Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

Predictors of venous thromboembolic events in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients. Although prior studies have attempted to identify predictors of VTE, restricted sample size and use of administrative claims data have limited such analyses. We utilized data from hospitalized patients in the CORONA-VTE Network, a United States multicenter registry of adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (N = 3,844). The primary outcome was time-to-first event for a composite of adjudicated pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis during 90-day follow-up. The candidate variables were selected by a priori clinical consensus. We conducted cause-specific Cox regression analysis adjusted for the selected variables for each imputed dataset and pooled the estimated HRs for reporting (p < 0.05 for significance). VTE occurred in 206 patients, with a cumulative incidence of 5.3% at 90 days. The covariates associated with increased risk of VTE were history of VTE (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.11-2.63), corticosteroid therapy (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.32-2.33) and known thrombophilia (HR: 3.56; 95% CI: 1.54-8.21) while therapeutic anticoagulation at baseline (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.26-0.69), antecedent use of statins (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.90), and prophylactic anticoagulation during hospitalization (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71) were associated with reduced risk of VTE. While prior VTE, corticosteroid therapy, and known thrombophilia were associated with an increased risk of VTE, prescriptions of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation, and statins were associated with a decreased risk. Once externally validated, these findings may inform risk assessment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19: executive summary

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related critical and acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). These evidence-based recommendations of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about using anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness; patients with COVID-19-related acute illness; and those being discharged from the hospital, who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representatives. The Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and MacGRADE Centres at McMaster University supported guideline development, including performing systematic reviews (up to June 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty in the evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

This is an executive summary of 3 updated recommendations that have been published, which concludes the living phase of the guidelines. For patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, the panel issued conditional recommendations suggesting (a) prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation and (b) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation. For patients with COVID-19-related acute illness, conditional recommendations were suggested (a) prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation, and (b) therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation suggesting against the use of postdischarge anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These conditional recommendations were made based on low or very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials for patients with COVID-19.

Therapeutic Versus Non-Therapeutic Dose Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Abnormal coagulation and thrombotic complications prompted many guidelines to recommend thromboprophylaxis for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, but the dose required for prophylaxis remains unclear. This systematic review (SR) analyses the safety and efficacy of therapeutic dose anticoagulation (TDA) versus non-therapeutic dose anticoagulation (NDA) in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

According to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions, we performed an SR. The protocol is registered in Prospero (CRD42021269197, date 12 August 2021).

Results

In this SR of 18 studies, TDA was shown to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70, 0.99) in COVID-19 infection. TDA also reduced thrombosis (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.72) but increased major bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.29, 2.69). A stratified analysis according to severity revealed that, in non-critical patients, TDA resulted in mortality benefit (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67, 0.94). In critical patients, TDA did not affect all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.89, 1.18) but reduced thrombosis (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.86) and increased major bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI 1.06, 3.23).

Conclusion

TDA significantly reduced all-cause mortality and thrombosis in non-critical COVID-19 patients at the expense of increased major bleeding. In critical COVID-19, this mortality benefit was not observed.

Anticoagulation Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 : A Systematic Review and Prospective Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reported results of clinical trials assessing higher-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have been inconsistent.

PURPOSE

To estimate the association of higher- versus lower-dose anticoagulation with clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized trials were identified from the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restriction by trial status or language.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible randomized trials assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to higher- versus lower-dose anticoagulation.

DATA EXTRACTION

20 eligible trials provided data in a prospectively agreed format. Two further studies were included based on published data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 28 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Therapeutic- compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation with heparins reduced 28-day mortality (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.93]; I 2 = 29%; 11 trials, 6297 patients, of whom 5456 required low or no oxygen at randomization). The ORs for 28-day mortality were 1.21 (CI, 0.93 to 1.58; I 2 = 0%) for therapeutic-dose compared with intermediate-dose anticoagulation (6 trials, 1803 patients, 843 receiving noninvasive ventilation at randomization) and 0.95 (CI, 0.76 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 10 trials, 3897 patients, 2935 receiving no or low oxygen at randomization) for intermediate- versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. Treatment effects appeared broadly consistent across predefined patient subgroups, although some analyses were limited in power. Higher- compared with lower-dose anticoagulation was associated with fewer thromboembolic events, but a greater risk for major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic-dose compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation reduced 28-day mortality. Mortality was similar for intermediate-dose compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation and higher for therapeutic-dose compared with intermediate-dose anticoagulation, although this comparison was not estimated precisely.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

No direct funding. (PROSPERO: CRD42020213461).

