Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.

Recurrent bleeding and thrombotic events after resumption of oral anticoagulants following gastrointestinal bleeding: Communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal bleeding frequently complicates anticoagulant therapy causing treatment discontinuation. Data to guide the decision regarding whether and when to resume anticoagulation based on the risks of thromboembolism and recurrent bleeding are scarce. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the incidence of these events after anticoagulant-related gastrointestinal bleeding and assess their relationship with timing of anticoagulation resumption. METHODS: Patients hospitalized because of gastrointestinal bleeding during oral anticoagulation for any indication were eligible. All patients were followed up to 2 years after the index bleeding for recurrent major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, venous or arterial thromboembolism, and mortality. RESULTS: We included 948 patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding occurring during treatment with vitamin K antagonists (n = 531) or direct oral anticoagulants (n = 417). In time-dependent analysis, anticoagulant treatment was associated with a higher risk of recurrent clinically relevant bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.22), but lower risk of thromboembolism (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.55), and death (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36-0.68). Previous bleeding, index major bleeding, and lower glomerular filtration rate were associated with a higher risk of recurrent bleeding. The incidence of recurrent bleeding increased after anticoagulation restart independently of timing of resumption. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant treatment after gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism and death, but higher risk of recurrent bleeding. The latter seemed to be influenced by patient characteristics and less impacted by time of anticoagulation resumption.

New evidence in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy.

Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy is notoriously difficult and lacking high quality evidence. Three studies (DiPEP, ARTEMIS and CT-PE-Pregnancy) evaluating a systematic approach to PE diagnosis have recently been published. DiPEP is a retrospective case-control study that found a poor utility of clinical decision rules or D-dimer testing for PE diagnosis in pregnancy. ARTEMIS and CT-PE-Pregnancy are well conducted prospective management studies that proposed two algorithms with different clinical decision rules and D-dimer criteria for the diagnosis of PE in pregnancy. They included few events in high risk patients, which makes difficult the assessment of both algorithm's safety in women with a high probability of PE. Considering this new evidence, D-dimer testing might be useful to avoid radiation imaging in pregnant women considered at low risk for PE. In contrast, a negative D-dimer cannot be considered sufficiently safe to rule out PE when clinicians estimate that PE is the most likely diagnosis.

Two-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of lesions with coronary arterial calcification (CAC) is common and has been historically associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Whether the association between target lesion calcification (CAC) and outcomes differ across drug-eluting stent generation or between patients with high vs. low residual platelet reactivity (PR) remains unknown. We assessed the association of CAC with adverse ischemic and bleeding events among patients undergoing contemporary PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We included all 8582 patients who underwent successful PCI with DES in the prospective ADAPT-DES study. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had CAC. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine independent predictors of CAC. We assessed the 2-year risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: Death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and bleeding by constructing Kaplan-Meier curves and fitting unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. We assessed the influence of DES generation and PR on the effect of CAC on outcomes by including interaction terms in the models. RESULTS: CAC was present in 2644 (30.8%) patients. Age, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insulin-treated diabetes, hemodialysis, and peripheral artery disease were independent predictors of CAC. Having a CAC was associated with increased unadjusted and adjusted hazards for 2-year MACE and bleeding. The association between CAC and ischemic outcomes was consistent across DES generations and PR (pinteraction>0.05). CONCLUSION: Contemporary DES PCI of calcified lesions is common and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic and bleeding complications.