A review of venous thromboembolism in India.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which entails the formation of a thrombus (blood clot) in a vein, has a significant disease burden worldwide. While VTE has traditionally been considered to predominantly affect Caucasian populations, recent studies have indicated a gradual shift in the disease burden towards Asian populations, with added significance of it being a key driver of post-operative mortality. It is imperative to develop a sound understanding of the various factors that affect VTE in stratified local populations. However, there is a glaring paucity of quality data on VTE and its ramifications among Indians - both in terms of quality of life and cost of healthcare. This review aims to throw light on the disease burden, epidemiology, risk factors, environmental factors, food and nutrition that plays a key role in VTE. We also explored the association of VTE with coronavirus disease 2019 to grasp the interplay between the two most significant public health crises of our time. It is vital to place a special emphasis on future research on VTE in India to plug the gaps, which exist in our current knowledge of the disease, particularly with respect to Indian population.

Improving guideline-concordant thromboprophylaxis prescribing for children admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in hospitalized children has increased by 130%-200% over the last two decades. Given this increase, many centers utilize electronic clinical decision support (CDS) to prognosticate VTE risk and recommend prophylaxis. SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is a risk factor for VTE; however, CDS developed before the COVID-19 pandemic may not accurately prognosticate VTE risk in children with COVID-19. This study's objective was to identify areas to improve thromboprophylaxis recommendations for children with COVID-19. METHODS: Inpatients with a positive COVID-19 test at admission were identified at a quaternary-care pediatric center between March 1, 2020 and January 20, 2022. The results of the institution's automated CDS thromboprophylaxis recommendations were compared to institutional COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis guidelines and to the actual thromboprophylaxis received. CDS optimization was performed to improve adherence to COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 329 patients included in this study, 106 (28.2%) were prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis, 167 (50.8%) were identified by the institutional COVID-19 guidelines as requiring pharmaco-prophylaxis, and 45 (13.2%) were identified by the CDS as needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. On univariate analysis, only age 12 years or more was associated with recipient of appropriate prophylaxis (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.13-2.82, p = .013). Five patients developed VTEs; three had symptoms at presentation, two were identified as high risk for VTE by both the automated and best practice assessments but were not prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Automated thromboprophylaxis recommendations developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may not identify all COVID-19 patients needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. Existing CDS tools need to be updated to reflect COVID-19-specific risk factors for VTEs.

Thrombotic events following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand: A self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND: An association between thrombotic events and SARS-CoV-2 infection and the adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines has been established, leading to concern over the risk of thrombosis after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of arterial thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), splanchnic thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) following BNT162b2 vaccination in New Zealand. METHODS: This was a self-controlled case series using national hospitalisation and immunisation records to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). The study population included individuals aged ≥12 years, unvaccinated, or vaccinated with BNT162b2, who were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events of interest from 19 February 2021 through 19 February 2022. The risk period was 0-21 days after receiving a primary or booster dose of BNT162b2. RESULTS: 6039 individuals were hospitalised with one of the thrombotic events examined, including 5127 with VTE, 605 with arterial thrombosis, 272 with splanchnic thrombosis, and 35 with CVT. The proportion of individuals vaccinated with at least one dose of BNT162b2 ranged from 82.7 % to 91.4 %. Compared with the control unexposed period, the IRR (95 % CI) of VTE, arterial thrombosis, splanchnic thrombosis, and CVT were 0.87 (0.76-1.00), 0.73 (0.56-0.95), 0.71 (0.43-1.16), and 0.87 (0.31-2.50) in the 21 days after BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. There was no statistically significant increased risk of thrombosis following BNT162b2 in different ethnic groups in New Zealand. CONCLUSION: The BNT162b2 vaccine was not found to be associated with thrombosis in the general population or different ethnic groups in New Zealand, providing reassurance for the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

