Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 25/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, in an exploratory analysis, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared with therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: The review comprised 24 studies and over 2,500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.39; I 2 94%], of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63; I 2 91%), of deep venous thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32; I 2 96%), and of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20; I 2 90%). Exploratory analysis of few studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared with therapeutic anticoagulation [odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57; I 2 0%]. Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages may reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation; however, this is to be ascertained by ongoing randomized controlled trials.
Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically illCOVID-19patients till 25/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, in an exploratory analysis, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared with therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: The review comprised 24 studies and over 2,500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.39; I 2 94%], of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63; I 2 91%), of deep venous thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32; I 2 96%), and of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20; I 2 90%). Exploratory analysis of few studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared with therapeutic anticoagulation [odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57; I 2 0%]. Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically illCOVID-19patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages may reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation; however, this is to be ascertained by ongoing randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Björn Stessel; Charlotte Vanvuchelen; Liesbeth Bruckers; Laurien Geebelen; Ina Callebaut; Jeroen Vandenbrande; Ben Pellens; Michiel Van Tornout; Jean-Paul Ory; Karlijn van Halem; Peter Messiaen; Lieven Herbots; Dirk Ramaekers; Jasperina Dubois Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Michael J R Desborough; Andrew J Doyle; Alexandra Griffiths; Andrew Retter; Karen A Breen; Beverley J Hunt Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Dominic Wichmann; Jan-Peter Sperhake; Marc Lütgehetmann; Stefan Steurer; Carolin Edler; Axel Heinemann; Fabian Heinrich; Herbert Mushumba; Inga Kniep; Ann Sophie Schröder; Christoph Burdelski; Geraldine de Heer; Axel Nierhaus; Daniel Frings; Susanne Pfefferle; Heinrich Becker; Hanns Bredereke-Wiedling; Andreas de Weerth; Hans-Richard Paschen; Sara Sheikhzadeh-Eggers; Axel Stang; Stefan Schmiedel; Carsten Bokemeyer; Marylyn M Addo; Martin Aepfelbacher; Klaus Püschel; Stefan Kluge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elrazi A Ali; Mohammed A Alamin; Mohammad Abu-Tineh; Khalid Ahmed; Awni Alshurafa; Waail Rozi; Mohamed A Yassin Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-05-21
Authors: Joby J Thoppil; D Mark Courtney; Samuel McDonald; Christopher Kabrhel; Kristen E Nordenholz; Carlos A Camargo; Jeffrey A Kline Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 1.473
Authors: Wasim Jamal; Mohamad Y Khatib; Mohammad Al Wraidat; Amna Ahmed; Dore C Ananthegowda; Ahmed S Mohamed; Asra Aroos; Prem Chandra; Mansoor Hameed; Muhammad Yousaf; Ahmed Al-Mohammed; Abdulqadir J Nashwan Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-22
Authors: Elrazi A Ali; Ibrahim Khamees; Mohammad Abu-Tineh; Hana Qasim; Awni Alshurafa; Khalid Ahmed; Lujain Malkawi; Mohamed A Yassin Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-04-05