The COVID-19 thrombus: distinguishing pathological, mechanistic, and phenotypic features and management

A heightened risk for thrombosis is a hallmark of COVID-19. Expansive clinical experience and medical literature have characterized small (micro) and large (macro) vessel involvement of the venous and arterial circulatory systems. Most events occur in patients with serious or critical illness in the hyperacute (first 1-2 weeks) or acute phases (2-4 weeks) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, thrombosis involving the venous, arterial, and microcirculatory systems has been reported in the subacute (4-8 weeks), convalescent (> 8-12 weeks) and chronic phases (> 12 weeks) among patients with mild-to-moderate illness. The purpose of the current focused review is to highlight the distinguishing clinical features, pathological components, and potential mechanisms of venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis in patients with COVID-19. The overarching objective is to better understand the proclivity for thrombosis, laying a solid foundation for screening and surveillance modalities, preventive strategies, and optimal patient management.

2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

AIM

The "2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke" replaces the 2014 "Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke." This updated guideline is intended to be a resource for clinicians to use to guide various prevention strategies for individuals with no history of stroke.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for literature published since the 2014 guideline; derived from research involving human participants published in English; and indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and other selected and relevant databases was conducted between May and November 2023. Other documents on related subject matter previously published by the American Heart Association were also reviewed.

STRUCTURE

Ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes lead to significant disability but, most important, are preventable. The 2024 primary prevention of stroke guideline provides recommendations based on current evidence for strategies to prevent stroke throughout the life span. These recommendations align with the American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 for optimizing cardiovascular and brain health, in addition to preventing incident stroke. We also have added sex-specific recommendations for screening and prevention of stroke, which are new compared with the 2014 guideline. Many recommendations for similar risk factor prevention were updated, new topics were reviewed, and recommendations were created when supported by sufficient-quality published data.

National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel: Perspectives and Lessons Learned

DESCRIPTION

In March 2020, the White House Coronavirus Task Force determined that clinicians in the United States needed expert treatment guidelines to optimally manage patients with COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease caused by a new pathogen for which no specific treatments were known to be effective.

METHODS

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) take the lead in expeditiously convening a panel of experts to create "living" guidelines that would be widely accessible and capable of frequent updating as important new information became available.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this article is to expand on the experiences of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) over the past 4 years, summarize the Panel's final recommendations for COVID-19, highlight some challenges and unanswered questions about COVID-19 management, and inform future responses to public health emergencies. The Panel was formed in March 2020, and the first iteration of the guidelines was released in April 2020. Now that the public health emergency has ended, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines have sunsetted. This role will now fall to professional societies and organizations, such as the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the World Health Organization, all of which have been active in this area.

Anticoagulant therapy in adult with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Background

Blood coagulation dysfunction is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in severe cases. The evidence for the effects of anticoagulation therapy on prognosis of COVID-19 patients and its risk of causing bleeding events is accumulating. Here we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in COVID-19 patients of different severity.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase databases, Cochrane Trials, OVID MEDLINE from December 2019 to April 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients over 18 years of age, which explored the effect of anticoagulant and its dose on outcomes including all-cause mortality, bleeding events or thrombotic events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. We also performed subgroup analyses to assess the impact of disease severity, using a fixed-effect model to test for heterogeneity. The risk of bias, publication bias, and the quality of evidence were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 20 RCTs were included for final analysis. When compared with standard care, anticoagulation treatment reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29-0.76) and thrombotic events (RR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) in the whole population with COVID-19 (n=2,365), without increase in bleeding events (total: RR 1.47, 95% CI: 0.54-4.00). Most of the studies only enrolled non-severe patients (n=2,329), while the number of severe patients (n=36) was scarce. In RCTs compared therapeutical and prophylactic doses of anticoagulants, no significant difference in on all-cause mortality was found in the whole population and non-severe and severe subgroups (total: RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92-1.10; non-severe: RR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81-1.32; severe: RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.11). Therapeutical dose reduced risk of thrombotic events (total: RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.73; subtotal of non-severe: RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.84; Subtotal of severe: RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.78), while risk of bleeding was increased (total: RR 1.98, 95% CI: 1.47-2.66; non-severe: RR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.56-3.62; severe: RR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.07-2.47). Study heterogeneity was found only in the analysis of effects of anticoagulants on risk of thrombotic events.