The risk of venous thromboembolism and blood hyperlactatemia is associated with increased mortality among critically ill patients with Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) following venous thromboembolism (VTE) and blood hyperlactatemia are associated with higher mortality. However, reliable biomarkers for this association remain to be elucidated. This study investigated the associations of VTE risk and blood hyperlactatemia with mortality among critically ill Covid-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this single-centre retrospective study, we included 171 patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed Covid-19 admitted to the ICU at a tertiary healthcare clinic in the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020 and 31 January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: survivor and non-survivor. The survivors have been identified as the patients discharged from the ICU alive. The VTE risk was defined using a Padua prediction score (PPS) >4. The blood lactate concentration (BLC) cut-off value >2 mmol/L was used to determine the blood hyperlactatemia. RESULTS: Multi-factor Cox analysis showed that PPS >4 and BLC >2 mmol/L were more likely to be significantly associated with higher odds of ICU mortality in critically ill Covid-19 patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-8.08, p = 0.050; HR = 3.87, 95% CI = 1.12-13.45, p = 0.033, respectively). The Area under the Curve for VTE and blood hyperlactatemia were 0.62 and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSION: VTE risk and blood hyperlactatemia have been associated with a higher mortality risk in critically ill Covid-19 patients who are hospitalized in the ICU in Saudi Arabia. According to our findings, these people needed more effective VTE prevention strategies based on a personalized assessment of their risk of bleeding. Moreover, persons without diabetes and other groups with a high risk of dying from COVID-19 may be recognized by measuring glucose as having elevated glucose and lactate jointly.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health, and Scopus from inception on March 2023, and monitored the literature monthly. We updated the search strategies with new terms and added the database Global Index Medicus in lieu of LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. We noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism in Wuhan, China 2010-2022: A case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the time trends and risk factors for pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the Chinese population. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted with 120 652 pregnancies between Jan 2010 and June 2022 in Wuhan, China. Medical records from pregnant patients with VTE and patients without VTE were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 197 cases of VTE diagnosed during pregnancy or postpartum, with an overall incidence of 1.63 per 1000 pregnancies, and the incidence rate trend of VTE was increasing year by year and then declining. The incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) was 1.24 per 1000 pregnancies (76.1%). Consistent with previous studies, most VTE occurred in the puerperium (1.05 per 1000 pregnancies, 64.5%). Significant risk factors included immobility, previous VTE, systemic infection, BMI over 30, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy-related VTE is not uncommon in China which is consistent with current foreign reports, and the change in incidence trend may be related to greater physicians' understanding of VTE and effective preventive measures after the publication of Chinese guidelines.

Venous or arterial thrombosis and deaths among COVID-19 cases: a European network cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the incidence of thrombosis among COVID-19 cases, with most research concentrated on hospitalised patients. We aimed to estimate the incidence of venous thromboembolism, arterial thromboembolism, and death among COVID-19 cases and to assess the impact of these events on the risks of hospitalisation and death. METHODS: We conducted a distributed network cohort study using primary care records from the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and the UK, and outpatient specialist records from Germany. The Spanish database was linked to hospital admissions. Participants were followed up from the date of a diagnosis of COVID-19 or positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 (index date) for 90 days. The primary study outcomes were venous thromboembolic events, arterial thromboembolic events, and death, all over the 90 days from the index date. We estimated cumulative incidences for the study outcomes. Multistate models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between venous thromboembolism or arterial thromboembolism occurrence and risks of hospitalisation or COVID-19 fatality. FINDINGS: Overall, 909 473 COVID-19 cases and 32 329 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 on or after Sept 1, 2020, were studied. The latest index dates across the databases ranged from Jan 30, 2021, to July 31, 2021. Cumulative 90-day incidence of venous thromboembolism ranged from 0·2% to 0·8% among COVID-19 cases, and up to 4·5% for those hospitalised. For arterial thromboembolism, estimates ranged from 0·1% to 0·8% among COVID-19 cases, increasing to 3·1% among those hospitalised. Case fatality ranged from 1·1% to 2·0% among patients with COVID-19, rising to 14·6% for hospitalised patients. The occurrence of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted HRs 4·42 [3·07-6·36] for those not hospitalised and 1·63 [1·39-1·90] for those hospitalised), as was the occurrence of arterial thromboembolism (3·16 [2·65-3·75] and 1·93 [1·57-2·37]). INTERPRETATION: Risks of venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were up to 1% among COVID-19 cases, and increased with age, among males, and in those who were hospitalised. Their occurrence was associated with excess mortality, underlying the importance of developing effective treatment strategies that reduce their frequency. FUNDING: European Medicines Agency.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 during 2020; a retrospective cross-sectional study in a Swedish health care system.

