A retrospective multicenter cohort study of the association between anti-Factor Xa values and death, thromboembolism, and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with critical COVID-19 have a high risk of thromboembolism, but intensified thromboprophylaxis has not been proven beneficial. The activity of low-molecular-weight heparins can be monitored by measuring anti-Factor Xa. We aimed to study the association between anti-Factor Xa values and death, thromboembolism, and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with critical COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit at three Swedish hospitals between March 2020 and May 2021 with at least one valid peak and/or trough anti-Factor Xa value. Within the peak and trough categories, patients' minimum, median, and maximum values were determined. Logistic regressions with splines were used to assess associations. RESULTS: In total, 408 patients had at least one valid peak and/or trough anti-Factor Xa measurement, resulting in 153 patients with peak values and 300 patients with trough values. Lower peak values were associated with thromboembolism for patients' minimum (p = 0.01), median (p = 0.005) and maximum (p = 0.001) values. No association was seen between peak values and death or bleeding. Higher trough values were associated with death for median (p = 0.03) and maximum (p = 0.002) values and with both bleeding (p = 0.01) and major bleeding (p = 0.02) for maximum values, but there were no associations with thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring anti-Factor Xa activity may be relevant for administrating low-molecular-weight heparin to patients with critical COVID-19. Lower peak values were associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, and higher trough values were associated with an increased risk of death and bleeding. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05256524, February 24, 2022.

Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19 - a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19. METHODS: Using additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care. RESULTS: We included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.

Fluid accumulation and major adverse kidney events in sepsis: a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Whether early fluid accumulation is a risk factor for adverse renal outcomes in septic intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains uncertain. We assessed the association between cumulative fluid balance and major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), a composite of death, dialysis, or sustained renal dysfunction, in such patients. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective observational study in 1834 septic patients admitted to five ICUs in three hospitals in Stockholm, Sweden. We used logistic regression analysis to assess the association between cumulative fluid balance during the first two days in ICU and subsequent risk of MAKE30, adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, baseline creatinine, illness severity variables, haemodynamic characteristics, chloride exposure and nephrotoxic drug exposure. We assessed the strength of significant exposure variables using a relative importance analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 519 (28.3%) patients developed MAKE30. Median (IQR) cumulative fluid balance was 5.3 (2.8-8.1) l in the MAKE30 group and 4.1 (1.9-6.8) l in the no MAKE30 group, with non-resuscitation fluids contributing to approximately half of total fluid input in each group. The adjusted odds ratio for MAKE30 was 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.09) per litre cumulative fluid balance. On relative importance analysis, the strongest factors regarding MAKE30 were, in decreasing order, baseline creatinine, cumulative fluid balance, and age. In the secondary outcome analysis, the adjusted odds ratio for dialysis or sustained renal dysfunction was 1.06 (95% CI 1.01-1.11) per litre cumulative fluid balance. On separate sensitivity analyses, lower urine output and early acute kidney injury, respectively, were independently associated with MAKE30, whereas higher fluid input was not. CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients with sepsis, a higher cumulative fluid balance after 2 days in ICU was associated with subsequent development of major adverse kidney events within 30 days, including death, renal replacement requirement, or persistent renal dysfunction.

An observational study of intermediate- or high-dose thromboprophylaxis for critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high reported incidence of thromboembolic complications and the optimal dose of thromboprophylaxis is not yet determined. The aim of this study was to investigate if 90-day mortality differed between patients treated with intermediate- or high-dose thromboprophylaxis. METHOD: In this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care from March 6th until July 15th, 2020, were eligible. Patients were categorized into groups according to daily dose of thromboprophylaxis. Dosing was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of death within 90 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body-mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, glucocorticoids, and dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included; 92 intermediate- and 73 high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The 90-day mortality was 19.6% in patients with intermediate-dose and 19.2% in patients with high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Multivariable hazard ratio of death within 90 days was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.36-1.53) for the high-dose group compared to intermediate-dose group. Multivariable hazard ratio for thromboembolic events and bleedings within 28 days was 0.93 (95% CI 0.37-2.29) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.28-2.54) for high versus intermediate dose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A difference in 90-day mortality between intermediate- and high-dose thromboprophylaxis could neither be confirmed nor rejected due to a small sample size.

Dosing of thromboprophylaxis and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients develop thromboembolic complications, but it is unclear whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis are associated with lower mortality rates. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis in critically ill COVID-19 patients and the risk of death, thromboembolism, and bleeding. METHOD: In this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to two intensive care units in March and April 2020 were eligible. Patients were categorized into three groups according to initial daily dose of thromboprophylaxis: low (2500-4500 IU tinzaparin or 2500-5000 IU dalteparin), medium (> 4500 IU but < 175 IU/kilogram, kg, of body weight tinzaparin or > 5000 IU but < 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin), and high dose (≥ 175 IU/kg of body weight tinzaparin or ≥ 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin). Thromboprophylaxis dosage was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of death within 28 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, and initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included: 67 received low-, 48 medium-, and 37 high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. For patients who received high-dose prophylaxis, mortality was lower (13.5%) compared to those who received medium dose (25.0%) or low dose (38.8%), p = 0.02. The hazard ratio of death was 0.33 (95% confidence intervals 0.13-0.87) among those who received high dose, and 0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.43-1.83) among those who received medium dose, as compared to those who received low-dose thromboprophylaxis. There were fewer thromboembolic events in the high (2.7%) vs medium (18.8%) and low-dose thromboprophylaxis (17.9%) groups, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, high-dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of death and a lower cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events compared with lower doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04412304 June 2, 2020, retrospectively registered.

[Glucocorticoid treatment may need to be adjusted during operations. Hospital guidelines reduces the risk of adrenal insufficiency]. / Glukokortikoidbehandling kan behöva justeras vid operation - Sjukhusövergripande riktlinje minskar risken för binjurebarkssvikt.

In Sweden 200 000 patients annually receive corticosteroid treatment for inflammatory and immunological diseases. Corticosteroid treatment has adverse effects that are common and serious, but lack of corticosteroids can be life threatening. Supplemental perioperative corticosteroid treatment, stress dose, was prompted by two case reports in the 1950s describing patients on corticosteroid treatment that died after surgery. A review of studies identified 328 surgical patients on corticosteroid treatment who did not receive a stress dose. Two of these patients developed clinical symptoms of adrenal insufficiency and they had not received any corticosteroids for 36 and 48 hours respectively. None of the patients receiving their usual daily dose of corticosteroid developed signs of adrenal insufficiency. Since mid 2013 a guideline at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, dictates exclusion of stress dose to patients who undergo elective surgery and are able to take their usual daily oral dose of corticosteroids. If the daily dose has not been taken glucocortidcoids should be given as iv infusion. All patients on corticoid treatment should be monitored for signs of adrenal insufficiency.