Conclusions

Anticoagulant therapy reduces all-cause mortality and risk of thrombosis in non-severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic dose of anticoagulant therapy can be considered in both non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients to reduce thrombosis, but may be associated with increased bleeding events.

Comparative analysis of COVID-19-associated venous thromboembolism outcomes: evolution from 2020 to 2021-2022

Patients with COVID-19 are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). With the advent of vaccinations and novel treatments from 2020 through 2022, the landscape of COVID-19 has evolved. Notably, the effects of such interventions on the outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE have not been thoroughly examined. Data from the RIETE registry were analyzed to evaluate 90-day VTE-related outcomes (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and VTE recurrences) in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE. We compared the periods before and after the widespread introduction of COVID-19 vaccines: March to December 2020 (pre-vaccine period) and March 2021 to December 2022 (post-vaccine period). Statistical analysis included mixed-effects parametric survival-time models. Among 1,620 patients with COVID-19-associated VTE, most (74.1%) were identified during 2020 period. The analysis revealed a more than two-fold increase in the risk of death within 90 days (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.27; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.18-4.38) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 2.91; 95%CI: 1.08-7.84) for patients from the 2020 period compared to those from the 2021-2022 period. Inpatient subgroup analysis confirmed the observed mortality differences. The frequency of recurrent VTE was low (1.1 vs. 0.7%, respectively), and did not show significant variation between the two periods. Our research provides a comparative perspective on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-associated VTE before and after the introduction of vaccines. Our findings reveal a significant decrease in the incidence of 90-day mortality and major bleeding in patients with COVID-19-associated VTE in the 2021-2022 period.

Effect of amubarvimab-romlusevimab for treatment of severe COVID-19 in intensive care units: A retrospective cohort study

Amubarvimab-romlusevimab is a commonly recommended antiviral treatment in China for adult patients with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially for patients with a high risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19. However, its exact efficacy in patients with severe Covid-19 is not yet known.This is a single-center retrospective cohort study, in which we collected the general data, laboratory tests, radiological characteristics, viral conversion status, and prognosis of the disease from patients with COVID-19 hospitalized, from December 2022 to March 2023 in the Department of Critical Care Medicine. The amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy can reduce the 28-day mortality (29.79 % vs 51.35 %, p = 0.02), and ICU mortality (29.79 % vs 55.41 %, p = 0.006) of severe COVID-19.A 1:1 PSM (Propensity Score Matching) was performed to reduce bias, in order to ensure the two groups were balanced and comparable. In the matched population (n = 47), there were no statistically significant differences between the mAbs (monoclonal antibody)group and the Non-antiviral group in 28-day, and thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients. The 40-day survival analysis shows that mAbs therapy can improve patient prognosis (HR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.26-0.76, p = 0.008). However, no significant intergroup difference in the 40-day cumulative viral conversion rate. In a univariate Cox regression analysis, The Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.464; CI:[0.252-0.853]; p:0.013) is a protective factor and CRP, PCT, PLT, Lactate, PT, PT-INR, and pt% level at admission were risk factors for clinical prognosis. After including the above covariates, Multifactorial COX regression shows that the Amubarvimab - romlusevimab therapy(HR:0.392; CI:[0.211-0.729]; p:0.003), CRP, Lactate and PT-INR at admission are independent factors for mortality of severe COVID-19. Based on the current data, we conclude that amubarvimab-romlusevimab therapy is beneficial for patients with severe COVID-19.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin for preventing coagulopathy following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have shown a significant occurrence of thromboembolism and a heightened risk of death. It remains unclear whether factor Xa inhibitors are superior to enoxaparin in this context. Hence, there is a need for a direct comparison to assess the preventive effects and safety of factor Xa inhibitors versus enoxaparin in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness or safety of factor Xa inhibitors and enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Embolic incidence, incidence of bleeding, and all-cause mortality were among the outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 percent CIs.

Results

The analysis included six RCTs and two retrospective studies containing 4048 patients. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction among patients on factor Xa inhibitors compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the embolic incidence [risk ratio (RR) 0.64 (95%, CI 0.42, 0.98); P=0.04, I2=12%]. Upon subgroup analysis by type of study design, no significant reductions were noted in patients on factor Xa inhibitors in RCTs (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.33-1.17; P=0.14) or observational studies (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.23-1.26; P=0.15) when compared with enoxaparin Factor Xa inhibitors were not significantly associated with incidence of bleeding [RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.36, 1.61); P=0.47, I2=0%] or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.36; P=0.43). Consistent results were obtained upon subgroup analysis by the type of study design.

