Dataset Information

Higher Intensity Thromboprophylaxis Regimens and Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To assess the role of thromboprophylaxis regimens on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on coronavirus disease 2019 patients, included between March 10, and April 30, 2020. SETTING:ICU of an University Hospital in Belgium. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Critically ill adult mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients were eligible if they underwent a CT pulmonary angiography, as part of the routine management in case of persistent hypoxemia or respiratory deterioration. The primary endpoint of this study was the occurrence of pulmonary embolism according to the use of standard thromboprophylaxis (i.e. subcutaneous enoxaparin 4,000 international units once daily) or high regimen thromboprophylaxis (i.e. subcutaneous enoxaparin 4,000 international units bid or therapeutic unfractioned heparin). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 49 mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019, 40 underwent CT pulmonary angiography after a median of 7 days (4-8 d) since ICU admission and 12 days (9-16 d) days since the onset of symptoms. Thirteen patients (33%) were diagnosed of pulmonary embolism, which was bilateral in six patients and localized in the right lung in seven patients. D-dimers on the day of CT pulmonary angiography had a predictive accuracy of 0.90 (95% CIs: 0.78-1.00) for pulmonary embolism. The use of high-regimen thromboprophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of pulmonary embolism (2/18; 11%) than standard regimen (11/22, 50%-odds ratio 0.13 [0.02-0.69]; p = 0.02); this difference remained significant even after adjustment for confounders. Six patients with pulmonary embolism (46%) and 14 patients without pulmonary embolism (52%) died at ICU discharge (odds ratio 0.79 [0.24-3.26]; p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS:In this study, one third of coronavirus disease 2019 mechanically ventilated patients have a pulmonary embolism visible on CT pulmonary angiography. High regimen thromboprophylaxis may decrease the occurrence of such complication.

SUBMITTER: Taccone FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7437413 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Higher Intensity Thromboprophylaxis Regimens and Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

Taccone Fabio Silvio FS Gevenois Pierre Alain PA Peluso Lorenzo L Pletchette Zoe Z Lheureux Olivier O Brasseur Alexandre A Garufi Alessandra A Talamonti Marta M Motte Serge S Nobile Leda L Grimaldi David D Creteur Jacques J Vincent Jean-Louis JL

Critical care medicine 20201101 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the role of thromboprophylaxis regimens on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism in coronavirus disease 2019 patients.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on coronavirus disease 2019 patients, included between March 10, and April 30, 2020.<h4>Setting</h4>ICU of an University Hospital in Belgium.<h4>Patients and interventions</h4>Critically ill adult mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients were eligible if they underwe ...[more]

PMID: 32769623

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection to which there is no community immunity. Patients admitted to ICUs have high mortality, with only supportive therapies available. Our aim was to profile plasma inflammatory analytes to help understand the host response to coronavirus disease 2019.DesignDaily blood inflammation profiling with immunoassays.SettingTertiary care ICU and academic laboratory.SubjectsAll patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had daily blood samples collected until either testing was confirmed negative on ICU day 3 (coronavirus disease 2019 negative), or until ICU day 7 if the patient was positive (coronavirus disease 2019 positive).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAge- and sex-matched healthy controls and ICU patients that were either coronavirus disease 2019 positive or coronavirus disease 2019 negative were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were more likely than coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients to suffer bilateral pneumonia. Mortality rate for coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients was 40%. We measured 57 inflammatory analytes and then analyzed with both conventional statistics and machine learning. Twenty inflammatory analytes were different between coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients and healthy controls (p < 0.01). Compared with coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients, coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients had 17 elevated inflammatory analytes on one or more of their ICU days 1-3 (p < 0.01), with feature classification identifying the top six analytes between cohorts as tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2. While tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, and interleukin-18 were elevated for all seven ICU days, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10 transiently elevated on ICU days 2 and 3 and elastase 2 increased over ICU days 2-7. Inflammation profiling predicted coronavirus disease 2019 status with 98% accuracy, whereas elevated heat shock protein 70 was strongly associated with mortality.ConclusionsWhile many inflammatory analytes were elevated in coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients, relative to healthy controls, the top six analytes distinguishing coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients from coronavirus disease 2019 negative ICU patients were tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causes direct lung damage, overwhelming endothelial activation, and inflammatory reaction, leading to acute respiratory failure and multi-organ dysfunction. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating targeted therapies to hinder this exaggerated inflammatory response. Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown heterogeneous severity trajectories, suggesting that response to therapies is likely to vary across patients.Research questionAre critically ill COVID-19 patients biologically and immunologically dissociable based on profiling of currently evaluated therapeutic targets?Study design and methodsWe did a single-center, prospective study in an ICU department in France. Ninety-six critically ill adult patients admitted with a documented SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. We conducted principal components analysis and hierarchical clustering on a vast array of immunologic variables measured on the day of ICU admission.ResultsWe found that patients were distributed in three clusters bearing distinct immunologic features and associated with different ICU outcomes. Cluster 1 had a "humoral immunodeficiency" phenotype with predominant B-lymphocyte defect, relative hypogammaglobulinemia, and moderate inflammation. Cluster 2 had a "hyperinflammatory" phenotype, with high cytokine levels (IL-6, IL-1β, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF⍺]) associated with CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte defects. Cluster 3 had a "complement-dependent" phenotype with terminal complement activation markers (elevated C3 and sC5b-9).InterpretationPatients with severe COVID-19 exhibiting cytokine release marks, complement activation, or B-lymphocyte defects are distinct from each other. Such immunologic variability argues in favor of targeting different mediators in different groups of patients and could serve as a basis for patient identification and clinical trial eligibility.

