Atorvastatin versus Placebo in ICU Patients with COVID-19: Ninety-day Results of the INSPIRATION-S Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. Thrombo-inflammatory response in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may last beyond the first 30 days. METHODS: This article reports the effects of atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on 90-day clinical and functional outcomes from INSPIRATION-S, a double-blind multicenter randomized trial of adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The main outcome for this prespecified study was a composite of adjudicated venous/arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause mortality. Functional status was assessed with the Post-COVID-19 Functional Scale. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 587 patients were included (age: 57 [Q1-Q3: 45-68] years; 44% women). By 90-day follow-up, the main outcome occurred in 96 (33.1%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 113 (38.0%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-1.05, p = 0.11). Atorvastatin in patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset was associated with reduced 90-day hazard for the main outcome (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86, p interaction = 0.02). Atorvastatin use was associated with improved 90-day functional status, although the upper bound CI crossed 1.0 (ORordinal: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41-1.01, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous/arterial thrombosis. However, the point estimates do not exclude a potential clinically meaningful treatment effect, especially among patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset (NCT04486508).

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Intermediate-High-risk Pulmonary Embolism: The CANARY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal treatment of intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (cCDT) plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation monotherapy in improving echocardiographic measures of right ventricle (RV) to left ventricle (LV) ratio in acute intermediate-high-risk PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism (CANARY) trial was an open-label, randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE, conducted in 2 large cardiovascular centers in Tehran, Iran, between December 22, 2018, through February 2, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to cCDT (alteplase, 0.5 mg/catheter/h for 24 hours) plus heparin vs anticoagulation monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with a 3-month echocardiographic RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9, assessed by a core laboratory, was the primary outcome. The proportion of patients with an RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization and the 3-month all-cause mortality were among secondary outcomes. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) was the main safety outcome. A clinical events committee, masked to the treatment assignment, adjudicated clinical outcomes. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 94 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [2.5] years; 27 women [29%]), of whom 85 patients completed the 3-month echocardiographic follow-up. Overall, 2 of 46 patients (4.3%) in the cCDT group and 5 of 39 patients (12.8%) in the anticoagulation monotherapy group met the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.69; P = .24). The median (IQR) 3-month RV/LV ratio was significantly lower with cCDT (0.7 [0.6-0.7]) than with anticoagulation (0.8 [0.7-0.9); P = .01). An RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization was observed in fewer patients treated with cCDT (13 of 48 [27.0%]) than anticoagulation (24 of 46 [52.1%]; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .01). Fewer patients assigned to cCDT experienced a 3-month composite of death or RV/LV greater than 0.9 (2 of 48 [4.3%] vs 8 of 46 [17.3%]; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03; P = .048). One case of nonfatal major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the cCDT group. Conclusions and Relevance: This prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE was hypothesis-generating for improvement in some efficacy outcomes and acceptable rate of major bleeding for cCDT compared with anticoagulation monotherapy and provided support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172115.

Reliability and validity of a satisfaction questionnaire on virtual education in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era aimed at cardiology faculty members.

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era, clinical programs and mandatory hands-on activities have been supplanted by remote teaching to maintain the fundamental capabilities of medical training and to furnish medical students with quality education. Nonetheless, the satisfaction of faculty members with this training method in the current pandemic has yet to be assessed. The aim of this study was to design a Persian questionnaire with appropriate validity and reliability on cardiology professors' satisfaction level with virtual education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was devised drawing upon scientific sources and Iranian medical educators' expertise. Seventeen faculty members in various specialties evaluated the questionnaire concerning face and content validity. Content validity was assessed through the calculation of the content validity ratio (CVR) (values >0.62 were considered acceptable) and the content validity index (CVI) (values >0.79 were considered acceptable), construct validity was evaluated through principal component factor analysis by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett's sphericity test, internal reliability was measured through the calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and consistency was appraised through the use of test-retest reliability at two different time points. RESULTS: The questionnaire had a reliability rate of 95%, indicating high internal validity. Concerning test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 (P < 0.001), demonstrating relatively good stability. The CVI was 0.81, and the CVR was 0.85. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.954, indicating the acceptability of the degree of common variance among the all items. CONCLUSIONS: This Persian questionnaire on virtual education aimed at cardiology faculty members in the current pandemic with its low question count and appropriate domains had high reliability and validity. By knowing the level of professors' satisfaction with the new method of education, it is possible to take steps to better provide specialized medical education to cardiology residents.

Validity and reliability of a virtual education satisfaction questionnaire from the perspective of cardiology residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted the further virtualization of medical education. The satisfaction level of specific users such as cardiology residents with virtual education can augment its quality; hence, the significance of a valid and reliable questionnaire to obtain feedback is needed. This study aimed to design and measure validity and reliability of a satisfaction questionnaire for virtual education of cardiology residents during COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a self-administered questionnaire was developed by the faculty members of Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center. Reliability was tested utilizing Cronbach's alpha and intercorrelation which was tested using Pearson's correlation coefficient test (ICC). Factor analysis was done by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's sphericity test. The statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS software version 22. RESULTS: The face validity index was determined via an assessment of the relevance, clarity, and simplicity of each item, and values >0.79 were accepted. The total Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated 0.93. Concerning test-retest reliability, the correlation between two rounds of evaluation was >80 (P > 0.001) and ICC was 0.99 (P = 0.001). The content validity evaluation yielded an index of 0.95 and a ratio of 0.91. The principal component factor analysis, conducted to investigate construct validity, generated four domains. CONCLUSIONS: The study results confirmed the validity and reliability of the designed questionnaire to evaluate the level of satisfaction of cardiology residents with virtual learning in COVID-19 pandemic.

Intermediate-Dose versus Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: 90-Day Results from the INSPIRATION Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. METHODS: This article reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]: 62 [50, 71] years; 237 [42.2%] women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, p = 0.11). Findings were similar for other efficacy outcomes, and in the landmark analysis from days 31 to 90 (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.45-5.06). There were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24). CONCLUSION: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.

Intermediate versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation and statin therapy versus placebo in critically-ill patients with COVID-19: Rationale and design of the INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S studies.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. METHODS: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 × 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20,000/fL) for the anticoagulation hypothesis. In a prespecified secondary analysis for non-inferiority, the study will test for the non-inferiority of intermediate intensity versus standard dose anticoagulation for major bleeding, considering a non-inferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio. Key safety endpoints for the statin hypothesis include rise in liver enzymes >3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19.

Preparation, escalation, de-escalation, and normal activities.

Iran is one of the earliest countries involved with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the present short report, we have presented our experiences as a cardiovascular tertiary center during the COVID-19 outbreak. At the beginning, we have pursued our activities in four field of administrative, preventative, therapeutic, and research. Then by gaining new experiences, we have tailored our strategies. Finally, we have described our challenges and future strategies on returning to normal activities.