, LDH and IL-10 were independent risk factors for predicting disease progression in patients at the early stage of COVID-19. The risk model combined with NLR, LDH and IL-10 improved the accuracy of the prediction of disease progression in patients in the early stages of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8685757 | biostudies-literature