RESUMEN
A 61-year-old obese man who had recently tested positive for COVID-19 presented to the emergency department following an unwitnessed collapse, with a brief period of unresponsiveness. CT pulmonary angiography confirmed the presence of extensive bilateral pulmonary embolism despite the patient reporting full compliance with long-term dabigatran. The patient was initially anticoagulated with low-molecular-weight heparin and was treated with non-invasive ventilation and dexamethasone for COVID-19 pneumonia. He made a full recovery and was discharged on oral rivaroxaban. His case highlighted some of the common problems encountered when selecting an anticoagulation strategy for obese patients, as well as the lack of definitive evidence to guide treatment decisions. These challenges were further complicated by our incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms of COVID-19 coagulopathy, with limited data available regarding the optimal management of thromboembolic complications.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Embolia Pulmonar , Tromboembolia Venosa , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Obesidad/complicaciones , Embolia Pulmonar/complicaciones , Embolia Pulmonar/tratamiento farmacológico , SARS-CoV-2 , Tromboembolia Venosa/complicaciones , Tromboembolia Venosa/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
We describe a case of recurrent small cell lung cancer presenting as an acute monoarticular arthritis. This patient had recently undergone comprehensive review and surveillance imaging under a local oncology unit, 18 months after undergoing chemoradiotherapy for limited disease small cell lung cancer. He had presented to the emergency department on multiple occasions and been managed as an outpatient for a provisional diagnosis of spontaneous haemarthrosis in the setting of rivaroxaban therapy. Subsequent investigation revealed occult fracture of the distal femur with joint effusion, secondary to isolated metastatic disease from recurrent small cell lung cancer. This case demonstrates the importance of reconsidering differential diagnoses when a patient's symptoms do not respond to appropriate treatment as expected. It also highlights the limitations of surveillance protocols and the influence that recent specialist input can have on diagnostic processes.