Conclusion

Factor Xa inhibitors are more effective than enoxaparin in preventing thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 who are not acutely ill and are hospitalized. Additional rigorous RCTs comparing factor Xa inhibitors with enoxaparin are warranted.

Inflammatory risk contributes to post-COVID endothelial dysfunction through anti-ACKR1 autoantibody

Subclinical vascular impairment can be exacerbated in individuals who experience sustained inflammation after COVID-19 infection. Our study explores the prevalence and impact of autoantibodies on vascular dysfunction in healthy COVID-19 survivors, an area that remains inadequately investigated. Focusing on autoantibodies against the atypical chemokine receptor 1 (ACKR1), COVID-19 survivors demonstrated significantly elevated anti-ACKR1 autoantibodies, correlating with systemic cytokines, circulating damaged endothelial cells, and endothelial dysfunction. An independent cohort linked these autoantibodies to increased vascular disease outcomes during a median 6.7-yr follow-up. We analyzed a single-cell transcriptome atlas of endothelial cells from diverse mouse tissues, identifying enriched Ackr1 expressions in venous regions of the brain and soleus muscle vasculatures, which holds intriguing implications for tissue-specific venous thromboembolism manifestations reported in COVID-19. Functionally, purified immunoglobulin G (IgG) extracted from patient plasma did not trigger cell apoptosis or increase barrier permeability in human vein endothelial cells. Instead, plasma IgG enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity mediated by patient PBMCs, a phenomenon alleviated by blocking peptide or liposome ACKR1 recombinant protein. The blocking peptide uncovered that purified IgG from COVID-19 survivors possessed potential epitopes in the N-terminal extracellular domain of ACKR1, which effectively averted antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Our findings offer insights into therapeutic development to mitigate autoantibody reactivity in blood vessels in chronic inflammation.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This report is the second update of our systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard thromboprophylaxis, intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation or no anticoagulation in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. We searched eligible studies up to 5 October 2023. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

For this update we included fourteen new RCTs and a total of 27 RCTs with 16,789 patients. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high depending on outcome and comparison. Standard thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect for COVID-19 outpatients compared to no anticoagulation. In inpatients with moderate or severe COVID-19, intermediate dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic events or death, but may increase major bleeding compared to standard thromboprophylaxis. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation decreases thrombotic events or deaths in inpatients with moderate COVID-19, but probably has little or no effect in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to standard thromboprophylaxis with low or intermediate dose anticoagulation. With therapeutic dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding probably increases regardless of COVID-19 severity. We are uncertain on the effect of thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation in the post-discharge setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized, moderately-ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Appropriate thromboprophylaxis strategy for COVID-19 patients on dosage, antiplatelet therapy, outpatient, and postdischarge prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There was controversy surrounding the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This included debates on the dosage of anticoagulants for thromboembolism prophylaxis, the requirement for additional antiplatelet therapy, and the necessity of prophylaxis for outpatients and postdischarge. To explore this, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 26 July 2023 for studies comparing the effect of different dose of anticoagulation, additional antiplatelet, and postdischarge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of thromboembolism events, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during follow-up.

RESULTS

Our study included a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, involving 17 911 patients. Our results revealed that, compared to prophylactic dose, therapeutic dose showed lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45-0.96) but had similar major bleeding risk for critically ill patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, intermediate dose and prophylactic dose demonstrated similar thromboembolism risk and major bleeding risk. For noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic dose of anticoagulants was associated with lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34-0.72) but, at the same time, increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.01; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33). However, intermediate dose showed lower thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21-0.69) while maintaining a similar major bleeding risk. In critically ill patients, additional antiplatelet therapy showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For outpatients, additional prophylactic anticoagulation showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For postdischarge patients, postdischarge prophylaxis reduced thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31-0.76) but increased major bleeding risk (RR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.13-6.14).

