Edoxaban Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, management of anticoagulation therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was simplified to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by oral anticoagulation, mainly owing to the risk of drug-drug interactions. However, not all oral anticoagulants carry the same risk. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, and multicenter study that consecutively included hospitalized patients with AF anticoagulated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation or edoxaban concomitantly with empirical COVID-19 therapy. Time-to-event (mortality, total bleeds, and admissions to ICU) curves, using an unadjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model adjusted for potential confounders were constructed. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients were included (80.3 ± 7.7 years, 50.0% men, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.1 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 2.6 ± 1.0). During hospitalization, patients were taking azithromycin (98.7%), hydroxychloroquine (89.7%), and ritonavir/lopinavir (81.5%). The mean length of hospital stay was 14.6 ± 7.2 days, and total follow-up was 31.6 ± 13.4 days; 12.9% of patients required admission to ICU, 18.5% died, and 9.9% had a bleeding complication (34.8% major bleeding). Length of hospital stay was longer in patients taking LMWH (16.0 ± 7.7 vs 13.3 ± 6.5 days; P = .005), but mortality and total bleeds were similar in patients treated with edoxaban and those treated with LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates, arterial and venous thromboembolic complications, and bleeds did not significantly differ between AF patients receiving anticoagulation therapy with edoxaban or LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation. However, the duration of hospitalization was significantly lower with edoxaban. Edoxaban had a similar therapeutic profile to LMWH followed by oral anticoagulation and may provide additional benefits.

Impact of atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation on the risk of death, thromboembolic disease and bleeding in patients with COVID-19: the ACO-VID Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical profile, risk of complications and impact of anticoagulation in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, according to the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, and observational study that consecutively included patients >55 years admitted with COVID-19 from March to October 2020. In AF patients, anticoagulation was chosen based on clinicians' judgment. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were included, of whom 75.2% had AF. Overall, mean age was 75 ± 9.1 years and 62.4% were male. Patients with AF were older and had more comorbidities. The most common anticoagulants used during hospitalization in patients with AF were edoxaban (47.9%), low molecular weight heparin (27.0%), and dabigatran (11.7%) and among patients without AF, these numbers were 0%, 93.8% and 0%. Overall, during the study period (68 ± 3 days), 15.2% of patients died, 8.2% of patients presented a major bleeding and 0.9% had a stroke/systemic embolism. During hospitalization, patients with AF had a higher risk of major bleeding (11.3% vs 0.7%; p < .01), COVID-19-related deaths (18.0% vs 4.5%; p = .02), and all-cause deaths (20.6% vs 5.6%; p = .02). Age (HR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3) and elevated transaminases (HR 3.5; 95% CI 2.0-6.1) were independently associated with all-cause mortality. AF was independently associated with major bleeding (HR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients with AF were older, had more comorbidities and had a higher risk of major bleeding. Age and elevated transaminases during hospitalization, but not AF nor anticoagulant treatment increased the risk of all-cause death.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization, and Death in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is associated with heightened risks of venous and arterial thrombosis and hospitalization due to respiratory failure. To assess whether prophylactic anticoagulation can safely reduce the frequency of venous and arterial thrombosis, hospitalization, and death in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor, we conducted the PREVENT-HD double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (A Study of Rivaroxaban to Reduce the Risk of Major Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events, Hospitalization and Death in Medically Ill Outpatients With Acute, Symptomatic COVID-19] Infection). METHODS: PREVENT-HD was conducted between August 2020 and April 2022 at 14 US integrated health care delivery networks. A virtual trial design used remote informed consent and clinical monitoring and facilitated data collection through electronic health record integration with a cloud-based research platform. Nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one thrombosis risk factor were enrolled and randomly assigned to either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban or placebo daily for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome was time to first occurrence of a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, acute limb ischemia, non-central nervous system systemic arterial embolism, hospitalization, or death through day 35. The principal safety end point was International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis critical-site or fatal bleeding. The last study visit was on day 49. RESULTS: The study was terminated prematurely because of enrollment challenges and a lower-than-expected blinded pooled event rate. A total of 1284 patients underwent randomization with complete accrual of primary events through May 2022. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 of 641 in the rivaroxaban group and 19 of 643 in the placebo group (3.4% versus 3.0%; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.63-2.15]; P=0.63). No patient in either group experienced critical-site or fatal bleeding. One patient receiving rivaroxaban had a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: The study was terminated prematurely after enrollment of 32% of planned accrual because of recruitment challenges and lower-than-expected event rate. Rivaroxaban prescribed for 35 days in nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 at risk for thrombosis did not appear to reduce a composite end point of venous and arterial thrombotic events, hospitalization, and death. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04508023.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Heparin for Preventing Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

