2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Platelet activation and coronavirus disease 2019 mortality: Insights from coagulopathy, antiplatelet therapy and inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an inflammatory cytokine burst and a prothrombotic coagulopathy. Platelets may contribute to microthrombosis, and constitute a therapeutic target in COVID-19 therapy. AIM: To assess if platelet activation influences mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: We explored two cohorts of patients with COVID-19. Cohort A included 208 ambulatory and hospitalized patients with varying clinical severities and non-COVID patients as controls, in whom plasma concentrations of the soluble platelet activation biomarkers CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and P-selectin (sP-sel) were quantified within the first 48hours following hospitalization. Cohort B was a multicentre cohort of 2878 patients initially admitted to a medical ward. In both cohorts, the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In cohort A, median circulating concentrations of sCD40L and sP-sel were only increased in the 89 critical patients compared with non-COVID controls: sP-sel 40,059 (interquartile range 26,876-54,678)pg/mL; sCD40L 1914 (interquartile range 1410-2367)pg/mL (P<0.001 for both). A strong association existed between sP-sel concentration and in-hospital mortality (Kaplan-Meier log-rank P=0.004). However, in a Cox model considering biomarkers of immunothrombosis, sP-sel was no longer associated with mortality, in contrast to coagulopathy evaluated with D-dimer concentration (hazard ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.64-12.50). Moreover, in cohort B, a Cox model adjusted for co-morbidities suggested that prehospitalization antiplatelet agents had no significant impact on in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.80-1.37; P=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Although we observed an association between excessive biomarkers of platelet activation and in-hospital mortality, our findings rather suggest that coagulopathy is more central in driving disease progression, which may explain why prehospitalization antiplatelet drugs were not a protective factor against mortality in our multicentre cohort.

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: sixth edition.

BACKGROUND: Severe trauma represents a major global public health burden and the management of post-traumatic bleeding continues to challenge healthcare systems around the world. Post-traumatic bleeding and associated traumatic coagulopathy remain leading causes of potentially preventable multiorgan failure and death if not diagnosed and managed in an appropriate and timely manner. This sixth edition of the European guideline on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury aims to advise clinicians who care for the bleeding trauma patient during the initial diagnostic and therapeutic phases of patient management. METHODS: The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma included representatives from six European professional societies and convened to assess and update the previous version of this guideline using a structured, evidence-based consensus approach. Structured literature searches covered the period since the last edition of the guideline, but considered evidence cited previously. The format of this edition has been adjusted to reflect the trend towards concise guideline documents that cite only the highest-quality studies and most relevant literature rather than attempting to provide a comprehensive literature review to accompany each recommendation. RESULTS: This guideline comprises 39 clinical practice recommendations that follow an approximate temporal path for management of the bleeding trauma patient, with recommendations grouped behind key decision points. While approximately one-third of patients who have experienced severe trauma arrive in hospital in a coagulopathic state, a systematic diagnostic and therapeutic approach has been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths attributable to traumatic injury. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidelines are pillars of best practice in the management of severely injured trauma patients. Further improvement in outcomes will be achieved by optimising and standardising trauma care in line with the available evidence across Europe and beyond.

Management of urgent invasive procedures in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: An observational registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may require urgent procedures. Managing these patients is challenging due to different bleeding risks and may include laboratory testing, procedural delays, or haemostatic/reversal agent administration. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated management strategies and outcomes of urgent, non-haemostatic invasive procedures in patients treated with DOACs. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a descriptive cohort study, we prospectively evaluated 478 patients in the GIHP-NACO registry, from June 2013 to November 2015. Hospitalised patients receiving dabigatran (n = 160), rivaroxaban (n = 274), or apixaban (n = 44) requiring urgent, procedural interventions were evaluated, of which 384/478 (80 %) were surgical procedures. Orthopaedic surgery included 216/384 patients (56 %), while gastrointestinal surgery included 75/384 (20 %) patients. On admission, the median age was 79 (70-85), and creatinine clearance was <60 mL·min-1 in 316/478 (66 %) patients. DOAC concentration was determined in 277 (58 %) patients and was 85 ng·mL-1 (median; range 0-764), 61 ng·mL-1 (3-541), and 81 ng·mL-1 (26-354) for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. Procedures were delayed in 194/455 (43 %) of the cases. Excessive bleeding was observed in 62/478 (13 %) procedures, and haemostatic agents were administered in 76/478 (16 %) procedures. By day 30, major cerebral and cardiovascular events were observed in 38/478 (7.9 %) patients, and mortality was 28/478 (5.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: In the GIHP-NACO registry, before specific antidotes were available, DOAC treated patients undergoing urgent invasive procedures were delayed in nearly half of the cases, and showed a low rate of excessive bleeding, suggesting that most urgent procedures can be performed safely without DOAC reversal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Identifier: NCT02185027.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Induced forms of α2-macroglobulin neutralize heparin and direct oral anticoagulant effects.