CONCLUSION

For noncritically ill patients, therapeutic dose prophylactic anticoagulation significantly reduced venous thromboembolism but increases major bleeding risk. Intermediate dose effectively lowered venous thromboembolism without raising major bleeding risk. The optimal dose and need for additional antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients, as well as the necessity of prophylactic anticoagulation in outpatient and postdischarge patients, required further investigation and confirmation through rigorous evidence studies.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

COVID-19 Infection and ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Lessons in Disease Management During a Pandemic

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, causing the COVID-19 pandemic, has profoundly impacted global health, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. This paper presents a case study highlighting the heightened risk of severe cardiovascular complications following COVID-19 infection. A 61-year-old male with hyperlipidemia was discharged after COVID-19 pneumonia treatment and experienced a severe ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) within a day of discharge. A retrospective chart review, supplemented by a literature review, revealed a pattern of increased severity in STEMI cases associated with COVID-19, particularly in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidities. SARS-CoV-2 induces a prothrombotic state, which causes endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation, potentially precipitating thrombotic events. Managing concurrent COVID-19 and STEMI poses unique challenges, emphasizing the critical role of timely intervention, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in improving patient outcomes. Despite advancements, uncertainty persists regarding optimal thromboembolism prophylaxis post COVID-19, necessitating ongoing research and meticulous clinical management. While COVID-19 infection rates have declined since the pandemic, this case report hopes to emphasize the need for continued awareness in recognizing the potential thrombotic risks of COVID-19 infection and underscore the need for further investigation into cardiovascular risk as new viral strains develop in the future.

An Update of Anticoagulant Strategies in Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The Article Abstract is not available.

Editor-in-Chief's Top Picks From 2023

Each week, I record audio summaries for every paper in JACC, as well as an issue summary. This process has become a true labor of love due to the time they require, but I am motivated by the sheer number of listeners (16M+), and it has allowed me to familiarize myself with every paper that we publish. Thus, I have selected the top 100 papers (Original Investigations, Review Articles, Society Documents, and the Global Burden of Diseases) from distinct specialties each year. In addition to my personal choices, I have included papers that have been the most accessed or downloaded on our websites, as well as those selected by the JACC Editorial Board members. In order to present the full breadth of this important research in a consumable fashion, we will present these abstracts in this issue of JACC, as well as their Central Illustrations∗ and podcasts. The highlights comprise the following sections: Aorta; Basic and Translational Science; Cardiac Failure, Myocarditis, and Pericarditis; Cardiomyopathies and Genetics; Congenital Heart Disease; Coronary, Peripheral, and Structural Interventions; Coronavirus; Health Promotion and Preventive Cardiology; Imaging; Metabolic and Lipid Disorders; Neurovascular Disease and Dementia; Rhythm Disorders and Thromboembolism; and Valvular Heart Disease.1-104 ∗ To view the full manuscript, including the full-sized Central Illustration, please refer to the original publication in JACC.

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background

Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation.

Objectives

The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin.

Methods

Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21.

Results

Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low.

Conclusions

Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.

COVID-19 and Pulmonary Hypertension: An Interesting Dynamic

The dynamic between pulmonary hypertension (PH) and COVID-19 has been under investigation since 2020, early in the pandemic. Although the pathophysiology of PH has been well-studied, new discoveries regarding the multisystemic effects of COVID-19 are still being uncovered. The cardiopulmonary effects of COVID-19 have led investigators to inquire about the interplay between these 2 conditions. Several factors are suggested to contribute to an increased risk of developing PH after infection with SARS-CoV-2. This includes cytokine storm, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and fibrotic changes seen in post-COVID-19 lung disease. Additionally, it has been proposed that certain medications used to treat PH may be applied to patients suffering from the cardiopulmonary complications of COVID-19. This review will focus on the interplay between COVID-19 and PH, with a special focus on the risk of developing PH after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the outcomes of patients with preexisting PH who are diagnosed with COVID-19. The potential benefits of utilizing off-label PH medications for COVID-19 patients will also be discussed.

