Dataset Information

Systemic Coagulopathy in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Coagulation activation has been reported in several cohorts of patients Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the true burden of systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database to identify studies that reported the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy using established criteria in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy (disseminated intravascular coagulation [DIC] and/or sepsis-induced coagulopathy [SIC]). Pooled prevalences and 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were calculated using random-effects model. A total of 5 studies including 1210 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled prevalence of systemic coagulopathy was 7.1% (95%CI: 3.2%,15.3%, I² = 93%). The pooled prevalence of DIC (N = 721) and SIC (N = 639) were 4.3% (95%CI 1.7%, 10.4%, I² = 84%) and 16.2% (95%CI: 9.3%, 26.8%, I² = 74%), respectively. Only 2 studies reported the prevalence of elevated D-dimer levels with the pooled prevalence of 84.6% (95%CI: 52.0%,96.5%, I² = 94%). Average D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were remarkably increased, while platelet counts, PT, and aPTT ratios were minimally affected in COVID-19. The estimated prevalence of systemic coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19 was low despite D-dimer elevation in most patients. Relatively low systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 may contribute to the high incidence of thrombosis rather than bleeding in patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Uaprasert N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7812392 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systemic Coagulopathy in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Uaprasert Noppacharn N Moonla Chatphatai C Sosothikul Darintr D Rojnuckarin Ponlapat P Chiasakul Thita T

Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis 20210101

Coagulation activation has been reported in several cohorts of patients Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the true burden of systemic coagulopathy in COVID-19 remains unknown. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database to identify studies that reported the prevalence of systemic coagulopathy using established criteria in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was the prevalence of systemic coagulopath ...[more]

PMID: 33443456

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Emerging evidence shows that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly complicated by coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered to be a potential cause of unexplained death. Information on the incidence of VTE in COVID-19 patients, however, remains unclear. Method: English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane), Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, WANFANG), and preprint platforms were searched to identify studies with data of VTE occurrence in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Pooled incidence and relative risks (RRs) of VTE were estimated by a random-effects model. Variations were examined based on clinical manifestations of VTE (pulmonary embolism-PE and deep vein thrombosis-DVT), disease severity (severe patients and non-severe patients), and rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (≥60 and <60%). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to strengthen the robustness of results. Meta-regression was performed to explore the risk factors associated with VTE in COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 1,913 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. The pooled incidence of VTE was 25% (95% CI, 19-31%; I 2, 95.7%), with a significant difference between the incidence of PE (19%; 95% CI, 13-25%; I 2, 93.2%) and DVT (7%; 95% CI, 4-10%; I 2, 88.3%; P interaction < 0.001). Higher incidence was observed in severe COVID-19 patients (35%; 95 CI%, 25-44%; I 2, 92.4%) than that in non-severe patients (6%; 95 CI%, 3-10%; I 2, 62.2%; P interaction < 0.001). The high rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients (≥60%) was associated with a lower incidence of VTE compared with the low pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rate (<60%) (19 vs. 40%; P interaction = 0.052). Severe patients had a 3.76-fold increased risk of VTE compared with non-severe patients (RR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.66-8.50; I 2, 47.0%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the primacy results. Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that the estimated VTE incidence was 25% in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Higher incidence of VTE was observed in COVID-19 patients with a severe condition or with a low rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Assessment of VTE risk is strongly recommended in COVID-19 patients, and effective measures of thromboprophylaxis should be taken in a timely manner for patients with high risk of VTE.

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies).ConclusionsMortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Project description:BackgroundIndividual studies have reported widely variable rates for VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Research questionWhat is the incidence of VTE and bleeding among hospitalized patients with COVID-19?MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, 15 standard sources and COVID-19-specific sources were searched between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, with no restriction according to language. Incidence estimates were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was assessed by using the Begg and Egger tests.ResultsThe pooled incidence was 17.0% (95% CI, 13.4-20.9) for VTE, 12.1% (95% CI, 8.4-16.4) for DVT, 7.1% (95% CI, 5.3-9.1) for pulmonary embolism (PE), 7.8% (95% CI, 2.6-15.3) for bleeding, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.2-7.9) for major bleeding. In subgroup meta-analyses, the incidence of VTE was higher when assessed according to screening (33.1% vs 9.8% by clinical diagnosis), among patients in the ICU (27.9% vs 7.1% in the ward), in prospective studies (25.5% vs 12.4% in retrospective studies), and with the inclusion of catheter-associated thrombosis/isolated distal DVTs and isolated subsegmental PEs. The highest pooled incidence estimate of bleeding was reported for patients receiving intermediate- or full-dose anticoagulation (21.4%) and the lowest in the only prospective study that assessed bleeding events (2.7%).InterpretationAmong hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the overall estimated pooled incidence of VTE was 17.0%, with higher rates with routine screening, inclusion of distal DVT, and subsegmental PE, in critically ill patients and in prospective studies. Bleeding events were observed in 7.8% of patients and were sensitive to use of escalated doses of anticoagulants and nature of data collection. Additional studies are required to ascertain the significance of various thrombotic events and to identify strategies to improve patient outcomes.Trial registryPROSPERO; No.: CRD42020198864; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Project description:ObjectivesSeveral studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.Design and settingWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.Subjects and interventionStudies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.Measurements and main resultsData on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.ConclusionsDespite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

Dataset Information

Systemic Coagulopathy in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Systemic Coagulopathy in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure