Literature DB >> 33185785

Low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19 patients prevents delirium and shortens hospitalization.

Damiano D'Ardes1, Claudia Carrarini2, Mirella Russo2, Fedele Dono2, Rino Speranza2, Anna Digiovanni2, Giovanni Martinotti2, Angelo Di Iorio1, Marco Onofrj2, Francesco Cipollone1, Laura Bonanni3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients present with delirium during their hospitalization. AIMS: To assess the incidence of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and analyze the possible association with demographic, clinical, laboratory, and pharmacological factors.
METHODS: COVID-19 patients were assessed for clinical signs of delirium and administered the assessment test for delirium and cognitive impairment (4AT) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) scales.
RESULTS: Out of the 56 patients of our cohort, 14 (25.0%) experienced delirium. The use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg/daily) was less frequent in patients with delirium (p = 0.004) and was accompanied by lower C reactive protein (CRP) levels (p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: The use of LMWH was associated with absence of delirium, independently of comorbidities and age.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of LMWH may help preventing the occurrence of delirium in COVID-19 patients, with possible reduction of length of stay in the hospital and sequelae.

Entities:  

Keywords:  C reactive protein; COVID-19; Delirium; Low molecular weight heparin

Year:  2020        PMID: 33185785      PMCID: PMC7664586          DOI: 10.1007/s10072-020-04887-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurol Sci        ISSN: 1590-1874            Impact factor:   3.307


Introduction

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) represents an enormous new threat to healthcare systems. As the infection has reached the pandemic stage, it has become clear that the older population is most vulnerable to severe respiratory infection with increased mortality [1]. Delirium is a well-recognized complication of respiratory illness in older adults [2]. Delirium in hospitalized patients is a strong independent predictor of mortality, increased hospital length of stay (LOS), cognitive impairment in the long term, increased cost of care, and subsequent hospitalizations [3]. Early studies indicate that 20–30% of COVID-19 patients will present with or develop delirium during their hospitalization, with rates of 60–70% in cases of severe illness [4]. Hospital management of COVID-19 involves precautional isolation and contact with hospital staff mediated by personal protective equipment, which can be depersonalizing and frightening to the elderly, particularly those with underlying cognitive impairment. Thus, the current management approach may exacerbate and prolong the duration of delirium, with consequent poor outcomes and accelerated mortality. In the present study, we assessed the incidence of delirium in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in an internal medicine unit and analyzed the possible association of delirium with demographic, clinical factors and pharmacological interventions.

Methods

We followed COVID-19 patients with moderate symptoms (positive swab for SARS-CoV-2 in patients with fever and/or cough associated to CT scan with signs of interstitial pneumonia and/or to respiratory failure without need of mechanical ventilation) admitted between April the 1st and the 15th 2020 to the COVID-19 Unit of SS. Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy, and followed until complete healing (remission of clinical signs and two serial negative swab tests). The patients were assessed for clinical signs of delirium and administered the assessment test for delirium & cognitive impairment (4AT) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) scales. Laboratory parameters (including blood count, creatinine, transaminases, electrolytes, urine test, arterial blood gas analysis, and C-reactive protein, CRP), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiac failure, active cancer, arrhythmias, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), other neurological symptoms (and neuroradiological features in 12 patients, supplementary Table 1), and pharmacological interventions were also recorded. A regional review board has approved the use of humans for this study.

Statistical analysis

Data were reported as mean ± standard error (se) for continuous variables and as absolute number and percentage for categorical and ordinal variables. Differences between patients with and without delirium were evaluated with general linear model for continuous variables, and with Chi-square test for categorical or ordinal variables, Fischer’s correction was applied if necessary. To assess the independent effect of different variables in predicting the risk of delirium, logistic regression analysis was applied. Variables were considered in the models as dummy except for age that was modeled as continuous. All the variables reaching a p value ≤ 0.05 at the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis predicting the risk of delirium. In details, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), age, and comorbidities were considered in the model as dummy variables; the presence of less than two comorbidities was the reference group. Mixed linear models were applied to assess differences between time of the study and presence of delirium in laboratory parameters. All analyses were performed with SAS 9.4.