Myocardial Oedema as a Consequence of Viral Infection and Persistence-A Narrative Review with Focus on COVID-19 and Post COVID Sequelae

Microvascular integrity is a critical factor in myocardial fluid homeostasis. The subtle equilibrium between capillary filtration and lymphatic fluid removal is disturbed during pathological processes leading to inflammation, but also in hypoxia or due to alterations in vascular perfusion and coagulability. The degradation of the glycocalyx as the main component of the endothelial filtration barrier as well as pericyte disintegration results in the accumulation of interstitial and intracellular water. Moreover, lymphatic dysfunction evokes an increase in metabolic waste products, cytokines and inflammatory cells in the interstitial space contributing to myocardial oedema formation. This leads to myocardial stiffness and impaired contractility, eventually resulting in cardiomyocyte apoptosis, myocardial remodelling and fibrosis. The following article reviews pathophysiological inflammatory processes leading to myocardial oedema including myocarditis, ischaemia-reperfusion injury and viral infections with a special focus on the pathomechanisms evoked by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In addition, clinical implications including potential long-term effects due to viral persistence (long COVID), as well as treatment options, are discussed.

Choice and Duration of Anticoagulation for Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent medical condition with high morbidity, mortality, and associated costs. Anticoagulation remains the main treatment for VTE, though the decision on when, how, and for how long to administer anticoagulants is increasingly complex. This review highlights the different phases of VTE management, with special circumstances for consideration such as antiphospholipid syndrome, coronary artery disease, cancer-associated thrombus, COVID-19, and future anticoagulation options. Anticoagulation management will continue to be a complex decision, applying evidence-based medicine to individual patients with the hope of maximizing effectiveness while minimizing risks.

Low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of clinical worsening in severe non-critically ill COVID-19 patients: a joint analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) carries a high risk of vascular thrombosis. However, whether a specific anticoagulation intensity strategy may prevent clinical worsening in severe COVID-19 patients is still debated. We conducted a joint analysis of two randomized controlled trials, COVID-19 HD (NCT044082359) and EMOS-COVID (NCT04646655), to assess the efficacy and safety of two anticoagulant regimens in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients. Subjects with COVID-19-associated respiratory compromise and/or coagulopathy were randomly assigned to low (4000 IU qd) or high (70 IU Kg-1 every 12 h) enoxaparin dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical worsening within 30 days, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events, whichever came first: in-hospital death, evidence of arterial or venous thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction, need for either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients receiving standard oxygen therapy or none at randomization, and need for mechanical ventilation in any patient. The safety endpoint was major bleeding. We estimated the relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes. Among 283 patients included in the study (144 in the low-dose and 139 in the high-dose group), 118 (41.7%) were on NIV or CPAP at randomization. 23/139 (16.5%) patients in the high-dose group reached the primary endpoint compared to 33/144 (22.9%) in the low-dose group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45-1.17). No major bleeding was observed. No significant differences were found in the clinical worsening of hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with high versus low doses of enoxaparin.

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial

BACKGROUND

An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain.

DESIGN

The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ± 3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ± 3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately.

CONCLUSION

The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941.

Initial therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic therapy with heparins in moderate to severe COVID-19: results of the COVID-PREVENT randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state. Current guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation upon hospitalization.

METHODS

COVID-PREVENT, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial enrolled patients (≥ 18 years) with moderate to severe COVID-19 and age-adjusted D-dimers > 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN). The participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily or thromboprophylaxis with a heparin (SOC) for at least 7 days followed by prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 28 days or no thromboprophylaxis. The primary efficacy outcome was the D-dimer level and the co-primary efficacy outcome the 7-category ordinal COVID-19 scale by WHO at 7 days post randomization. The secondary outcome was time to the composite event of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, new myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death or progression to intubation and invasive ventilation up to 35 days post randomization.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy outcome D-dimer at 7 days was not different between patients assigned to therapeutic (n = 55) or prophylactic anticoagulation (n = 56) (1.21 mg/L [0.79, 1.86] vs 1.27 mg/L [0.79, 2.04], p = 0.78). In the whole study population D-dimer was significantly lower at 7 days compared to baseline (1.05 mg/L [0.75, 1.48] vs 1.57 mg/L [1.13, 2.19], p < 0.0001). Therapy with rivaroxaban compared to SOC was not associated an improvement on the WHO 7-category ordinal scale at 7 days (p = 0.085). Rivaroxaban improved the clinical outcome measured by the score in patients with a higher baseline D-dimer  > 2.0 ULN (exploratory analysis; 0.632 [0.516, 0.748], p = 0.026). The secondary endpoint occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 12 (21.4%) in the SOC group (time-to-first occurrence of the components of the secondary outcome: HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.15-1.67; p = 0.264). There was no difference in fatal or non-fatal major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban compared to prophylactic anticoagulation with a heparin did not improve surrogates of clinical outcome in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Whether initial rivaroxaban at therapeutic doses might be superior to thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 and a high risk as defined by D-dimer  > 2 ULN needs confirmation in further studies.