To establish the impact of COVID-19 on the pre-test probability for VTE in patients with suspected VTE. This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years and older undergoing diagnostic tests for VTE in an integrated healthcare system covering a population of 465,000 during the calendar year of 2020. We adjusted for risk factors such as age, sex, previous VTE, ongoing anticoagulant treatment, malignancy, Charlson score, ward care, ICU care and wave of COVID-19. In total, 303 of 5041 patients had a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 around the time of investigation. The prevalence of VTE in COVID-positive patients was 10.2% (36/354), 14.7% (473/3219) in COVID-19 negative patients, and 15.6% (399/2589) in patients without a COVID-19 test. A COVID-positive status was not associated with an increased risk for VTE (crude odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95%CI 0.19-1.16). We found no increased VTE risk in COVID-positive patients. This indicates that COVID-19 status should not influence VTE workup.The study was pre-registered on May 26, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT04400877.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonhospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the risk and predictors of VTE among individuals with less severe COVID-19 managed in outpatient settings are less well understood. Objectives: To assess the risk of VTE among outpatients with COVID-19 and identify independent predictors of VTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 2 integrated health care delivery systems in Northern and Southern California. Data for this study were obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records. Participants included nonhospitalized adults aged 18 years or older with COVID-19 diagnosed between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2021. Exposures: Patient demographic and clinical characteristics identified from integrated electronic health records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate per 100 person-years of diagnosed VTE, which was identified using an algorithm based on encounter diagnosis codes and natural language processing. Multivariable regression using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to identify variables independently associated with VTE risk. Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. Results: A total of 398 530 outpatients with COVID-19 were identified. The mean (SD) age was 43.8 (15.8) years, 53.7% were women, and 54.3% were of self-reported Hispanic ethnicity. There were 292 (0.1%) VTE events identified over the follow-up period, for an overall rate of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.24-0.30) per 100 person-years. The sharpest increase in VTE risk was observed during the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days). In multivariable models, the following variables were associated with a higher risk for VTE in the setting of nonhospitalized COVID-19: age 55 to 64 years (HR 1.85 [95% CI, 1.26-2.72]), 65 to 74 years (3.43 [95% CI, 2.18-5.39]), 75 to 84 years (5.46 [95% CI, 3.20-9.34]), greater than or equal to 85 years (6.51 [95% CI, 3.05-13.86]), male gender (1.49 [95% CI, 1.15-1.96]), prior VTE (7.49 [95% CI, 4.29-13.07]), thrombophilia (2.52 [95% CI, 1.04-6.14]), inflammatory bowel disease (2.43 [95% CI, 1.02-5.80]), body mass index 30.0-39.9 (1.57 [95% CI, 1.06-2.34]), and body mass index greater than or equal to 40.0 (3.07 [1.95-4.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of outpatients with COVID-19, the absolute risk of VTE was low. Several patient-level factors were associated with higher VTE risk; these findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from more intensive surveillance or VTE preventive strategies.