A high rate of thromboembolism and a high risk of death have been reported regarding hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we noticed that clinicians in some comparative studies used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether DOACs are better than recommended heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, a direct comparison of the prophylactic effects and safety between DOACs and heparin is needed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to December 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing the efficacy or safety of DOACs with that of heparin in preventing thromboembolism for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. We assessed endpoints and publication bias using Stata 14.0. Five studies comprising 1360 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate cases were identified in the databases. Comparing the embolism incidence, we found that DOACs had a better effect than heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), in preventing thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43-0.91], P = 0.014). Considering safety, DOACs resulted in less bleeding than heparin during hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.11-2.44], P = 0.411). Similar mortality was discovered in the 2 groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59-1.51], P = 0.797). In noncritically hospitalized patients with COVID-19, DOACs are superior to heparin, even LMWH, in preventing thromboembolism. Compared with heparin, DOACs have a lower trend of bleeding and yield a similar mortality rate. Therefore, DOACs may be a better alternative for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of two heparin regimens for prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.

Management, control, and decision making in unexpected recurrent venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 was spread worldwide, as a pandemic, from December 2019. Venous thromboembolism events can inflict patients with coronavirus disease 2019 during the hospitalization or convalescent period. Therefore, monitoring of these patients, in terms of venous thromboembolism events signs and symptoms, and timely management of antithrombotic agents are of great importance. CASE REPORT: A 45-year-old Iranian man, who is the first author of this case report, was infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and displayed the typical signs and symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. Although reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for coronavirus disease 2019, and specific immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, were negative at first, chest computed tomography scan showed the characteristic pattern of lung involvement of a coronavirus disease 2019 infection including bilateral and multilobar ground-glass opacities. At that time, there were no signs or symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism, so these were not investigated. About 30 hours after hospital discharge, the patient presented back to the hospital with acute-onset chest pain. We instantly tested his blood for D-dimer, and sent him to take a Doppler sonography of his lower legs and a chest computed tomography angiography in search of pulmonary thromboembolism and deep-vein thrombosis. Although we could confirm pulmonary thromboembolism with computed tomography angiography in our patient, there were no signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolism in his lower legs, and color Doppler sonography of lower limbs was normal. So, the patient was treated with rivaroxaban as an antithrombotic agent. After some days, he was discharged in good condition. About 1 month later, he was referred to our hospital because of left lower limb edema. Although he was under antithrombotic therapy, color Doppler sonography of lower limbs revealed acute deep-vein thrombosis of the left leg. Hence, we decided to shift antithrombotic therapy from rivaroxaban to warfarin, as it is more potent than rivaroxaban in recurrent venous thromboembolism and when taking new oral anticoagulants. Unlike rivaroxaban, which needs no blood test to monitor its efficacy but has a warning for signs and symptoms of bleeding, warfarin therapy must be monitored carefully by regular blood tests for prothrombin time and international normalized ratio to maintain them in the therapeutic range. The patient was informed about the bleeding cautions, and required regular check of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio to maintain them in the proper and advised range of treatment (international normalized ratio therapeutic range 2-3). CONCLUSION: In the case of unexpected recurrent venous thromboembolism in coronavirus disease 2019, especially when patients are taking rivaroxaban or other new oral anticoagulants, such drugs should be substituted by warfarin, with routine follow-up, to maintain the value of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range.

