Dataset Information

D-dimer and Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism for acute organ injury and death in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, but the relationship between elevated plasma levels of d-dimer, a biomarker of coagulation activation, and mortality has not been rigorously studied. We examined the independent association between d-dimer and death in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Design

Multicenter cohort study.

Setting

ICUs at 68 hospitals across the United States.

Patients

Critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to ICUs between March 4, 2020, and May 25, 2020, with a measured d-dimer concentration on ICU day 1 or 2.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

The primary exposure was the highest normalized d-dimer level (assessed in four categories: < 2×, 2-3.9×, 4-7.9×, and ≥ 8× the upper limit of normal) on ICU day 1 or 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Among 3,418 patients (63.1% male; median age 62 yr [interquartile range, 52-71 yr]), 3,352 (93.6%) had a d-dimer concentration above the upper limit of normal. A total of 1,180 patients (34.5%) died within 28 days. Patients in the highest compared with lowest d-dimer category had a 3.11-fold higher odds of death (95% CI, 2.56-3.77) in univariate analyses, decreasing to a 1.81-fold increased odds of death (95% CI, 1.43-2.28) after multivariable adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and illness severity. Further adjustment for therapeutic anticoagulation did not meaningfully attenuate this relationship (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.36-2.19).

Conclusions

In a large multicenter cohort study of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, higher d-dimer levels were independently associated with a greater risk of death.

SUBMITTER: Short SAP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8275993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesCritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have variable mortality. Risk scores could improve care and be used for prognostic enrichment in trials. We aimed to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a simple tool for predicting 28-day mortality in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.DesignThis was an observational study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day inhospital mortality. Machine learning models and a simple tool were derived using variables from the first 48 hours of ICU admission and validated externally in independent sites and temporally with more recent admissions. Models were compared with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration.SettingSixty-eight U.S. ICUs.PatientsAdults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 ICUs in the United States between March 4, 2020, and June 29, 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe study included 5,075 patients, 1,846 (36.4%) of whom died by day 28. eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.81) and was well-calibrated, while k-nearest neighbors were the lowest performing machine learning algorithm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.69). Findings were similar with temporal validation. The simple tool, which was created using the most important features from the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model, had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.78) than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69), National Early Warning Score (0.60), and CURB-65 (0.65; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Age, number of ICU beds, creatinine, lactate, arterial pH, and Pao2/Fio2 ratio were the most important predictors in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model.ConclusionseXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest discrimination overall, and our simple tool had higher discrimination than a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 on external validation. These models could be used to improve triage decisions and clinical trial enrichment.

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:ImportanceThe US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19.ObjectivesTo assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020.ExposuresPatient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes.ResultsA total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2-4 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30-5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46-4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies.Conclusions and relevanceThis study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.

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: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:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is associated with high mortality rates and multiple organ damage. There is increasing evidence that these patients are at risk for various cardiovascular insults; however, there are currently no guidelines for the diagnosis and management of such cardiovascular complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We share data and recommendations from a multidisciplinary team to highlight our institution's clinical experiences and guidelines for managing cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019.Design setting and patientsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to one of six ICUs dedicated to the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 located in three hospitals within one academic medical center in Atlanta, Georgia.Measurements/interventionsChart review was conducted for sociodemographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Rates of specific cardiovascular complications were assessed, and data were analyzed using a chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for categorical and continuous variables. Additionally, certain cases are presented to demonstrate the sub committee's recommendations.Main resultsTwo-hundred eighty-eight patients were admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, 86 died (29.9%), 242 (84.03%) had troponin elevation, 70 (24.31%) had dysrhythmias, four (1.39%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction, eight (2.78%) developed cor pulmonale, and 190 (65.97%) with shock. There was increased mortality risk in patients with greater degrees of troponin elevation (p < 0.001) and with the development of arrhythmias (p < 0.001), cor pulmonale (p < 0.001), and shock (p < 0.001).ConclusionsWhile there are guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pulmonary complications of coronavirus disease 2019, there needs to be more information regarding the management of cardiovascular complications as well. These recommendations garnered from the coronavirus disease 2019 cardiology subcommittee from our institution will add to the existing knowledge of these potential cardiovascular insults as well as highlight suggestions for the diagnosis and management of the range of cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Additionally, with the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, our case-based recommendations provide a bedside resource for providers newly caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine delirium occurrence rate, duration, and severity in patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019.DesignRetrospective data extraction study from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020. Delirium outcomes were assessed for up to the first 14 days in ICU.SettingTwo large, academic centers serving the state of Indiana.PatientsConsecutive patients admitted to the ICU with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction test from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020, were included. Individuals younger than 18 years of age, without any delirium assessments, or without discharge disposition were excluded.Measurements and main resultsPrimary outcomes were delirium rates and duration, and the secondary outcome was delirium severity. Two-hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients were included in the analysis with a mean age of 58.4 years (sd, 15.6 yr), 40.3% were female, 44.4% African American, 20.7% Hispanic, and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18 (interquartile range, 13-25). Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients, delirium prior to coma in 27.9%, and delirium after coma in 23.1%. The first Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU assessment was positive for delirium in 61.9%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype (87.4%). By day 14, the median number of delirium/coma-free were 5 days (interquartile range, 4-11 d), and median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 score was 6.5 (interquartile range, 5-7) indicating severe delirium. Benzodiazepines were ordered for 78.4% of patients in the cohort. Mechanical ventilation was associated with greater odds of developing delirium (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1-22.2; p = 0.033) even after adjusting for sedative medications. There were no between-group differences in mortality.ConclusionsDelirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients admitted to the ICU. Delirium persisted for a median of 5 days and was severe. Mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with odds of delirium even after adjustment for sedatives. Clinical attention to manage delirium duration and severity, and deeper understanding of the virus' neurologic effects is needed for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Project description:Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department.Design setting participantsObservational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020.Main outcome and measuresDemographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity.ResultsIn total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.