Risk of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 who are using hormonal contraception.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant mortality and morbidity, including a high incidence of related thrombotic events. There has been concern regarding hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is an independent risk factor for thrombosis, particularly with estrogen-containing formulations. However, higher estrogen levels may be protective against severe COVID-19 disease. Evidence for risks of hormonal contraception use during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. We therefore conducted a living systematic review that will be updated as new data emerge on the risk of thromboembolism with hormonal contraception use in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in women with COVID-19. To determine if use of hormonal contraception increases other markers of COVID-19 severity including hospitalization in the intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress syndrome, intubation, and mortality. A secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Health, and Scopus from inception to search update in March 2022. For the living systematic review, we monitored the literature monthly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all published and ongoing studies of patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of those on hormonal contraception versus those not on hormonal contraception. This included case series and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted study data and this was checked by a second author. Two authors individually assessed risk of bias for the comparative studies using the ROBINS-I tool and a third author helped reconcile differences. For the living systematic review, we will publish updates to our synthesis every six months. In the event that we identify a study with a more rigorous study design than the current included evidence prior to the planned six-month update, we will expedite the synthesis publication. MAIN RESULTS: We included three comparative NRSIs with 314,704 participants total and two case series describing 13 patients. The three NRSIs had serious to critical risk of bias in several domains and low study quality. Only one NRSI ascertained current use of contraceptives based on patient report; the other two used diagnostic codes within medical records to assess hormonal contraception use, but did not confirm current use nor indication for use. None of the NRSIs included thromboembolism as an outcome. Studies were not similar enough in terms of their outcomes, interventions, and study populations to combine with meta-analyses. We therefore narratively synthesized all included studies. Based on results from one NRSI, there may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of mortality for COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.40; 1 study, 18,892 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two NRSIs examined hospitalization rates for hormonal contraception users versus non-users. Based on results from one NRSI, the odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive combined hormonal contraception users may be slightly decreased compared with non-users for patients with body mass index (BMI) under 35 kg/m2 (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; 1 study, 295,689 participants; very low-certainty evidence). According to results of the other NRSI assessing use of any type of hormonal contraception, there may be little to no effect on hospitalization rates for COVID-19 positive individuals (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44; 1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We included two case series because no comparative studies directly assessed thromboembolism as an outcome. In a case series of six pediatric COVID-19 positive patients with pulmonary embolism, one (older than 15 years of age) was using combined hormonal contraception. In a second case series of seven COVID-19 positive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, one was using oral contraceptives. One comparative study and one case series reported on intubation rates, but the evidence for both is very uncertain. In the comparative study of 123 COVID-19 positive patients (N = 44 using hormonal contraception and N = 79 not using hormonal contraception), no patients in either group required intubation. In the case series of seven individuals with cerebral venous thromboembolism, one oral contraceptive user and one non-user required intubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no comparative studies assessing risk of thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who use hormonal contraception, which was the primary objective of this review. Very little evidence exists examining the risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity for combined hormonal contraception users compared to non-users of hormonal contraception, and the evidence that does exist is of very low certainty. The odds of hospitalization for COVID-19 positive users of combined hormonal contraceptives may be slightly decreased compared with those of hormonal contraceptive non-users, but the evidence is very uncertain as this is based on one study restricted to patients with BMI under 35 kg/m2. There may be little to no effect of combined hormonal contraception use on odds of intubation or mortality among COVID-19 positive patients, and little to no effect of using any type of hormonal contraception on odds of hospitalization and intubation for COVID-19 patients. At a minimum, we noted no large effect for risk of increased COVID-19 disease severity among hormonal contraception users. We specifically noted gaps in pertinent data collection regarding hormonal contraception use such as formulation, hormone doses, and duration or timing of contraceptive use. Differing estrogens may have different thrombogenic potential given differing potency, so it would be important to know if a formulation contained, for example, ethinyl estradiol versus estradiol valerate. Additionally, we downgraded several studies for risk of bias because information on the timing of contraceptive use relative to COVID-19 infection and method adherence were not ascertained. No studies reported indication for hormonal contraceptive use, which is important as individuals who use hormonal management for medical conditions like heavy menstrual bleeding might have different risk profiles compared to individuals using hormones for contraception. Future studies should focus on including pertinent confounders like age, obesity, history of prior venous thromboembolism, risk factors for venous thromboembolism, and recent pregnancy.

Prevalence of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing diagnostic venous ultrasound during the first SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Background: Venous thromboembolism appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 infection than in those without it. However, this varies considerably depending on the cohort studied. The aims of this single-centre, multi-site retrospective cross-sectional study were to assess the number of all venous scans performed in the first month of pandemic in a large university teaching hospital, to evaluate the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and assess the predictive ability of the clinical information available on the electronic patient record in planning work-up for DVT and prioritising ultrasound scans. Patients and methods: All consecutive patients undergoing venous ultrasound for suspected acute DVT between 1st of March and 30th of April 2020 were considered. Primary outcome was the proportion of scans positive for DVT; the secondary outcomes included association of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, demographic, clinical factors, and Wells scores. Results: 819 ultrasound scans were performed on 762 patients across the Trust in March and April 2020. This number was comparable to the corresponding pre-pandemic cohort from 2019. The overall prevalence of DVT in the studied cohort was 16.1% and was higher than before the pandemic (11.5%, p=.047). Clinical symptoms consistent with COVID-19, irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result (positive_COVID_PCR OR 4.97, 95%CI 2.31-10.62, p<.001; negative_COVID_PCR OR 1.97, 95%CI 1.12-3.39, p=.016), a history of AF (OR 0.20, 95%CI 0.03-0.73, p=.037), and personal history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.31, p=.014), were independently associated with the diagnosis of DVT on ultrasound scan. Wells score was not associated with the incidence of DVT. Conclusions: Amongst those referred for the DVT scan, SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was associated with an increased risk of VTE and should be taken into consideration when planning DVT work-up and prioritising diagnostic imaging. We postulate that the threshold for imaging should possibly be lower.

