Anticoagulation After Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Background and Purpose- Bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin reportedly leads to a worse outcome for acute cardioembolic stroke patients because of a higher incidence of intracerebral bleeding. However, this practice is common in clinical settings. This observational study aimed to compare (1) the clinical profiles of patients receiving and not receiving bridging therapy, (2) overall group outcomes, and (3) outcomes according to the type of anticoagulant prescribed. Methods- We analyzed data of patients from the prospective RAF and RAF-NOACs studies. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, symptomatic cerebral bleeding, and major extracerebral bleeding observed at 90 days after the acute stroke. Results- Of 1810 patients who initiated oral anticoagulant therapy, 371 (20%) underwent bridging therapy with full-dose low-molecular-weight heparin. Older age and the presence of leukoaraiosis were inversely correlated with the use of bridging therapy. Forty-two bridged patients (11.3%) reached the combined outcome versus 72 (5.0%) of the nonbridged patients (P=0.0001). At multivariable analysis, bridging therapy was associated with the composite end point (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P<0.0001), as well as ischemic (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P=0.005) and hemorrhagic (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P=0.01) end points separately. Conclusions- Our findings suggest that patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin have a higher risk of early ischemic recurrence and hemorrhagic transformation compared with nonbridged patients.

Lipoprotein(a) Does Not Predict Thrombotic Events and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19.

The prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) have been hypothesized to play a role in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19; however, the prognostic impact of Lp(a) on the clinical course of COVID-19 remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether Lp(a) may be associated with biomarkers of thrombo-inflammation and the occurrence of thrombotic events or adverse clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We consecutively enrolled a cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and collected blood samples for Lp(a) assessment at hospital admission. A prothrombotic state was evaluated through D-dimer levels, whereas a proinflammatory state was evaluated through C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and white blood cell (WBC) levels. Thrombotic events were marked by the diagnosis of deep or superficial vein thrombosis (DVT or SVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and critical limb ischemia (CLI). The composite clinical end point of intensive care unit (ICU) admission/in-hospital death was used to evaluate adverse clinical outcomes. Among 564 patients (290 (51%) men, mean age of 74 ± 17 years) the median Lp(a) value at hospital admission was 13 (10-27) mg/dL. During hospitalization, 64 (11%) patients were diagnosed with at least one thrombotic event and 83 (15%) patients met the composite clinical end point. Lp(a), as either a continuous or categorical variable, was not associated with D-dimer, CRP, procalcitonin, and WBC levels (p > 0.05 for all correlation analyses). In addition, Lp(a) was not associated with a risk of thrombotic events (p > 0.05 for multi-adjusted odds ratios) nor with a risk of adverse clinical outcomes (p > 0.05 for multi-adjusted hazard ratios). In conclusion, Lp(a) does not influence biomarkers of plasma thrombotic activity and systemic inflammation nor has any impact on thrombotic events and adverse clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Management of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients is the object of current debate. Accumulating evidence suggest that treatment with high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may be effective in this characteristic clinical scenario. CASE REPORT: A 52-years old immunocompromised female patient, previously treated with rituximab for low grade B-cell lymphoma, showed prolonged SARS-CoV-2 shedding and a long-term course of signs of severe COVID-19. A first cycle of treatment with remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication, did not provide fully and sustained clinical remission. A second hospitalization was deemed necessary after 10 days from the first hospital discharge due to recrudescence of symptoms of severe COVID-19 and the evidence of bilateral interstitial pneumonia at the chest-CT scan. Clinical and radiological findings completely disappeared after CCP administration. The viral culture confirmed the absence of SARS-CoV-2-related cytopathic effect. The clinical evaluation, performed two months after hospital discharge, was unremarkable. RESULTS: Findings from our case report suggest that the host T-cell specific response to SARS-CoV-2 is not sufficient to reduce viral load in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. Acquired immune antibodies and/or related components passively infused with CCP might help in boosting the plasma recipient response to the virus and promoting complete viral clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Independently from negative results in immunocompetent individuals, the potential effectiveness of CCP infusion in selected cohorts of patients with primary or secondary impaired immune response should be tested. Further research about mechanisms of host response in immunocompromised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is required.