| Literature DB >> 33378321 |
Julie Goswami1, Taleen A MacArthur1, Meera Sridharan2, Rajiv K Pruthi2, Robert D McBane2,3, Thomas E Witzig2, Myung S Park1.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: There is increasing evidence that novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to a significant coagulopathy, a phenomenon termed "COVID-19 associated coagulopathy." COVID-19 has been associated with increased rates of both venous and arterial thromboembolic events, a source of significant morbidity and mortality in this disease. Further evidence suggests a link between the inflammatory response and coagulopathy associated with COVID-19. This presents a unique set of challenges for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of thrombotic complications. In this review, we summarize and discuss the current literature on laboratory coagulation disruptions associated with COVID-19 and the clinical effects of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and acute ischemic stroke in COVID-19. Endothelial injury and augmented innate immune response are implicated in the development of diffuse macro- and microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy is an important determinant of appropriate treatment and monitoring of these complications. We highlight the importance of diagnosis and management of dysregulated coagulation in COVID-19 to improve outcomes in COVID-19 patients with thromboembolic complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33378321 PMCID: PMC8122038 DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Shock ISSN: 1073-2322 Impact factor: 3.533
Figure 1:Description of Methods
Clinical Findings of Venous and Arterial Thrombosis in COVID-19 Patients[Δ]
| Endpoint | Study | Country of Origin | Design | Centers | No. of | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klok et al. | Netherlands | Retrospective | Single | 184 | 31% | |
| Fraisse et al. | France | Retrospective | Single | 92 | 40% | |
| Al-Samkari et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 400 | 9.5% | |
| Helms et al. ( | France | Prospective | Multi | 150 | 16.7% | |
| Lodigiani et al. ( | Italy | Retrospective | Single | 362 | 7.7% | |
| Beun et al. ( | Netherlands | Retrospective | Single | 75 | 33.3% | |
| Mayo Clinic unpublished | USA | Retrospective | Single | 105 | 5.9% | |
| Cui et.al. ( | China | Case series | Single | 81 | 25% | |
| Hippensteel et al. | USA | Retrospective | Single | 91 | 26.1% | |
| Trimaille et al. ( | France | Retrospective | Single | 289 | 17% | |
| Chi et al. ( | USA | Meta-analysis | Multi | 1981 | 23.9% | |
| Hasan et al. | UK, Australia, Malaysia | Meta-analysis | Multi | 899 | 31% | |
| Roberts et al. ( | UK | Prospective | Multi | 1877 | 4.5% | |
| Mestre-Gomez et al. ( | Spain | Retrospective | Single | 452 | 6.4% | |
| Bavaro et al. ( | Italy | Case series | Single | 20 | 40% | |
| Gervaise et al. ( | France | Retrospective | Single | 72 | 18% | |
| Whyte et al. ( | UK | Retrospective | Single | 1477 | 5.9% | |
| Fauvel et al. ( | France | Retrospective | Multi | 1240 | 8.3% | |
| Bompard et al. ( | France | Retrospective | Multi | 135 | 24% | |
| Poissy et al. | France | Case series | Single | 106 | 20.6% | |
| Taccone et al. | Belgium | Retrospective | Single | 40 | 33% | |
| Mak et al. | UK | Case series | Single | 51 | 35% | |
| Demelo-Rodriguez et al.[ | Spain | Prospective | Single | 156 | 14.7% | |
| Chen Set al.[ | China | Retrospective | Single | 88 | 46% | |
| Zhang et al. | China | Retrospective | Single | 143 | 46.1% | |
| Rieder et al. ( | Germany | Prospective | Single | 49 | 6.1% | |
| Santoliquido et al.[ | Italy | Prospective | Single | 84 | 11.9% | |
| Middeldorp et al.[ | Netherlands | Prospective | Single | 198 | 42% (at 21d) | |
| Trigonis et al. | USA | Retrospective | Single | 45 | 42.2% | |
| Voicu et al. | France | Prospective | Single | 56 | 46% | |
| Li Y et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 219 | 4.6% | |
| Merkler et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 2132 | 1.5% | |
| Yaghi et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 3556 | 0.9% | |
| Tan et al. ( | Singapore | Meta-analysis | Multi | 4466 | 1.2% | |
| Rothstein et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 844 | 2.4% ischemic |
Table includes studies that provide clinical outcomes
Studies included patients admitted to ICUs only
Studies utilized screening ultrasound for identification of DVT; except in Middeldorp et al. where only 55 of 198 patients underwent screening ultrasound.
