Cargando…

The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19

Introduction As the COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the world, it was seen that patients who presented with critical disease had a higher incidence of thrombotic complications, associated with a poor prognosis. Currently prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with COVID-19...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo, Aguilar-Soto, Mercedes, Demichelis, Roberta
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Hematology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330341/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-142594
_version_ 1783732695499538432
author Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo
Aguilar-Soto, Mercedes
Demichelis, Roberta
author_facet Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo
Aguilar-Soto, Mercedes
Demichelis, Roberta
author_sort Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo
collection PubMed
description Introduction As the COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the world, it was seen that patients who presented with critical disease had a higher incidence of thrombotic complications, associated with a poor prognosis. Currently prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with COVID-19 who require hospitalization as part of the supportive management. However, since a higher incidence of thrombosis despite prophylactic anticoagulation has been reported, some recommendations indicate that an increase to intermediate or therapeutic dosing should be considered. The full spectrum of complications and outcomes related to this strategy are still unknown. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the COVID-19 registry of the ARMII study group, based in Centro Medico ABC, a private hospital in Mexico City. We included all patients admitted from March 12 to July 31, 2020, who received prophylactic anticoagulation at standard (enoxaparin 40mg QD), intermediate (0.5 mg/kg QD or 40 mg BID), or therapeutic doses (1mg/kg BID), a decision taken by the attending physician based on clinical and laboratory criteria. Patients with previous or presenting with thrombosis were excluded. We compared the three groups to identify baseline characteristics and conducted multivariable logistic regressions to measure the association of anticoagulation profiles and adverse outcomes. Results Out of total 322 patients, we identified 81 (25%) who received standard dose, 164 (51%) who received intermediate and 77 (24%) on therapeutic doses. Age and sex were distribuited similarly among groups; patients with intermediate and therapeutic doses were more overweight and obese, but this was not significant (p=0.052). On admission, patients who received intermediate and therapeutic doses had lower oximetry registry when compared with standard doses (89%, 88% and 92% respectively, p=0.008). Three severity scales, NEWS, MULBSTA and CALL, were higher in patients with intermediate and therapeutic doses (p=0.01, p=0.02 and p=0.005, respectively). Regarding laboratory values, patients on therapeutic doses had higher leucocytes on admission (median 6 x 109L, 6 and 8, p=0.05) but lower lymphocyte absolute counts (median 1240 cells/mm3, 935 and 920, p<0.001). Patients who were given higher doses of anticoagulation had higher levels of C-reactive protein, DHL, and ferritin (p<0.001) and higher levels of IL-6 (p=0.02). Levels of D-dimer were also higher in this group (p<0.001). Patients with therapeutic doses of anticoagulation were more likely to present major bleeding when compared to intermediate or standard prophylactic doses (9% vs 1% vs 0%, p=0.0006) and clinically relevant bleeding (12% vs 2% vs 5%, p=0.01). (Table 1) The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the entire cohort was 5%, while the incidence of major bleeding was 2.5%. There were no differences between the different doses of anticoagulation; no patients presented deep venous thrombosis. During follow-up, a total of 21 patients died, representing 6.5% of the study population. Independent factors that predicted death included age, CRP and D-dimer levels on admission, history of hypertension and requirement of mechanical invasive ventilation. When adjusting for these confounders, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a lower risk of death (OR 0.079 95% CI 0.008-0.76). When restricting the analysis for patients who required mechanical ventilation, anticoagulation was also associated with a lower risk of death (OR 0.031 95% CI 0.002-0.54) but not for intermediate doses (OR 0.10 95% CI 0.01-1.06). (Figure 1) Conclusions Anticoagulation might not play a causal role in the risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, but the decision to increase doses might reflect patients who present with more severe disease. In our cohort, the majority of the patients were receiving intermediate prophylactic doses and the incidence of PE is lower than in worldwide reports. Therapeutic doses of anticoagulation were not associated with a lower risk of PE, but were associated with lower risk of death. However, therapeutic doses were also associated with a higher risk of major and clinically significant bleeding. Randomized-controlled clinical trials are needed to understand the role of higher doses of prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19. [Figure: see text] DISCLOSURES: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8330341