Results

Fifty-six patients were recruited. Fourteen (25.0%) experienced delirium during the hospitalization with 4AT and CAM scores higher than those found in patients not experiencing delirium (p < 0.001). Patients with delirium were older than patients without signs of delirium (p = 0.002). Two or more comorbidities were reported in 85% of patients who experienced delirium and in 40% of patients without delirium (p = 0.003). Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the patients’ populations.
Table 1

Differences between subjects who experienced delirium compared with patients without delirium

Patients with deliriumPatients without deliriump value
1442
Age (years)84.29 ± 7.4570.98 ± 14.860.002
Sex male5 (38.5)14 (33.3)0.73
LMWH4 (28.6)30 (71.4)0.004
Antibiotics0 (0.0)4 (9.5)0.56
Hydroxychloroquine3 (21.4)7 (16.7)0.70
Other drugs2 (14.3)16 (38.1)0.10
Neurological signs3 (21.4)10 (23.8)0.85
Myalgia0 (0.0)4 (9.5)0.56
Neuropathy0 (0.0)3 (7.1)0.57
Vertigo1 (7.1)1 (2.4)0.44
Comorbidities2.93 ± 1.401.69 ± 1.660.02
Comorbidities (≥ 2)12 (85.7)17 (40.5)0.003
4AT8.21 ± 3.660.79 ± 1.68< 0.001
CAM-ICU3.79 ± 0.430.48 ± 0.83< 0.001

Data were reported as mean ± SE for continuous variables and as absolute number (percentage) for categorical and ordinal variables. Significant differences are highlighted in italicized character

LMWH low molecular weight heparin, 4AT assessment test for delirium and cognitive impairment, CAM-ICU Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit

Differences between subjects who experienced delirium compared with patients without delirium Data were reported as mean ± SE for continuous variables and as absolute number (percentage) for categorical and ordinal variables. Significant differences are highlighted in italicized character LMWH low molecular weight heparin, 4AT assessment test for delirium and cognitive impairment, CAM-ICU Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit CRP resulted to be higher and stable overtime in patients with delirium as compared with patients who did not experience delirium (p = 0.006) (Table 2).
Table 2

Mixed linear models. Differences in laboratory parameters between times of the study according to delirium manifestation, during the hospitalization

Patients without deliriumPatients with delirium
BaselineFUBaselineFUp1p2p3
42421414
Red blood cell count (× 106/mm3)4.42 ± 0.754.21 ± 0.724.23 ± 0.764.01 ± 0.650.350.110.93
Hemoglobin (g/dl)12.20 ± 2.3211.98 ± 1.7911.49 ± 2.4211.04 ± 1.890.140.320.67
White blood cell count (× 103/μl)8.57 ± 8.736.35 ± 2.209.23 ± 3.758.86 ± 3.590.140.840.41
Neutrophils (× 103/μl)5.47 ± 3.633.90 ± 2.187.40 ± 3.656.65 ± 3.740.0060.410.46
Eosinophils (× 103/μl)0.04 ± 0.060.17 ± 0.150.03 ± 0.050.13 ± 0.120.120.010.33
Lymphocytes (× 103/μl)1.18 ± 0.661.72 ± 0.681.05 ± 0.451.45 ± 0.720.160.0070.37
Monocytes (× 103/μl)0.87 ± 2.070.49 ± 0.190.71 ± 0.630.60 ± 0.450.780.810.60
Platelet count (× 103/mm3)221.74 ± 81.41222.46 ± 50.84212.19 ± 82.64221.25 ± 100.810.980.710.77
Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm)40.13 ± 20.4939.68 ± 20.9433.55 ± 17.5736.80 ± 18.420.540.710.69
Reactive C protein (mg/dl)77.94 ± 73.7520.11 ± 52.5968.97 ± 50.7266.34 ± 61.030.010.900.03
Procalcitonin (ng/ml)2.13 ± 8.130.31 ± 1.140.40 ± 0.550.39 ± 0.600.960.990.38
Prothrombin time (%)88.38 ± 26.8193.30 ± 24.9080.05 ± 18.8180.23 ± 17.140.070.970.42
INR1.28 ± 0.881.13 ± 0.301.18 ± 0.191.18 ± 0.200.750.990.37
Activated partial thromboplastin time (s)38.30 ± 22.8235.25 ± 15.4436.11 ± 5.7835.33 ± 5.680.990.800.52
Fibrinogen (mg/dl)506.73 ± 148.30450.20 ± 139.63432.40 ± 166.22382.73 ± 155.310.160.120.86
D-dimer (μg/ml)2.23 ± 5.051.05 ± 1.341.73 ± 1.471.93 ± 1.440.430.870.35
Glycemia (mg/dl)104.76 ± 23.5393.57 ± 32.99116.44 ± 39.60100.44 ± 29.630.460.120.70
Azotemia (mg/dl)55.68 ± 43.9150.68 ± 48.0577.25 ± 69.7661.19 ± 63.850.510.110.36
Estimated glomerular filtration rate86.58 ± 26.4597.05 ± 20.0590.34 ± 72.5381.23 ± 88.190.410.600.28
Creatinine (mg/dl)1.60 ± 2.151.20 ± 1.751.39 ± 1.331.34 ± 1.460.800.840.25
Albumin (g/dl)3.73 ± 0.663.54 ± 0.823.16 ± 0.433.16 ± 0.430.090.990.35
Troponin (pg/ml)28.85 ± 39.7817.48 ± 23.0723.36 ± 19.7536.54 ± 52.070.190.340.12
Sideremia (μg/dl)38.90 ± 22.2337.24 ± 21.9149.07 ± 77.0551.93 ± 76.310.330.370.25
Ferritin (ng/ml)679.08 ± 1071.80532.60 ± 870.98337.25 ± 232.57337.25 ± 232.570.640.990.60
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio6.02 ± 5.142.80 ± 2.619.37 ± 8.917.12 ± 7.670.010.180.62