Figure 2:Proposed mechanisms by which SARS Cov-2 infection leads to micro- and macrovascular thrombosis
Summary of Relevant Lab Findings in COVID-19*
| End point | Study | Country | Design | Centers | No. of | Relevant Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jin et al. ( | China | Meta-analysis | Multi | 4889 | ↑ D-dimer in non-survivors | |
| Tang et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 183 | ↑ D-dimer in non-survivors | |
| Zhang et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 343 | ↑ Mortality with D-dimer ≥ 2.0 μg/dL | |
| Yu et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 1,561 | D-dimer > 0.6 μg/mL on admission associated w/ severe COVID-19 | |
| Chilmuri et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 375 | D-dimer > 1,000 ng/mL on admission associated increased odds of in-hospital mortality | |
| Gayam et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 408 | D-dimer is independent predictor of mortality in hospitalized African American patients | |
| Li Y et al. ( | China | Prospective | Multi | 279 | Dynamic relationship between D-dimer and disease progression | |
| DiMinno et al ( | Italy | Meta-analysis | Multi | 1,511 | ↑ D-dimer in non-survivors | |
| Liu J et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 1,190 | ↑ D-dimer on admission independent predictor of in-hospital death | |
| Li C et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 749 | Normal day 1 and day 3 D-dimer strongly associated with survival | |
| Artifoni et al. ( | France | Retrospective | Multi | 71 | D-dimer level ≥ 3.0 μg/ml with 80% positive predictive value for VTE | |
| Cui et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 81 | ↑ D-dimer in patients with VTE, ↑ D-dimer with anticoagulation | |
| Martin-Rojas et al. ( | Spain | Retrospective | Single | 206 | ↑ D-dimer independent predictor of thrombotic event | |
| Cho et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 158 | D-dimer > 6,494 ng/mL associated with increased risk of DVT, NPV 88.0% | |
| Mestre-Gomez et al. ( | Spain | Retrospective | Single | 91 | D-dimer ≥ 5000 ≥g/dL independent predictor of PE | |
| Demelo-Rodriguez et al. ( | Spain | Prospective | Single | 156 | D-dimer ≥ 1570 ng/mL associated with DVT | |
| Di Minno et al. ( | Italy | Meta-Analysis | Multi | 1,511 | Thrombocytopenia associated with disease severity and mortality | |
| Liu Y et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 383 | Dose dependent association of platelet count with mortality | |
| Al-Samkari et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 429 | Admission ↑ platelets predictive of thrombotic complications | |
| Chen W et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 272 | 11.8% “delayed phase” thrombocytopenia with poor outcomes | |
| Yang et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 1476 | 20.7% with thrombocytopenia, platelet nadir correlates to mortality | |
| Chen R et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Multi | 548 | Lower platelet count on admission and ↓ trend through hospitalization in non-survivors | |
| Zhao et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 532 | Lower mean platelet count at multiple time points in non-survivors | |
| Hottz et al. ( | Brazil | Prospective | Single | 35 | ↑ Platelet activation in severe COVID-19 | |
| Goshua et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 68 | ↑ VWF activity in ICU and non-ICU | |
| Escher et al. ( | Switzer land | Case series | Single | 3 | ↑ VWF and Factor VIII with normal ADAMSTS13 and platelet count | |
| Blasi et al. ( | Spain | Case series | Single | 23 | ↑VWF and ↓ADAMSTS13 in COVID patients vs. healthy controls | |
| Helms et al. ( | France | Prospective | Multi | 150 | 85% of tested with increased lupus anticoagulant | |