Predictive value of inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of coagulation markers for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients has been investigated with conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the correlation between biomarkers and VTE and the predictive value of D-dimer for VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Complete blood count, inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers at admission were collected. VTE was defined as diagnosed pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Events were defined as in-hospital death or ICU admission. Predictors of VTE were identified with Pearson prediction models. A ROC curve was constructed to assess the predictive value of D-dimer. RESULTS: 1651 participants were included, 111 VTE were identified. Events incidence was higher in the VTE group (49.5% vs 28.2%, p < 0.001). Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR, 0.001; 95% CI 0.000-0.002; p 0.019) and D-dimer (0.00005; 95% CI 0.00002-0.00008; p < 0.001), Geneva score (0.026; 95% CI 0.012-0.040; p < 0.001) and Wells score (0.047; 95% CI 0.033-0.061; p < 0.001) were associated with VTE. D-dimer had a goor predictive value for VTE (ROC area 0.85, 95% CI 0.816-0.893), with an optimal cut-off value of 2677µg/L (Youden index of 0,602). CONCLUSIONS: Among coagulation biomarkers D-dimer had the best predictive value for VTE, but higher cut-off values should be used in COVID-19.

Venous thromboembolism after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with thrombophilia.

Patients with thrombophilia remain concerned about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk with COVID-19 vaccinations. The aim of this study was to examine VTE outcomes in patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia who were vaccinated for COVID-19. Vaccinated patients ≥18 years between November 1, 2020 and November 1, 2021 were analyzed using electronic medical records across the Mayo Clinic enterprise. The primary outcome was imaging confirmed acute VTE occurring 90 days before and after the date of the first vaccine dose. Thrombophilia patients were identified through laboratory testing results and ICD-10 codes. A total of 792 010 patients with at least one COVID-19 vaccination were identified. Six thousand sixty-seven of these patients were found to have a thrombophilia, among whom there was a total of 39 VTE events after compared to 51 VTE events before vaccination (0.64% vs. 0.84%, p = .20). In patients with Factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation, VTE occurred in 27 patients before and in 29 patients after vaccination (0.61 vs. 0.65%, p = .79). In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, VTE occurred in six patients before and four patients after vaccination (0.59% vs. 0.39%, p = .40). No difference was observed in the overall VTE rate when comparing the postvaccination 90 days to the prevaccination 90 days, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.53-1.23). In this subgroup of COVID-19 vaccinated patients with thrombophilia, there was no increased risk for acute VTE postvaccination compared to the prevaccination timeframe. These results are consistent with prior studies and should offer additional reassurance to patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia.

Risk of venous thromboembolic events after COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data regarding the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), including acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in recovered COVID-19 patients are scant. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of acute PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered subject. Following the PRIMSA guidelines, we searched Medline and Scopus to locate all articles published up to September 1st, 2022, reporting the risk of acute PE and/or DVT in patients recovered from COVID-19 infection compared to non-infected patients who developed VTE over the same follow-up period. PE and DVT risk were evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects models with Hazard ratio (HR) as the effect measure with 95% confidence interval (CI) while heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I2 statistic. Overall, 29.078.950 patients (mean age 50.2 years, 63.9% males), of which 2.060.496 had COVID-19 infection, were included. Over a mean follow-up of 8.5 months, the cumulative incidence of PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered patients were 1.2% (95% CI:0.9-1.4, I2: 99.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI:1.7-3.0, I2: 99.7%), respectively. Recovered COVID-19 patients presented a higher risk of incident PE (HR: 3.16, 95% CI: 2.63-3.79, I2 = 90.1%) and DVT (HR: 2.55, 95% CI: 2.09-3.11, I2: 92.6%) compared to non-infected patients from the general population over the same follow-up period. Meta-regression showed a higher risk of PE and DVT with age and with female gender, and lower risk with longer follow-up. Recovered COVID-19 patients have a higher risk of VTE events, which increase with aging and among females.

A review of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for different patient populations: What we know and don't!

