Dataset Information

Evaluation of a patient specific, targeted-intensity pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Patients with COVID-19 are at higher risk of thrombosis due to the inflammatory nature of their disease. A higher-intensity approach to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may be warranted. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine if a patient specific, targeted-intensity pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol incorporating severity of illness, weight, and biomarkers decreased incidence of thrombosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Included patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 and received thromboprophylaxis within 48 h of admission. Exclusion criteria included receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation prior to or within 24 h of admission, history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, pregnancy, or incarceration. Per-protocol patients received thromboprophylaxis according to institutional protocol involving escalated doses of anticoagulants based upon severity of illness, total body weight, and biomarker thresholds. The primary outcome was thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, mortality, and identification of risk factors for thrombosis. Of 1189 patients screened, 803 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 54 (42-65) and 446 (55.5%) were male. Patients in the per-protocol group experienced significantly fewer thrombotic events (4.4% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.002), less major bleeding (3.1% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.001), and lower mortality (6.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.02) when compared to patients treated off-protocol. Significant predictors of thrombosis included mechanical ventilation and male sex. Post-hoc regression analysis identified mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, and D-dimer ≥ 1500 ng/mL FEU as significant predictors of mortality. A targeted pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol incorporating severity of illness, body weight, and biomarkers appears effective and safe for preventing thrombosis in patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Farrar JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375286 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases thrombosis in hospitalized patients prompting adoption of different thromboprophylaxis strategies. Safety and efficacy of escalated-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are not established.Objectives To determine the pooled incidence of thrombosis/bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for standard-dose, intermediate-dose, therapeutic anticoagulation, and no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to August 29, 2020 for studies reporting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis or bleeding. Pooled event rates were calculated using a random-effects model.Results Thirty-five observational studies were included. The pooled incidence rates of total venous thromboembolism (N = 4,685) were: no prophylaxis 41.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.1-57.2, I 2 = 76%), standard-dose prophylaxis 19.8% (95% CI: 13.2-28.6, I 2 = 95%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 11.9% (95% CI: 4.3-28.6, I 2 = 91%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 10.5% (95% CI: 4.2-23.8, I 2 = 82%, p = 0.003). The pooled incidence rates of arterial thrombosis (N = 1,464) were: no prophylaxis 11.3% (95% CI: 5.2-23.0, I 2 = 0%), standard-dose prophylaxis 2.5% (95% CI: 1.4-4.3, I 2 = 45%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 2.1% (95% CI: 0.5-7.7, I 2 = 45%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2-8.8, I 2 = 0, p = 0.009). The pooled bleeding event rates (N = 6,393) were nonsignificantly higher in therapeutic-dose anticoagulants compared with standard-dose prophylaxis, (6.3 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.083).Conclusion Thrombosis rates were lower in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Thrombosis and bleeding rates for patients receiving intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation were similar to those who received standard-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

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.

Project description:Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are frequent complications in hospitalized patients and a leading cause of preventable death in hospital. Pharmacologic prophylaxis is a standard of care to prevent VTE in patients at risk, the additional value of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis to prevent VTE in hospitalized adults.Data sourcesWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to July 2022.Study selectionWe included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of IPC in addition to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone in hospitalized adults.Data extractionMeta-analyses were performed to calculate risk ratio (RR) of VTE, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, Version 2 and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data synthesisWe included 17 trials enrolling 8,796 participants. The IPC was mostly applied up to the thigh and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was primarily low-molecular-weight heparin. Adjunctive IPC was associated with a decreased risk of VTE (15 trials, RR = 0.53; 95% CI [0.35-0.81]) and DVT (14 trials, RR = 0.52; 95% CI [0.33-0.81]) but not PE (seven trials, RR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.32-1.68]). The quality of evidence was graded low, downgraded by risk of bias and inconsistency. Moderate and very low-quality evidence, respectively, suggests that adjunctive IPC is unlikely to change the risk of all-cause mortality or adverse events. Subgroup analyses indicate a more evident apparent benefit in industry-funded trials.ConclusionsResults indicate low-quality evidence underpinning the additional use of IPC to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE and DVT. Further large high-quality randomized trials are warranted to support its use and to identify patient subgroups for whom it could be beneficial.

Project description:The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundBlood coagulation abnormalities play a major role in COVID-19 pathophysiology. However, the specific details of hypercoagulation and anticoagulation treatment require investigation. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of the coagulation system by means of integral and local clotting assays in COVID-19 patients on admission to the hospital and in hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis.MethodsThrombodynamics (TD), thromboelastography (TEG), and standard clotting assays were performed in 153 COVID-19 patients observed in a hospital setting. All patients receiving treatment, except extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients (n = 108), were administered therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) depending on body weight. The ECMO patients (n = 15) were administered unfractionated heparin (UFH).ResultsOn admission, the patients (n = 30) had extreme hypercoagulation by all integral assays: TD showed hypercoagulation in ~75% of patients, while TEG showed hypercoagulation in ~50% of patients. The patients receiving treatment showed a significant heparin response based on TD; 77% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 15% were normal, and 8% remained in hypercoagulation. TEG showed less of a response to heparin: 24% of measurements were in the hypocoagulation range, 59% were normal and 17% remained in hypercoagulation. While hypocoagulation is likely due to heparin treatment, remaining in significant hypercoagulation may indicate insufficient anticoagulation for some patients, which is in agreement with our clinical findings. There were 3 study patients with registered thrombosis episodes, and all were outside the target range for TD parameters typical for effective thromboprophylaxis (1 patient was in weak hypocoagulation, atypical for the LMWH dose used, and 2 patients remained in the hypercoagulation range despite therapeutic LMWH doses).ConclusionPatients with COVID-19 have severe hypercoagulation, which persists in some patients receiving anticoagulation treatment, while significant hypocoagulation is observed in others. The data suggest critical issues of hemostasis balance in these patients and indicate the potential importance of integral assays in its control.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of a patient specific, targeted-intensity pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis protocol in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets