Role of heparin prophylaxis at different doses in patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The use of heparin at higher doses than prophylactic is advocated, but the optimal regimens remain unknown due to the balance between prevention of thromboembolic events and bleeding risks. Objective To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the risk of VTE and of major bleeding (MB) in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 according to heparin doses. Methods We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE up until 22 March 2021. Studies on patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included if reported on study outcomes according to standard prophylactic and to higher heparin doses and included more than 10 patients. Study primary outcome was VTE; secondary outcomes were MB, all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). Results Overall, 2 randomized and 16 observational studies were selected (3458 patients). In 13 studies (2492 patients) VTE events were similar in patients receiving standard prophylaxis or higher heparin doses (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.58–1.95, I2 87%; only randomized studies RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.78–3.81, I2 54%). 16 studies (3174) reporting on MB and showed a significant reduction in favor of standard heparin prophylaxis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28–0.53, I2 8%). No differences were observed for overall mortality according to heparin doses (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88–1.40, I2 68%; in 8 studies, 2448 patients). Similarly, no differences were observed for fatal bleedings and fatal PEs. In the subanalysis of studies reporting only on intensive care unit patients (ICU) an increase in the risk of VTE (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.28–2.72, I2 18%) and a reduction on the risk of MB (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.90, I2 0%) were observed in patients receiving standard heparin doses compared to higher doses. Overall mortality was similar (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86–1.39, I2 64%). Conclusion Different doses of heparin prophylaxis seem to not affect the risk of VTE in the overall patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure. In studies reporting only on ICU patients the risk of VTE was lower when higher heparin doses were used compared to standard doses, but with no advantage in overall death and with an increase of MBs. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None

Frequency of left ventricular hypertrophy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is significantly related to adverse clinical outcomes in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), data on LVH, that is, prevalence and determinants, are inconsistent mainly because of different definitions and heterogeneity of study populations. We determined echocardiographic-based LVH prevalence and clinical factors independently associated with its development in a prospective cohort of patients with non-valvular (NV) AF. From the "Atrial Fibrillation Registry for Ankle-brachial Index Prevalence Assessment: Collaborative Italian Study" (ARAPACIS) population, 1,184 patients with NVAF (mean age 72 \ub1 11 years; 56% men) with complete data to define LVH were selected. ARAPACIS is a multicenter, observational, prospective, longitudinal on-going study designed to estimate prevalence of peripheral artery disease in patients with NVAF. We found a high prevalence of LVH (52%) in patients with NVAF. Compared to those without LVH, patients with AF with LVH were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and previous myocardial infarction (MI). A higher prevalence of ankle-brachial index 640.90 was seen in patients with LVH (22 vs 17%, p = 0.0392). Patients with LVH were at significantly higher thromboembolic risk, with CHA2DS2-VASc 652 seen in 93% of LVH and in 73% of patients without LVH (p <0.05). Women with LVH had a higher prevalence of concentric hypertrophy than men (46% vs 29%, p = 0.0003). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.80, p <0.0001), age (OR 1.03 per year, p <0.001), hypertension (OR 2.30, p <0.001), diabetes (OR 1.62, p = 0.004), and previous MI (OR 1.96, p = 0.001) were independently associated with LVH. In conclusion, patients with NVAF have a high prevalence of LVH, which is related to female gender, older age, hypertension, and previous MI. These patients are at high thromboembolic risk and deserve a holistic approach to cardiovascular prevention

Bleeding with Apixaban and Dalteparin in Patients with Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Results from the Caravaggio Study

Background-Direct oral anticoagulants are recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), but an increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer was reported. The Caravaggio study compared apixaban and dalteparin for the treatment of patients with CAT. Here we describe sites of bleeding, associated cancer sites, clinical presentation, and course of major bleeding in patients included in the Caravaggio study. Methods \ue2The Caravaggio study was a multinational, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study. Bleeding events and the severity of major bleedings were adjudicated by a committee unaware of treatment allocation using predefined criteria; for the purpose of this analysis, data were analyzed in the safety population. Results \ue2Major bleeding occurred in 22 of 576 patients on apixaban (3.8%) and in 23 of 579 patients on dalteparin (4.0%). The sites of major bleeding and their distribution according to the type of cancer were similar between the two treatment groups. Major bleeding occurred in nine patients with gastrointestinal cancer in each treatment group. The clinical presentation of major bleeding was severe or fatal in 6 patients on apixaban and in 5 patients on dalteparin, while the clinical course was severe in 5 patients on apixaban and in 7 patients on dalteparin. Conclusion \ue2Apixaban is a safe alternative to LMWH for the treatment in patients with CAT. No excess in gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in patients who received apixaban, including those with gastrointestinal cancer