Anticoagulation Use as an Independent Predictor of Mortality and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased incidence of cardiac arrhythmias and thrombotic events. The adverse cardiovascular outcomes related to ambulatory anticoagulation (AC) therapy in COVID-19 patients are unknown. The goal of this study was to identify the effects of AC use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This is a multicenter, retrospective study that identified 2,801 hospitalized COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients admitted between March 2020 and July 2021. Of these, 375 (13.4%) were ambulatory AC users. Data were collected from the electronic health records of hospitalized patients. Mortality included in-hospital death and hospice referral. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) included acute heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), myocarditis, pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pericardial effusion, pericarditis, stroke, shock, and cardiac tamponade. A Chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to account for comorbidities.

Results

AC non-users exhibited a higher incidence of mortality than AC users (13.9% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.001). However, MACE incidence was higher in AC users than AC non-users (44.8% vs. 26.8%, P < 0.001). The higher MACE incidence was driven by higher rates of acute HF (8.3% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001), MI (26.9% vs. 18.2%, P < 0.001), PE/DVT (16.3% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001), pericardial effusion (1.6% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.025), and stroke (2.9% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.018). After multivariate logistic regression, MACE incidence remained higher (odds ratio (OR) = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27 - 2.05, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality rate lower (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23 - 0.52, P < 0.001) in AC users.

Conclusions

Ambulatory AC use is associated with increased MACEs but decreased all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This study will help physicians identify patients at risk of cardiovascular mortality and direct management based on the identified risk.

Ultrastructural characterization of alveolar microvascular damage in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure

Endothelial dysfunction is a key phenomenon in COVID-19, induced by direct viral endothelial infection and secondary inflammation, mainly affecting the microvascular circulation. However, few studies described the subcellular aspects of the lung microvasculature and the associated thrombotic phenomena, which are widely present in severe COVID-19 cases. To that end, in this transversal observational study we performed transmission and scanning electron microscopy in nine lung samples of patients who died due to COVID-19, obtained via minimally invasive autopsies in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 2020. All patients died due to acute respiratory failure and had microvascular thrombosis at histology. Electron microscopy revealed areas of endothelial damage with basal lamina disruption and virus infection in endothelial cells. In the capillary lumens, the ultrastructure of the thrombi is depicted, with red blood cells stacking, dysmorphism and hemolysis, fibrin meshworks, and extracellular traps. Our description illustrates the complex pathophysiology of microvascular thrombosis at the cellular level, which leads to some of the peculiar characteristics of severe COVID-19.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this study, electron microscopy was used to explain the pathophysiology of respiratory failure in severe COVID-19. Before the advent of vaccination, as the virus entered the respiratory system, it rapidly progressed to the alveolar capillary network and, before causing exudative alveolar edema, it caused mainly thrombosis of the pulmonary microcirculation with preserved lung compliance explaining "happy hypoxia." Timing of anticoagulation is of pivotal importance in this disease.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Cerebrovascular Disease in COVID-19

Not in the history of transmissible illnesses has there been an infection as strongly associated with acute cerebrovascular disease as the novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. While the risk of stroke has known associations with other viral infections, such as influenza and human immunodeficiency virus, the risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke related to SARS-CoV-2 is unprecedented. Furthermore, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has so profoundly impacted psychosocial behaviors and modern medical care that we have witnessed shifts in epidemiology and have adapted our treatment practices to reduce transmission, address delayed diagnoses, and mitigate gaps in healthcare. In this narrative review, we summarize the history and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cerebrovascular disease, and lessons learned regarding the management of patients as we endure this period of human history.

An Evolving Understanding of the Basis and Management of Vascular Complications of COVID-19: Where Do We Go From Here?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to millions of deaths worldwide after its emergence in 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 virus primarily affects respiratory function, but immune dysregulation leading to systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy can predispose to systemic complications including hematologic and vascular complications. Treatment strategies for patients with COVID-19 have rapidly evolved and the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic agents have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. The findings have spurred interest in the prevention and treatment of the hematologic and vascular complications of non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. This review is focused on hematological and vascular complications of COVID-19, including their pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Because of the perpetually changing nature of the disease, the review places previous data in temporal contexts and outlines potential next steps for future research in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory infections.