| Xiao et al. ( | China | Cross-section | Single | 79 | APLs seen in 47% of critically ill COVID-19 patients | |
| Bowles et al. ( | UK | Prospective | Single | 216 | Lupus anticoagulant detected in 91% with prolonged aPTT | |
| Harzallah et al. ( | France | Prospective | Single | 56 | Lupus anticoagulant (+) in 45% | |
| Siguret et al. ( | France | Prospective | Single | 74 | 85% with lupus anticoagulant, 12% with other APLs | |
| Galeano-Valle et al. ( | Spain | Case series | Single | 24 | 2 patients with weakly positive anti-cardiolipin and anti-B2-GP1 IgM. | |
| Ibanez et al. ( | Spain | Cross-section | Single | 12 | ↑ Clot firmness on ROTEM | |
| Mortus et al. ( | USA | Case series | Single | 21 | ↑MA associated with thrombotic events | |
| Panigada et al. ( | Italy | Cross-section | Single | 24 | ↓R,K,Ly30; ↑MA in COVID-19 | |
| Pavoni et al. ( | Italy | Retrospective | Single | 40 | Hypercoagulable on ROTEM | |
| Wright et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 44 | Fibrinolysis shutdown associated with VTE | |
| Creel-Bulos ( | USA | Case series | Single | 25 | Fibrinolysis shutdown associated with thrombosis | |
| Yuriditsky et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 64 | TEG not correlated to VTE |
Studies included are those which specify laboratory abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients
Summary of Findings Pertaining to Prevention, Treatment, and Diagnosis of Thromboembolic Events associated with COVID-19
| Endpoint | Study | Country | Design | Centers | No. of | Relevant Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beun et al. ( | Netherlands | Retrospective | Single | 75 | VTE patients required unusually high dose UFH > 35,000 IU/day for goal aPTT | |
| Taccone et al. ( | Belgium | Retrospective | Single | 40 | High dose chemoprophylaxis associated with ↓ PE | |
| Roberts et al. ( | UK | Retrospective | Single | 1,877 | ↑ Post-discharge VTE (OR 1.6) | |
| Tang et al. ( | China | Retrospective | Single | 449 | Lower mortality in patients with a SIC score ≥ 4 treated with heparin for ≥ 7 days | |
| Maatman et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 109 | Critically ill patients with D-dimer level > 2,600 ng/mL should get screening duplex | |
| Tremblay et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Multi | 3,772 | No difference in survival or time to mechanical ventilation with prior anticoagulant or anti-platelet | |
| White et al. ( | UK | Retrospective | Single | 69 | ↑ Heparin dosing needed to achieve therapeutic levels in 15 patients | |
| Rossi et al. ( | Italy | Retrospective | Single | 70 | Chronic DOAC use independently predicts survival | |
| Yuriditsky et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 64 | Recommend therapeutic anticoagulation for ICU patients w/D-dimer level > 2,000 ng/mL or ↑ 6x-10x admission level | |
| Trigonis et al. ( | USA | Retrospective | Single | 45 | Recommend ultrasound for D-dimer level > 2,000 ng/mL & consider therapeutic anticoagulation for D-dimer level > 5,500 ng/mL | |
| Russo et al. ( | Italy | Retrospective | Multi | 192 | No change in ARDS or in-hospital mortality associated with anti-platelet or anticoagulation | |
| Viecca et al. ( | Italy | Case Series | Single | 5 | Hypoxia improvement in ICU patients treated with specific anti-platelet regimen | |
| Bona et al. ( | Italy | Case Series | Single | 4 | Clinical improvement in 3 of 4 patients treated with tPA for bedside diagnosis of PE | |
| Goyal et al. ( | India | Case Series | Single | 3 | 3 patients treated with tPA for respiratory failure weaned from oxygen within 3-7 days. | |
| Christie et al. ( | USA | Case Series | Single | 5 | TPA given for worsening respiratory failure; improved respiratory status in all 5 patients |