Project description:IntroductionThrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients.MethodologyThis retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms.ResultsA total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively.ConclusionAmong COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac injury has been reported in up to 30% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, cardiac injury is defined mainly by troponin elevation without description of associated structural abnormalities and its time course has not been studied.Research questionWhat are the ECG and echocardiographic abnormalities as well as their time course in critically ill COVID-19 patients?Study design and methodsThe cardiac function of 43 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to two ICUs was assessed prospectively and repeatedly, combining ECG, cardiac biomarker, and transthoracic echocardiographic analyses from ICU admission to ICU discharge or death or to a maximum follow-up of 14 days. Cardiac injury was defined by troponin elevation and newly diagnosed ECG or echocardiographic abnormalities, or both.ResultsAt baseline, 49% of patients demonstrated a cardiac injury, and 70% of patients experienced cardiac injury within the first 14 days of ICU stay, with a median time of occurrence of 3 days (range, 0-7 days). The most frequent abnormalities were ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of left ventricular (LV) abnormalities (87% of patients with cardiac injury), right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction (47%), pericardial effusion (43%), new-onset atrial arrhythmias (33%), LV relaxation impairment (33%), and LV systolic dysfunction (13%). Between baseline and day 14, the incidence of pericardial effusion and of new-onset atrial arrhythmias increased and the incidence of ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of LV abnormalities as well as the incidence of LV relaxation impairment remained stable, whereas the incidence of RV and LV systolic dysfunction decreased.InterpretationCardiac injury is common and early in critically ill COVID-19 patients. ECG or echocardiographic signs, or both, of LV abnormalities were the most frequent abnormalities, and patients with cardiac injury experienced more RV than LV systolic dysfunction.

Project description:The reported incidence rate of venous and arterial thrombotic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infections is high, ranging from 20% to 60%. We adopted a patient-tailored thromboprophylaxis protocol based on clinical and laboratory presentations for these patients in our institution. We hypothesised that patients who received high-intensity thromboprophylaxis treatment would experience fewer thrombotic events. The aims of our study were to explore the incidence of thrombotic events in this population; to assess independent factors associated with thrombotic events and to evaluate the incidence of haemorrhagic events. A retrospective review of all adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 1 March and 29 May 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events diagnosed during the ICU stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the independent factors associated with thrombotic events. A total of 188 patients met the inclusion criteria. All received some type of thromboprophylaxis treatment except for six patients who did not receive any prophylaxis. Of the 182 patients who received thromboprophylaxis, 75 (40%) received high-intensity thromboprophylaxis and 24 (12.8%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Twenty-one patients (11.2%) experienced 23 thrombotic events (incidence rate of 12.2% (95%CI 7.9-17.8)), including 12 deep venous thromboses, 9 pulmonary emboli and 2 peripheral arterial thromboses. The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that only D-dimer (OR 2.80, p = 0.002) and high-intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen (OR 0.20, p = 0.01) were independently associated with thrombotic events. Thirty-one patients (16.5%) experienced haemorrhagic events; among them, 13 were classified as major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Therapeutic anticoagulation, but not the high-intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen, was associated with major bleeding. A proactive approach to the management of thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients utilising a high-intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen in appropriately selected patients may result in lower thrombotic events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Dataset Information

Higher Intensity Thromboprophylaxis Regimens and Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

Publications

Higher Intensity Thromboprophylaxis Regimens and Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets