Combined Use of Wells Scores and D-dimer Levels for the Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin for moderate Covid-19: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We carried out a meta-analysis since there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with thromboprophylaxis in noncritically ill patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv for randomized trials that included therapeutic-dose with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMW) or thromboprophylaxis with LMW heparin in noncritically ill patients admitted to the hospital with Covid-19. We identified five open-label studies for analysis with a total of 3220 patients. Two independent researchers selected, assessed, and extracted the data in duplicate. The outcomes evaluated were all-cause mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, incidence of venous thromboembolism, and major bleeding. The studies did not show risk for selection, detection, attrition, or reporting bias.

RESULTS

Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with LMW heparin compared with thromboprophylaxis with LMW heparin had no significant effect of all-cause death (risk ratio [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.07; P = 0.16; I2 = 48%), or progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.89; CI 0.73-1.08; P = 0.24; I2: 0%). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic disease (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P = 0.0001; I2 = 0%) [Number needed to treat = 37]. Major bleeding occurred in 1.79% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.97% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis [Number needed to harm 125].

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with Covid-19 could be indicated for patients at high risk of venous thromboembolic disease and low risk of bleeding.

D-dimer Thresholds to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism among COVID-19 Patients in the Emergency Department: Derivation with Independent Validation

Objective

To derive and validate a D-dimer cutoff for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in an integrated healthcare system including 22 adult ED's between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Results were validated among patients enrolled in the RECOVER Registry, representing data from 154 ED's from 26 US states. Consecutive ED patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19, a D-dimer performed within 48 h of ED arrival, and with objectively confirmed PE were compared to those without PE. After identifying a D-dimer threshold at which the 95% confidence lower bound of the negative predictive value for PE was higher than 98% in the derivation cohort, it was validated using RECOVER registry data.

Results

Among 3978 patients with a D-dimer result, 3583 with confirmed COVID-19 infection were included in the derivation cohort. Overall, PE incidence was 4.1% and a D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/mL (2000 ng/mL) was associated with a NPV of 98.5% (95% CI = 98.0%−98.9%). In the validation cohort of 13,091 patients with a D-dimer, 7748 had confirmed COVID-19 infection, and the PE incidence was 1.14%. A D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/mL was associated with a NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.3%−99.7%).

Conclusion

A D-dimer cutoff of <2 μ/ml was associated with a high negative predictive value for PE among patients with COVID-19. However, the resultant sensitivity for PE result at that threshold without pre-test probability assessment would be considered clinically unsafe.