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Globally, it is also the third leading vascular disease, after myocardial infarction and stroke. The incidence of VTE is reportedly higher in Western countries than in Asian countries. However, recent reports suggest an increasing incidence of VTE in Asian countries, including India. Since VTE is largely a preventable disease, early identification of risk factors can lead to disease prevention or the adoption of appropriate prophylactic measures. To this end, several VTE risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed and validated for different populations who are at risk of developing VTE, such as hospitalized patients with medical illness/surgical indication, patients with cancer, and pregnant women. Evidence indicates that the systematic use of RAMs improves prophylaxis rates and lowers the burden of VTE. Given the increasing burden of VTE in the Indian population and poor prophylaxis rates, the implementation of systematic RAMs in routine clinical practice might ameliorate the disease burden in the country. We have assessed the evidence-based utilities of available RAMs and have delineated the most common and suitable RAMs for different populations including coronavirus disease 2019 affected patients. This review depicts the current status of implementation and validation of RAMs in the Indian scenario. It also highlights the need for additional validation studies, improved awareness, and implementation of RAMs in clinical practice for lowering the burden of VTE.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Catalonia, Spain.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Here we compare rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the background (expected) rates in the general population. In addition, we compare the rates of the same adverse events among persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 with background rates. Primary care and linked hospital data from Catalonia, Spain informed the study, with participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (27/12/2020-23/06/2021), COVID-19 cases (01/09/2020-23/06/2021) or present in the database as of 01/01/2017. We included 2,021,366 BNT162b2 (1,327,031 with 2 doses), 592,408 ChAdOx1, 174,556 COVID-19 cases, and 4,573,494 background participants. Standardised incidence ratios for venous thromboembolism were 1.18 (95% CI 1.06-1.32) and 0.92 (0.81-1.05) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, and 0.92 (0.71-1.18) after first dose ChAdOx1. The standardised incidence ratio for venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 was 10.19 (9.43-11.02). Standardised incidence ratios for arterial thromboembolism were 1.02 (0.95-1.09) and 1.04 (0.97-1.12) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.06 (0.91-1.23) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.13 (3.83-4.45) for COVID-19. Standardised incidence ratios for thrombocytopenia were 1.49 (1.43-1.54) and 1.40 (1.35-1.45) after first- and second dose BNT162b2, 1.28 (1.19-1.38) after first-dose ChAdOx1 and 4.59 (4.41- 4.77) for COVID-19. While rates of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia were generally similar to background rates, the standardised incidence ratio for pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia after first-dose BNT162b2 was 1.70 (1.11-2.61). These findings suggest that the safety profiles of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 are similar, with rates of adverse events seen after vaccination typically similar to background rates. Meanwhile, rates of adverse events are much increased for COVID-19 cases further underlining the importance of vaccination.

Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination against and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).

Integrative analyses of genes about venous thromboembolism: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, many studies have found possible links between gene polymorphisms and venous thromboembolism (VTE). By identifying genetic risk factors before facing environmental risk factors such as surgical interventions and COVID-19 vaccination, we could rapidly respond to the risk of VTE. The aim of this study was to perform an umbrella review of genetic variants related to VTE. Integrative gene analysis of VTE was performed to identify critical genetic variations. METHODS: This study conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All included studies were selected from the PubMed/MEDLINE database. To select eligible studies, the following variables were extracted: first author name; effect size of each study genetic variant; year of publication; the number of studies included in each article; ethnicity, sample size, P values, and heterogeneity estimates. To assess cumulative evidence in genetic epidemiology about effects of gene polymorphisms on VTE, Human Genome Epidemiology Network's Venice criteria were used. Methodological quality assessment was conducted with JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. RESULTS: Genes provided in the present study with genetic variants associated with VTE were FVL (G1691A), Prothrombin (G20210A), MTHFR (C677T, A1298C), PAI-1 (4G/5G), factor VII activating protease (1601G > A), and endothelial protein C receptor (g.6936A_G, c.4600A_G). Among them, variants in FVL, Prothrombin, MTHFR, and PAI-1 showed high significance. Particularly, variants in Prothrombin (G20210A), MTHFR (C677T), and PAI-1 (4G/5G) had more than 2 types of model significance. CONCLUSION: The present study performed a systematic review of genetic variants associated with VTE. Our results could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of VTE etiology. These results could give a strategy of prediagnosis about evaluating individual risks of VTE who might be exposed to environmental risk factors.