For every parameter, the follow-up assessment (FU) was the last measurement available before discharge or transfer to long-term care unit. p value 1 = p value for the comparison between patients with and without delirium; p value 2 = p value for the comparison between the two times of the study; p value 3 = p value for the interaction between times of the study and presence or absence of delirium. Significant differences are highlighted in italicized character

Mixed linear models. Differences in laboratory parameters between times of the study according to delirium manifestation, during the hospitalization For every parameter, the follow-up assessment (FU) was the last measurement available before discharge or transfer to long-term care unit. p value 1 = p value for the comparison between patients with and without delirium; p value 2 = p value for the comparison between the two times of the study; p value 3 = p value for the interaction between times of the study and presence or absence of delirium. Significant differences are highlighted in italicized character The use of LMWH (enoxaparin administered at 1 mg/kg/daily) was less frequent in patients who developed delirium than in patients without signs of delirium (p = 0.004). Ten out of 14 patients with delirium and 12 out of 42 who did not experience delirium were not treated with LMWH due to contraindications reported in supplementary Table 2. The prescription of LMWH seemed to have a protective effect from delirium (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.1–0.50; p = 0.007), independently of comorbidities (OR: 17.82; 95% CI: 2.07–153.08; p = 0.009) and age. In the logistic model sub-analysis, where only those subjects with a higher comorbidity score (≥ 2 diseases) were analyzed, the results did not change; LMWH-prescription was the only statistically significant predictor of prevention of delirium. LOS was longer in patients untreated with LMWH (27.0 ± 14.7 vs. 21.5 ± 10.1; p = 0.04) independently of age and CAM score.

Discussion

Fourteen out of 56 patients (25%) admitted to our COVID-19 Unit experienced delirium. They were older than patients without signs of delirium and presented with a higher number of comorbidities, as expected4. No difference was found in the prevalence of other neurological symptoms associated with COVID-19. We found a strong association between the use of LMWH and absence of delirium, independently of comorbidities and age. Heparin has been implicated in binding to COVID-19 spike proteins as well as down-regulating interleukin-6 (IL-6) [5], which has been shown to be elevated in COVID-19 patients [6], and thus, LMWH remains as the best choice of anticoagulant for admitted patients. Studies on elderly patients suggest that inflammation plays a role in the pathophysiology of delirium [7]. This hypothesis is corroborated in our cohort by the higher levels of CRP in delirious patients as compared with patients without delirium. CRP circulating concentrations rise in response to inflammation. CRP is an acute-phase protein of hepatic origin that increases following interleukin-6 secretion by macrophages and T cells. High serum interleukin-6 level has been associated with increased risk of the occurrence of delirium [8]. It is suspected that systemic inflammation, which commonly characterizes critical illness, stimulates a process of deranged coagulation, whose end product is microvascular damage and thrombosis in vital organs, including the brain, contributing to the development and maintenance of delirium [9]. The use of LMWH, by preventing the development of thrombosis subsequent to the inflammatory process, may help prevent the occurrence of delirium in COVID-19 patients, with consequent possible reduction of LOS and sequelae. (DOCX 14 kb) (DOCX 13 kb)
  9 in total

Review 1.  Management of community-acquired pneumonia in older adults.

Authors:  Antonella F Simonetti; Diego Viasus; Carolina Garcia-Vidal; Jordi Carratalà
Journal:  Ther Adv Infect Dis       Date:  2014-02

2.  Characterization of the heparin-binding properties of IL-6.

Authors:  R S Mummery; C C Rider
Journal:  J Immunol       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 5.422

Review 3.  The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of delirium and dementia in older adults: a review.