Alpha2-macroglobulin (α2M) is a physiological macromolecule that facilitates the clearance of many proteinases, cytokines and growth factors in human. Here, we explored the effect of induced forms of α2M on anticoagulant drugs. Gla-domainless factor Xa (GDFXa) and methylamine (MA)-induced α2M were prepared and characterized by electrophoresis, immunonephelometry, chromogenic, clot waveform and rotational thromboelastometry assays. Samples from healthy volunteers and anticoagulated patients were included. In vivo neutralization of anticoagulants was evaluated in C57Bl/6JRj mouse bleeding-model. Anticoagulant binding sites on induced α2M were depicted by computer-aided energy minimization modeling. GDFXa-induced α2M neutralized dabigatran and heparins in plasma and whole blood. In mice, a single IV dose of GDFXa-induced α2M following anticoagulant administration significantly reduced blood loss and bleeding time. Being far easier to prepare, we investigated the efficacy of MA-induced α2M. It neutralized rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and heparins in spiked samples in a concentration-dependent manner and in samples from treated patients. Molecular docking analysis evidenced the ability of MA-induced α2M to bind non-covalently these compounds via some deeply buried binding sites. Induced forms of α2M have the potential to neutralize direct oral anticoagulants and heparins, and might be developed as a universal antidote in case of major bleeding or urgent surgery.

Lupus Anticoagulant Single Positivity During the Acute Phase of COVID-19 Is Not Associated With Venous Thromboembolism or In-Hospital Mortality.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical relevance of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) in COVID-19 is controversial. This study was undertaken to investigate the prevalence and prognostic value of conventional and nonconventional aPLs in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective observational study in a French cohort of patients hospitalized with suspected COVID-19. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients were hospitalized with suspected COVID-19, in whom COVID-19 was confirmed in 154 and not confirmed in 95. We found a significant increase in lupus anticoagulant (LAC) positivity among patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 (60.9% versus 23.7%; P < 0.001), while prevalence of conventional aPLs (IgG and IgM anti-ß2 -glycoprotein I and IgG and IgM anticardiolipin isotypes) and nonconventional aPLs (IgA isotype of anticardiolipin, IgA isotype of anti-ß2 -glycoprotein I, IgG and IgM isotypes of anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin, and IgG and IgM isotypes of antiprothrombin) was low in both groups. Patients with COVID-19 who were positive for LAC, as compared to patients with COVID-19 who were negative for LAC, had higher levels of fibrinogen (median 6.0 gm/liter [interquartile range 5.0-7.0] versus 5.3 gm/liter [interquartile range 4.3-6.4]; P = 0.028) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (median 115.5 mg/liter [interquartile range 66.0-204.8] versus 91.8 mg/liter [interquartile range 27.0-155.1]; P = 0.019). Univariate analysis did not show any association between LAC positivity and higher risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (odds ratio 1.02 [95% confidence interval 0.44-2.43], P = 0.95) or in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.80 [95% confidence interval 0.70-5.05], P = 0.24). With and without adjustment for CRP level, age, and sex, Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to LAC positivity confirmed the absence of an association with VTE or in-hospital mortality (unadjusted P = 0.64 and P = 0.26, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.48-2.60] and 1.80 [95% confidence interval 0.67-5.01], respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 have an increased prevalence of LAC positivity associated with biologic markers of inflammation. However, LAC positivity at the time of hospital admission is not associated with VTE risk and/or in-hospital mortality.

Placental growth factor level in plasma predicts COVID-19 severity and in-hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease associated with vascular inflammation and endothelial injury. OBJECTIVES: To correlate circulating angiogenic markers vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), placental growth factor (PlGF), and fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF-2) to in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 adult patients. METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory and hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection were enrolled. VEGF-A, PlGF, and FGF-2 were measured in each patient ≤48 h following admission. RESULTS: The study enrolled 237 patients with suspected COVID-19: 208 patients had a positive diagnostic for COVID-19, of whom 23 were mild outpatients and 185 patients hospitalized after admission. Levels of VEGF-A, PlGF, and FGF-2 significantly increase with the severity of the disease (P < .001). Using a logistic regression model, we found a significant association between the increase of FGF-2 or PlGF and mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.07-1.16], P < .001 for FGF-2 and OR 1.07 95% CI [1.04-1.10], P < .001 for PlGF) while no association were found for VEGF-A levels. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed and we identified PlGF above 30 pg/ml as the best predictor of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Survival analysis for PlGF confirmed its interest for in-hospital mortality prediction, by using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve (P = .001) and a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted to age, body mass index, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein (3.23 95% CI [1.29-8.11], P = .001). CONCLUSION: Angiogenic factor PlGF is a relevant predictive factor for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. More than a biomarker, we hypothesize that PlGF blocking strategies could be a new interesting therapeutic approach in COVID-19.

Preventing venous thrombo-embolism after nonmajor orthopedic surgery.

The venous thromboembolism risk is low to moderate in nonmajor orthopedic surgery. The literature is unconclusive. New emerging data are now available. The global patient risk has to be taken into account to determine the need for any prophylaxis.

Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis: Changes in the Daily Clinical Practice, Modified Guidelines.

With current clinical practice, postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is not only well controlled, but it is steadily decreasing, especially in orthopaedic surgery, thanks to fast-track and day case procedures, new surgical techniques, and potent antithrombotic agents. Thromboprophylaxis is becoming increasingly adapted to these patients. Aspirin is also extensively prescribed in total hip replacement and total knee replacement procedures in the United States and Australia. Mechanical prophylaxis is sometimes applied alone but most often combined with anticoagulant agents. However, large evidence-based studies are still needed to confirm these optimistic tendencies. In the meantime, physicians have to keep strong control over the VTE risk to prevent the reappearance of pulmonary embolism after admission to the surgical wards.