Dataset Information

Deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating morbidity and mortality worldwide. In particular, thromboembolic complications have emerged as a key threat for patients with COVID-19. We assessed our experience with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with COVID-19 who had undergone upper or lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography at an academic health system in New York City from March 3, 2020 to April 12, 2020 with follow-up through May 12, 2020. A cohort of hospitalized patients without COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) who had undergone venous duplex ultrasonography from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 was used for comparison. The primary outcome was DVT. The secondary outcomes included pulmonary embolism, in-hospital mortality, admission to the intensive care unit, and antithrombotic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors for DVT and mortality.

Results

Of 443 patients (COVID-19, n = 188; and non-COVID-19, n = 255) who had undergone venous duplex ultrasonography, the COVID-19 cohort had had a greater incidence of DVT (31% vs 19%; P = .005) than had the non-COVID-19 cohort. The incidence of pulmonary embolism was not significantly different statistically between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts (8% vs 4%; P = .105). The DVT location in the COVID-19 group was more often distal (63% vs 29%; P < .001) and bilateral (15% vs 4%; P < .001). The duplex ultrasound findings had a significant impact on the antithrombotic plan; 42 patients (72%) with COVID-19 in the DVT group had their therapy escalated and 49 (38%) and 3 (2%) had their therapy escalated and deescalated in the non-DVT group, respectively (P < .001). Within the COVID-19 cohort, the D-dimer level was significantly greater in the DVT group at admission (2746 ng/mL vs 1481 ng/mL; P = .004) and at the duplex examination (6068 ng/mL vs 3049 ng/mL; P < .01). On multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.87; P = .035), intensive care unit admission (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.02-11.44; P = .046), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.01-30.13; P = .049) were independently associated with DVT.

Conclusions

Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolic events in this population, we support the decision to empirically initiate therapeutic anticoagulation for patients with a low bleeding risk and severe COVID-19 infection. Duplex ultrasonography should be reserved for patients with a high clinical suspicion of venous thromboembolism for whom anticoagulation therapy could result in life-threatening consequences. Further study of patients with COVID-19 is warranted to elucidate the etiology of vascular thromboembolic events and guide the prophylactic and therapeutic interventions for these patients.

SUBMITTER: Chang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7543928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIsolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT), a disease frequently detected in hospitalized patients, can progress to proximal deep vein thrombosis (PDVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Here, we evaluated the effects of anticoagulation in hospitalized IDDVT patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study in our hospital and enrolled hospitalized IDDVT patients diagnosed by compression ultrasonography (CUS) from January to December 2020. Participants were divided into anticoagulation (AC) and non-anticoagulation (non-AC) groups. After propensity score matching (PSM), multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to assess whether anticoagulation was associated with PDVT/PE, and all-cause mortality.ResultsA total of 426 IDDVT inpatients with CUS follow-up were screened from 1502 distal DVT patients and finally enrolled. The median age was 67 years with 51.4% males and 15.5% cancer patients. The median follow-up was 11.6 months. There were 288 and 138 patients treated with or without anticoagulants, respectively. Patients in the non-AC group had less body mass index and more comorbidities. Patients in the AC group were treated with rivaroxaban or dabigatran (52.1%), low molecular weight heparin (42.7%), and warfarin (5.2%). The PSM generated 111 pairs of well-matched IDDVT patients with or without anticoagulation. The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that neither the incidence of PDVT/PE (5.4% vs. 2.7%, log-rank p = 0.313) nor all-cause mortality (27.9% vs. 18.9%, log-rank p = 0.098) was significant different between groups. Anticoagulation was not associated with PDVT/PE and all-cause mortality in the multivariable Cox regression analyses using the matched cohorts. The main risk factors for all-cause mortality were age, malignancy history, BMI, sepsis, heart failure, and white blood cell (WBC) count.ConclusionsIn hospitalized IDDVT patients, the thrombosis extension rate to PDVT/PE was low. Anticoagulation did not reduce the incidence of thrombosis extension of IDDVT and was not associated with all-cause mortality.

Project description:BackgroundProgressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously, but occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients because the technique is affected by skin color. Oxygen dissociation curves allow non-invasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFR) but this approach remains unproven.Research questionCan ePFRs measure overt and occult hypoxemia?Study design and methodsWe retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n=5319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hours), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Sepsis-3). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROC). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test.ResultsOvert hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA]; 1.7 [Emory]; p<0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA]; 0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (AUROC: 0.70 [UVA]; 0.70 [Emory]) or Sepsis-3 (AUROC: 0.68 [UVA]; 0.65 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites]; p<0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA]; 1.2 [Emory], p<0.01).InterpretationThe ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models like NEWS and Sepsis-3. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as cliniciansâ€™ real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may enable statistical modelling of racial disparities in outcomes attributable to occult hypoxemia.