Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Bundle of Coated Devices to Reduce Nosocomial Infections in the Intensive Care Unit. CRITIC Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rationale: Coated devices may reduce biofilm formation and reduce the occurrence of device-related infections in critically ill patients. A bundle of coated devices (an endotracheal tube [ETT], central venous catheter [CVC], and urinary catheter [UC]) simultaneously inserted may optimize benefits of coated devices in patients with the most severe illness.Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial on simultaneous insertion of gold/silver/palladium-coated devices versus uncoated devices in severely ill patients, which required sequential insertion of all three devices (an ETT, CVC, and UC) for support in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods: This was a multicenter randomized controlled pilot trial. Patients who required simultaneous insertion of an ETT, CVC, and UC were randomized to treatment with coated versus uncoated devices, which were used as necessary for up to 28 days. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as the trial being able to enroll enough participants to have the sample size necessary for its secondary primary endpoint (estimating sepsis incidence in this population) in less than 1 year and for estimating the number of admitted patients who require simultaneous insertion of all three devices. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of sepsis and device-associated infections (ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-related bloodstream infection, and catheter-related urinary-tract infection) within each group as well as the number of days alive and free of antibiotics during the ICU stay. All events were adjudicated.Results: One hundred and three patients (48 in the coated-device group and 55 in the uncoated-device group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. The inclusion period was 8 months. There were 13 septic events in each group (26 in total), with an approximate incidence of sepsis of 32.3 (95% credible interval [CrI], 22.4-44.9) per 100 patient-days. The overall incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-related urinary-tract infection, and catheter-related bloodstream infection were 15.2 (95% CrI, 7.8-26.4), 6.3 (95% CrI, 2.4-13.7), and 7.9 (95% CrI, 3.6-15.1) per 1,000 patient-days, and incidence rates were not statistically different between groups. Patients in the coated-device group had more days alive and free of antibiotics in the ICU (28.97 d vs. 19.62 d per 100 patient-days; mean ratio, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.16-1.89).Conclusions: Use of a bundle of coated devices as the initial treatment for of severely ill patients is feasible. Coated devices may be associated with more days alive and free of antibiotics.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03868241).