Effect of Thromboprophylaxis on Clinical Outcomes After COVID-19 Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have an increased incidence of thromboembolism. The role of extended thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to placebo in reducing death and thromboembolic complications among patients discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04650087). SETTING: Done during 2021 to 2022 among 127 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older hospitalized with COVID-19 for 48 hours or more and ready for discharge, excluding those with a requirement for, or contraindication to, anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: 2.5 mg of apixaban versus placebo twice daily for 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy end point was a 30-day composite of death, arterial thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism. The primary safety end points were 30-day major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated early, after 1217 participants were randomly assigned, because of a lower than anticipated event rate and a declining rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Median age was 54 years, 50.4% were women, 26.5% were Black, and 16.7% were Hispanic; 30.7% had a World Health Organization severity score of 5 or greater, and 11.0% had an International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism risk prediction score of greater than 4. Incidence of the primary end point was 2.13% (95% CI, 1.14 to 3.62) in the apixaban group and 2.31% (CI, 1.27 to 3.84) in the placebo group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 (0.4%) and 1 (0.2%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 3 (0.6%) and 6 (1.1%) apixaban-treated and placebo-treated participants, respectively. By day 30, thirty-six (3.0%) participants were lost to follow-up, and 8.5% of apixaban and 11.9% of placebo participants permanently discontinued the study drug treatment. LIMITATIONS: The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines decreased the risk for hospitalization and death. Study enrollment spanned the peaks of the Delta and Omicron variants in the United States, which influenced illness severity. CONCLUSION: The incidence of death or thromboembolism was low in this cohort of patients discharged after hospitalization with COVID-19. Because of early enrollment termination, the results were imprecise and the study was inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Comparison of the prophylactic antithrombotic effect of indobufen and warfarin in patients with nephrotic syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The risk of thromboembolic events is elevated in patients with nephrotic syndrome, and warfarin use has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Indobufen, a selective cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitor, is currently being evaluated for the prevention of thromboembolic events in nephrotic syndrome. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of indobufen with that of warfarin in patients with nephrotic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, three-arm, open-label, parallel controlled trial involved a total of 180 adult patients with nephrotic syndrome from four centers in China. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg indobufen (bid), 200 mg indobufen (bid), and 3 mg warfarin (qd) daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoints included thromboembolic and bleeding events, while laboratory results and adverse events constituted secondary endpoints. RESULTS: No thromboembolic events occurred in the high-/low-dose indobufen and warfarin groups. Moreover, the use of a low dose of indobufen significantly reduced the risk of minor bleeding events compared with warfarin use (2% versus 18%, p < .05). Finally, adverse events were more frequent in warfarin-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that indobufen therapy provided equivalent effects in preventing thromboembolic events compared with warfarin therapy, while low dose of indobufen was associated with a reduced risk of bleeding events, thus it should be recommended for the prevention of thromboembolic events in clinical practice in patients with nephrotic syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-IPR-17013428.

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia: The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. Objectives: To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. Design, Settings, and Participants: The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). Results: Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation versus therapeutic anticoagulation in hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disease-related coagulopathy and thromboembolic complication, an important aspect of the disease pathophysiology, are frequent and associated with poor outcomes, particularly significant in hospitalized patients. Undoubtedly, anticoagulation forms a cornerstone for the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but the appropriate dosing has been inconclusive and a subject of research. We aim to review existing literature and compare safety and efficacy outcomes of prophylactic and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in such patients. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic dose anticoagulation when compared with therapeutic dosing in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases from 2019 to 2021, without any restriction by language. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. RCTs that directly compare therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulants dosing and are not placebo-controlled trials were included. Analyses of data were conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird analysis). The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021265948). RESULTS: We included three studies in the final quantitative analysis. The incidence of thromboembolic events in therapeutic anticoagulation was lower in comparison with prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and reached statistical significance [RR 1·45, 95% CI (1.07, 1.97) I2 -0%], whereas major bleeding as an adverse event was found lower in prophylactic anticoagulation in comparison with therapeutic anticoagulation that was statistically significant [RR 0·42, 95% CI(0.19, 0.93) I2 -0%]. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that therapeutic dose anticoagulation is more effective in preventing thromboembolic events than prophylactic dose but significantly increases the risk of major bleeding as an adverse event. So, the risk-benefit ratio must be considered while using either of them.

Clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), increases thrombotic risk in hospitalised patients. The rate of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 is unclear. The role of heparin, frequently used in the management of hospitalised patients, also needs to be clarified. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin given at prophylactic or therapeutic dose in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and evaluated its role in the development of disease in terms of mortality, and incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 141 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to five different wards (one intensive care unit, 2 sub-intensive care units, and 2 general infectious disease units) of Cotugno Hospital, a tertiary care hospital in Naples, Italy, between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Over a median time of 17 days (IQR 11-25), enoxaparin was given to 90/141 patients (63.8%) of whom 65 took a prophylactic and 25 a therapeutic dose. We documented 14 episodes of thrombosis (9.9%); almost all were cases of pulmonary embolism. No significant difference in terms of thromboembolic prevention was found between those patients not receiving anticoagulants and those on prophylactic or therapeutic dose of enoxaparin. Five episodes of major bleeding occurred (3.5%); therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was associated with a greater bleeding risk than prophylactic dose (p=0.002). During follow-up, 31 patients (22%) died; these were mostly elderly men with two or more comorbidities at admission. No advantages of enoxaparin, either as prophylaxis or at high doses, in terms of mortality were observed. At multivariate analysis, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and high total bilirubin and fasting hyperglycemia were independently associated with a higher mortality. DISCUSSION: We did not observe advantages in terms of either thromboembolic prevention or mortality of enoxaparin, which however was more frequently used in patients with more severe disease. Prophylactic enoxaparin was not seen to be associated with bleeding risk.

To prophylax or not, and how much and how long? Controversies in VTE prevention for medical inpatients, including COVID-19 inpatients.

The field of thromboprophylaxis for acutely ill medical patients, including those hospitalized for COVID-19, is rapidly evolving both in the inpatient setting and the immediate post-hospital discharge period. Recent data reveal the importance of incorporating holistic thromboembolic outcomes that encompass both venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism, as thromboprophylaxis with low-dose direct oral anticoagulants has been shown to reduce major and fatal vascular events, especially against a background of dual pathway inhibition with aspirin. In addition, recent post hoc analyses from randomized trial data have established 5 key bleeding-risk factors that, if removed, reveal a low-bleeding- risk medically ill population and, conversely, key individual risk factors, such as advanced age, a past history of cancer or VTE, an elevated D-dimer, or the use of a validated VTE risk score-the IMPROVE VTE score using established cutoffs-to predict a high-VTE-risk medically ill population that benefits from extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Last, thromboprophylaxis of a high-thrombotic-risk subset of medically ill patients, those with COVID-19, is rapidly evolving, both during hospitalization and post discharge. This article reviews 3 controversial topics in the thromboprophylaxis of hospitalized acutely ill medical patients: (1) clinical relevance of key efficacy and safety outcomes incorporated into randomized trials but not incorporated into relevant antithrombotic guidelines on the topic, (2) the use of individual risk factors or risk models of low-bleeding-risk and high-thrombotic-risk subgroups of medically ill inpatients that benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis, and (3) thromboprophylaxis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, including extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

Effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of extended thromboprophylaxis in improving the prognosis of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after discharge remains debatable. This meta-analysis was aimed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of extended thromboprophylaxis in these patients. METHODS: Different databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that evaluated the effects of extended thromboprophylaxis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 until 13 June 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was defined by the composite outcome of thromboembolism and all-cause mortality, and the safety outcome was defined by bleeding events. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of efficacy and safety outcomes were calculated using fixed- or random-effects model. Interaction analysis was performed to assess and compare observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies of poor quality. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 10,148 patients were included. The results confirmed that extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, was significantly associated with reduced composite outcome in high-risk post-discharge patients with COVID-19 (OR: 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.41-0.67, P = 0.000). Interaction analysis revealed that the effect estimates were consistent between the RCT and observational studies (Pinteraction = 0.310). Furthermore, extended thromboprophylaxis did not increase the risk of major bleeding events (OR: 1.64; 95 % CI: 0.95-2.82, P = 0.075). CONCLUSION: In post-discharge patients with COVID-19 at high risk of thromboembolism, extended thromboprophylaxis, primarily prophylactic use of anticoagulants for <35 days, can significantly reduce the risk of thrombosis and all-cause mortality without increasing the risk of major bleeding events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022339399.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Prescribing Pattern of Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Because of logistic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) were favored over warfarin in patients presenting postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) after cardiac surgery in our institution. Considering the limited evidence supporting the use of DOAC in this context, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this practice change. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed with patients from the Quebec City metropolitan area who were hospitalized at the Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec-Université Laval following cardiac surgery and who required oral anticoagulant (OAC) for postoperative AF. The primary objective was to compare the pre- and peri-COVID-19 period for OAC prescribing patterns and the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events at 3 months post-surgery. The secondary objective was to compare DOAC to warfarin in terms of thrombotic events and bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients were included, 142 from the pre-COVID-19 and 91 from the peri-COVID-19 period, respectively. Both groups had equivalent proportions of preoperative AF (48%) and new-onset postoperative AF (52%). The proportion of patients treated with a DOAC increased from 13% pre-COVID-19 to 82% peri-COVID-19. This change in practice was not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of thrombotic or bleeding events 3 months postoperatively. However, compared to DOAC, warfarin was associated with a higher incidence of major bleeding. Only 1 thrombotic event was reported with warfarin, and none were reported with DOAC. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that DOAC are an effective and safe alternative to warfarin to treat postoperative AF after cardiac surgery and that this practice can be safely maintained.