Risk factors for intubation in severe bronchiolitis: a useful tool to decide on an early intensive respiratory support

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is the most frequent lower airway infection leading hospitalization in children younger than 2 years. RSV is the typical common cause, followed by rhinovirus. Criteria for Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) admission are not defined by guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of children with severe bronchiolitis admitted from 2013 to 2016 to our PICU was performed to identify the risk factors associated with intubation in this population. Fourteen variables were studied: sex, weight, age, nationality, provenience, duration of symptoms, risk factors for bronchiolitis development, recurrence, apnea, SpO2 in air, Modified Wood’s Clinical Asthma score (M-WCAS), microbiological results, medical treatment, CPAP therapy. The relationship between these variables and the need for mechanical ventilation were explored using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. A ROC analysis was used to identify cut-off for the continuous variables identified as risk factors for intubation in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 93 patients: 19 of them (20.4%) were intubated. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that a M-WCAS Score ≥7, SpO2 ≤75% and apnea were significantly associated to intubation in children with severe bronchiolitis. CONCLUSIONS: Cut-off values of the variables identified as risk factors for intubation may represent an important tool for pediatricians to decide a prompt and appropriate intensive respiratory support

Bleeding with Apixaban and Dalteparin in Patients with Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Results from the Caravaggio Study

Background Direct oral anticoagulants are recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), but an increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer was reported. The Caravaggio study compared apixaban and dalteparin for the treatment of patients with CAT. Here we describe sites of bleeding, associated cancer sites, clinical presentation, and course of major bleeding in patients included in the Caravaggio study.Methods The Caravaggio study was a multinational, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study. Bleeding events and the severity of major bleedings were adjudicated by a committee unaware of treatment allocation using predefined criteria; for the purpose of this analysis, data were analyzed in the safety population.Results Major bleeding occurred in 22 of 576 patients on apixaban (3.8%) and in 23 of 579 patients on dalteparin (4.0%). The sites of major bleeding and their distribution according to the type of cancer were similar between the two treatment groups. Major bleeding occurred in nine patients with gastrointestinal cancer in each treatment group. The clinical presentation of major bleeding was severe or fatal in 6 patients on apixaban and in 5 patients on dalteparin, while the clinical course was severe in 5 patients on apixaban and in 7 patients on dalteparin.Conclusion Apixaban is a safe alternative to LMWH for the treatment in patients with CAT. No excess in gastrointestinal bleeding was observed in patients who received apixaban, including those with gastrointestinal cancer.Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Clinical prediction models in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

Background: Clinical spectrum of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe respiratory failure that may result in death. We aimed at validating and potentially improve existing clinical models to predict prognosis in hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. Methods: Consecutive patients with acute confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized at 5 Italian non-intensive care unit centers during the 2020 outbreak were included in the study. Twelve validated prognostic scores for pneumonia and/or sepsis and specific COVID-19 scores were calculated for each study patient and their accuracy was compared in predicting in-hospital death at 30 days and the composite of death and orotracheal intubation. Results: During hospital stay, 302 of 1044 included patients presented critical illness (28.9%), and 226 died (21.6%). Nine out of 34 items included in different prognostic scores were independent predictors of all-cause-death. The discrimination was acceptable for the majority of scores (APACHE II, COVID-GRAM, REMS, CURB-65, NEWS II, ROX-index, 4C, SOFA) to predict in-hospital death at 30 days and poor for the rest. A high negative predictive value was observed for REMS (100.0%) and 4C (98.7%) scores; the positive predictive value was poor overall, ROX-index having the best value (75.0%). Conclusions: Despite the growing interest in prognostic models, their performance in patients with COVID-19 is modest. The 4C, REMS and ROX-index may have a role to select high and low risk patients at admission. However, simple predictors as age and PaO2/FiO2 ratio can also be useful as standalone predictors to inform decision making