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.

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882.

Timing of aortic valve replacement in high-gradient severe aortic stenosis: impact of left ventricular ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-gradient (HG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction are at high risk of death. The optimal timing for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not defined by guidelines. The objective was to define the optimal timing to perform isolated AVR in patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction. METHODS: We retrospectively included 233 consecutive patients admitted for severe HG-AS (aortic valve area <1cm2 and mean gradient ≥40mmHg). Severe LV dysfunction was defined by LV ejection fraction ≤35% (LVEF). All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR and after the intervention (30 days) was compared in patients with (n = 28) and without (n = 205) LVEF ≤35%. RESULTS: Patients with HG-AS and severe LV dysfunction had a higher risk profile than those with LVEF >35%. AVR was performed in 93% (218/233) of patients, 41% by surgery (SAVR) and 53% by transcatheter (TAVR). TAVR was the preferred method to treat HG-AS patients with LVEF ≤35%. All-cause mortality while waiting for AVR was higher in patients with severe LV dysfunction (22% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and occurred within a shorter time (12 [8-26] days vs. 63 [58-152] days, p = 0.010) compared to those with LVEF >35%. All death in HG-AS patients with a severe LV dysfunction occurred within the first month. Postoperative mortality was low (1.3%), irrespective of LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: AVR should be performed promptly after Heart Team decision in patients with HG severe AS and LVEF ≤35% because of a very high and premature risk of death while waiting for intervention.

Levosimendan Plus Dobutamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Refractory to Dobutamine.

Randomized studies showed that Dobutamine and Levosimendan have similar impact on outcome but their combination has never been assessed in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with low cardiac output. This is a retrospective, single-center study that included 89 patients (61 ± 15 years) admitted for ADHF requiring inotropic support. The first group consisted of patients treated with dobutamine alone (n = 42). In the second group, levosimendan was administered on top of dobutamine, when the superior vena cava oxygen saturation (ScVO2) remained <60% after 3 days of dobutamine treatment (n = 47). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at 6 months, defined as all cause death, heart transplantation or need for mechanical circulatory support. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. At day-3, the ScVO2 target (>60%) was reached in 36% and 32% of patients in the dobutamine and dobutamine-levosimendan group, respectively. After adding levosimendan, 72% of the dobutamine-levosimendan-group reached the ScVO2 target value at dobutamine weaning. At six months, 42 (47%) patients experienced MACE (n = 29 for death). MACE was less frequent in the dobutamine-levosimendan (32%) than in the dobutamine-group (64%, p = 0.003). Independent variables associated with outcome were admission systolic blood pressure and dobutamine-levosimendan strategy (OR = 0.44 (0.23-0.84), p = 0.01). In conclusion, levosimendan added to dobutamine may improve the outcome of ADHF refractory to dobutamine alone.