Incidence & outcomes of clinically significant bleeding events in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving Therapeutic dose AntiCoagulanTs: A retrospective cohort study (INTerACT study).

Background & objectives: The high mortality associated with the thrombotic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients resulted in the usage of anticoagulants in varying doses. Whether high-dose anticoagulants have led to better outcomes or higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding events is debatable. Thus, this study was conducted to find the incidence of clinically significant bleeding events in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) patients on therapeutic anticoagulation and their outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective, single-centre study of 155 critically ill COVID-19 patients, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was observed. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association between anticoagulant regimen, coagulation and inflammatory markers with the incidence of bleeding and thrombotic events. Results: The incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding was 33.54 per cent (26.17-41.46%) and major bleeding was 9.03 per cent (5.02-14.69%). The anticoagulation intensity at baseline had a high odds of major bleeding when enoxaparin and dual antiplatelet therapy were used together [adjusted odds ratio OR of 434.09 (3.81-49502.95), P<0.05]. At admission, bleeders had a poorer PaO2/FiO2 ratio with more patients on invasive ventilation. At the time of bleeding, the bleeders had a higher D-dimer, ferritin, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin compared to non-bleeders. The subhazard ratio for death in bleeders was 3.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.65; P<0.001). Interpretation & conclusions: The incidence of bleeding in critically ill COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation may increase with the severity of the disease as well as with concurrent use of dual antiplatelets. Major bleeding may also contribute to higher mortality.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report updates our systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard prophylactic anticoagulation and intermediate or therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients. We searched eligible studies for the update up to 4 February 2022 by weekly monitoring of RCTs in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: For this update we included five new trials; a total of 13 RCTs with 7364 patients. Certainty of evidence was very low to low. We are uncertain whether low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is favoured over placebo or no anticoagulation in the outpatient- or post-discharge-setting. In hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19, intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on thrombotic events or death (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase severe bleeding non-significantly (RR 1.48, 95 % CI 0.53-4.15). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease thrombotic events or deaths in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.38-1.07; fixed-effect model RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.57-0.91), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.86-1.12). With therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding may increase regardless of COVID-19 severity (RR 1.78, 95 % CI 1.15-2.74). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized, moderately ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Impact of apixaban treatment discontinuation on the risk of hospitalization among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the risk of hospitalization among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis who discontinued vs continued apixaban treatment. METHODS: Adult patients with NVAF with an apixaban prescription prior to an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis were identified from Optum Clinformatics claims database (1 April 2020-31 March 2021). Continuers were those who continued apixaban as of the index date (date of initial outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis) and discontinuers were those who had the last day of apixaban supply on or before index. Patients were followed from COVID-19 diagnosis to change of continuation/discontinuation status, switch, death, end of continuous coverage or study end, whichever occurred first. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to balance cohorts. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of all-cause hospitalization and hospitalization for ischemic stroke (IS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), myocardial infarction (MI), bleeding and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 7869 apixaban patients with COVID-19 were included: 6676 continuers (84.8%) and 1193 discontinuers (15.2%). Compared with continuers, discontinuers had a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.40), IS (HR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.03-3.87), VTE (HR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.06-5.27) and mortality (HR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.85-2.80). There were no significant differences in the risk of MI (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.54-1.90) or bleeding-related hospitalization (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.73-1.76). CONCLUSION: NVAF patients with COVID-19 who discontinued apixaban had a higher risk of hospitalization and thrombotic events vs those who continued apixaban, with no significant difference in bleeding-related hospitalization.