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Society of Hematology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83303412021-08-03 The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19 Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo Aguilar-Soto, Mercedes Demichelis, Roberta Blood 332.Anticoagulation and Antithrombotic Therapy Introduction As the COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the world, it was seen that patients who presented with critical disease had a higher incidence of thrombotic complications, associated with a poor prognosis. Currently prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with COVID-19 who require hospitalization as part of the supportive management. However, since a higher incidence of thrombosis despite prophylactic anticoagulation has been reported, some recommendations indicate that an increase to intermediate or therapeutic dosing should be considered. The full spectrum of complications and outcomes related to this strategy are still unknown. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the COVID-19 registry of the ARMII study group, based in Centro Medico ABC, a private hospital in Mexico City. We included all patients admitted from March 12 to July 31, 2020, who received prophylactic anticoagulation at standard (enoxaparin 40mg QD), intermediate (0.5 mg/kg QD or 40 mg BID), or therapeutic doses (1mg/kg BID), a decision taken by the attending physician based on clinical and laboratory criteria. Patients with previous or presenting with thrombosis were excluded. We compared the three groups to identify baseline characteristics and conducted multivariable logistic regressions to measure the association of anticoagulation profiles and adverse outcomes. Results Out of total 322 patients, we identified 81 (25%) who received standard dose, 164 (51%) who received intermediate and 77 (24%) on therapeutic doses. Age and sex were distribuited similarly among groups; patients with intermediate and therapeutic doses were more overweight and obese, but this was not significant (p=0.052). On admission, patients who received intermediate and therapeutic doses had lower oximetry registry when compared with standard doses (89%, 88% and 92% respectively, p=0.008). Three severity scales, NEWS, MULBSTA and CALL, were higher in patients with intermediate and therapeutic doses (p=0.01, p=0.02 and p=0.005, respectively). Regarding laboratory values, patients on therapeutic doses had higher leucocytes on admission (median 6 x 109L, 6 and 8, p=0.05) but lower lymphocyte absolute counts (median 1240 cells/mm3, 935 and 920, p<0.001). Patients who were given higher doses of anticoagulation had higher levels of C-reactive protein, DHL, and ferritin (p<0.001) and higher levels of IL-6 (p=0.02). Levels of D-dimer were also higher in this group (p<0.001). Patients with therapeutic doses of anticoagulation were more likely to present major bleeding when compared to intermediate or standard prophylactic doses (9% vs 1% vs 0%, p=0.0006) and clinically relevant bleeding (12% vs 2% vs 5%, p=0.01). (Table 1) The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the entire cohort was 5%, while the incidence of major bleeding was 2.5%. There were no differences between the different doses of anticoagulation; no patients presented deep venous thrombosis. During follow-up, a total of 21 patients died, representing 6.5% of the study population. Independent factors that predicted death included age, CRP and D-dimer levels on admission, history of hypertension and requirement of mechanical invasive ventilation. When adjusting for these confounders, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a lower risk of death (OR 0.079 95% CI 0.008-0.76). When restricting the analysis for patients who required mechanical ventilation, anticoagulation was also associated with a lower risk of death (OR 0.031 95% CI 0.002-0.54) but not for intermediate doses (OR 0.10 95% CI 0.01-1.06). (Figure 1) Conclusions Anticoagulation might not play a causal role in the risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, but the decision to increase doses might reflect patients who present with more severe disease. In our cohort, the majority of the patients were receiving intermediate prophylactic doses and the incidence of PE is lower than in worldwide reports. Therapeutic doses of anticoagulation were not associated with a lower risk of PE, but were associated with lower risk of death. However, therapeutic doses were also associated with a higher risk of major and clinically significant bleeding. Randomized-controlled clinical trials are needed to understand the role of higher doses of prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19. [Figure: see text] DISCLOSURES: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. American Society of Hematology 2020-11-05 2021-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8330341/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-142594 Text en Copyright © 2020 American Society of Hematology. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle 332.Anticoagulation and Antithrombotic Therapy
Jiménez-Soto, Rodolfo
Aguilar-Soto, Mercedes
Demichelis, Roberta
The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title_full The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title_fullStr The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title_short The Impact of Different Prophylactic Anticoagulation Doses on the Outcomes of Patients with COVID-19
title_sort impact of different prophylactic anticoagulation doses on the outcomes of patients with covid-19
topic 332.Anticoagulation and Antithrombotic Therapy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330341/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-142594
work_keys_str_mv AT jimenezsotorodolfo theimpactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19
AT aguilarsotomercedes theimpactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19
AT demichelisroberta theimpactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19
AT jimenezsotorodolfo impactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19
AT aguilarsotomercedes impactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19
AT demichelisroberta impactofdifferentprophylacticanticoagulationdosesontheoutcomesofpatientswithcovid19