Authors:  Mark J Simone; Zaldy S Tan
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 5.243

4.  Associations of markers of inflammation and coagulation with delirium during critical illness.

Authors:  Timothy D Girard; Lorraine B Ware; Gordon R Bernard; Pratik P Pandharipande; Jennifer L Thompson; Ayumi K Shintani; James C Jackson; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-08-18       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  "Delirium Day": a nationwide point prevalence study of delirium in older hospitalized patients using an easy standardized diagnostic tool.

Authors:  Giuseppe Bellelli; Alessandro Morandi; Simona G Di Santo; Andrea Mazzone; Antonio Cherubini; Enrico Mossello; Mario Bo; Angelo Bianchetti; Renzo Rozzini; Ermellina Zanetti; Massimo Musicco; Alberto Ferrari; Nicola Ferrara; Marco Trabucchi
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 6.  COVID-19 and Older Adults: What We Know.

Authors:  Zainab Shahid; Ricci Kalayanamitra; Brendan McClafferty; Douglas Kepko; Devyani Ramgobin; Ravi Patel; Chander Shekher Aggarwal; Ramarao Vunnam; Nitasa Sahu; Dhirisha Bhatt; Kirk Jones; Reshma Golamari; Rohit Jain
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Plasma biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, and brain injury as predictors of delirium duration in older hospitalized patients.

Authors:  J Brennan McNeil; Christopher G Hughes; Timothy Girard; Lorraine B Ware; E Wesley Ely; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Jin H Han
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Fei Zhou; Ting Yu; Ronghui Du; Guohui Fan; Ying Liu; Zhibo Liu; Jie Xiang; Yeming Wang; Bin Song; Xiaoying Gu; Lulu Guan; Yuan Wei; Hui Li; Xudong Wu; Jiuyang Xu; Shengjin Tu; Yi Zhang; Hua Chen; Bin Cao
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Delirium: a missing piece in the COVID-19 pandemic puzzle.

Authors:  Shane O'Hanlon; Sharon K Inouye
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 10.668

  9 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

Authors:  Ronald Lg Flumignan; Vinicius T Civile; Jéssica Dantas de Sá Tinôco; Patricia If Pascoal; Libnah L Areias; Charbel F Matar; Britta Tendal; Virginia Fm Trevisani; Álvaro N Atallah; Luis Cu Nakano
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-03-04

Review 2.  Agitation and Dementia: Prevention and Treatment Strategies in Acute and Chronic Conditions.

Authors:  Claudia Carrarini; Mirella Russo; Fedele Dono; Filomena Barbone; Marianna G Rispoli; Laura Ferri; Martina Di Pietro; Anna Digiovanni; Paola Ajdinaj; Rino Speranza; Alberto Granzotto; Valerio Frazzini; Astrid Thomas; Andrea Pilotto; Alessandro Padovani; Marco Onofrj; Stefano L Sensi; Laura Bonanni
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 4.003

3.  Factors Associated with Delirium in COVID-19 Patients and Their Outcome: A Single-Center Cohort Study.

Authors:  Annabella Di Giorgio; Antonio Mirijello; Clara De Gennaro; Andrea Fontana; Paolo Emilio Alboini; Lucia Florio; Vincenzo Inchingolo; Michele Zarrelli; Giuseppe Miscio; Pamela Raggi; Carmen Marciano; Annibale Antonioni; Salvatore De Cosmo; Filippo Aucella; Antonio Greco; Massimo Carella; Massimiliano Copetti; Maurizio A Leone
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-20

4.  Clinical characteristics of 365 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms: an observational study.

Authors:  Fahimeh Vahabizad; Mansoureh Togha; Shadi Arianfar; Mohammad-Reza Fattahi; Samaneh Haghighi; Zahra Ebadi; Sanaz Ahmadi Karvigh; Sara Heidari; Maryam Shafaei; Hale Ashraf; Azar Haddadi; Mohammad Talebpour; Arash Safaei; Hoda Asefi
Journal:  Acta Neurol Belg       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 2.471

5.  Delirium in COVID-19 patients: a multicentric observational study in Italy.

Authors:  Giovanni Martinotti; Laura Bonanni; Stefano Barlati; Andrea Miuli; Gianna Sepede; Davide Prestia; Alice Trabucco; Claudia Palumbo; Alessandra Massaro; Martina Olcese; Damiano D'Ardes; Francesco Cipollone; Mario Amore; Emi Bondi; Mirella Russo; Claudia Carrarini; Marco Onofrj; Stefano Luca Sensi; Antonio Vita; Massimo di Giannantonio
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 3.307

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.