Comprehensive antibody and cytokine profiling in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in relation to clinical outcomes in a large Belgian cohort.

The immune response in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly variable and is linked to disease severity and mortality. However, antibody and cytokine responses in the early disease stage and their association with disease course and outcome are still not completely understood. In this large, multi-centre cohort study, blood samples of 434 Belgian COVID-19 hospitalized patients with different disease severities (ranging from asymptomatic/mild to critically ill) from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic were obtained. Baseline antibody and cytokine responses were characterized and associations with several clinical outcome parameters were determined. Anti-spike immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgM levels were elevated in patients with a more severe disease course. This increased baseline antibody response however was associated with decreased odds for hospital mortality. Levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6, IP-10 and IL-8, the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 and the antiviral cytokines IFN-α, IFN-ß and IFN-λ1 were increased with disease severity. Remarkably, we found significantly lower levels of IFN-λ2,3 in critically ill patients compared to patients of the moderate and severe disease category. Finally, levels of IL-8, IL-6, IP-10, IL-10, IFN-α, IFN-ß, IFN-γ and IFN-λ1 at baseline were positively associated with mortality, whereas higher IFN-λ2,3 levels were negatively associated with mortality.

Serratus plane block versus standard of care for pain control after totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement: a double-blind, randomized controlled, superiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serratus anterior plane block has been proposed to reduce opioid requirements after minimally invasive cardiac surgery, but high-quality evidence is lacking. METHODS: This prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial recruited patients undergoing totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement. Patients in the intervention arm received a single-injection serratus anterior plane block on arrival to the intensive care unit added to standard of care. Patients in the control group received routine standard of care, including patient-controlled intravenous analgesia. Primary outcome was piritramide consumption within the first 24 hours after serratus anterior plane block placement. We hypothesized that compared with no block, patients in the intervention arm would consume 25% less opioids. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were analyzed (n=38 in intervention arm, n=37 in control arm). When comparing the serratus anterior plane group with the control group, median 24-hour cumulative opioid use was 9 (IQR 6-19.5) vs 15 (IQR 11.3-23.3) morphine milligram equivalents, respectively (p<0.01). Also, pain scores at 4, 8 and 24 hours were lower in the intervention arm at 4, 8 and 24 hours, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combined deep and superficial single-injection serratus anterior plane block is superior to standard of care in reducing opioid requirements and postoperative pain intensity up to 24 hours after totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04699422.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods: All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Results: A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Additive or synergistic analgesic effect of metamizole on standard pain treatment at home after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: A randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that the analgesic effect of metamizole is mediated at least partly by central mechanisms, including the endocannabinoid/endovanilloid system. Consequently, metamizole may have additive or even synergistic analgesic effects with paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if triple therapy with metamizole, ibuprofen and paracetamol (MIP) is superior to double therapy with ibuprofen and paracetamol (i.p.) in treating pain at home after ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery. DESIGN/SETTING/PATIENTS/INTERVENTION: In this double-blind, controlled, high-volume single centre, superiority trial, 110 patients undergoing elective ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomised to receive either MIP ( n  = 55) or i.p. ( n  = 55) orally for 4 days between December 2019 and November 2021. Pain intensity at movement and rest, using a numeric rating scale (NRS), perceived pain relief, use of rescue medication and adverse effects of study medication were recorded at the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and on postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4 and 7. Quality of Recovery (QoR) and satisfaction with study medication were measured at POD 7 with telephone follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain intensity on movement measured by an 11-point NRS (where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain imaginable) on POD 1. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, superiority of MIP in reducing postoperative pain at movement on POD 1 was not confirmed: mean difference NRS [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.08 (-1.00 to 0.84)]. For pain on movement and at rest, no significant differences were found between groups in the PACU nor on POD 1 to 4 or day 7. Nausea was reported significantly more frequently in the metamizole group (22.6 vs. 58.5; P  < 0.001). Other adverse effects of study medication, rescue opioid consumption, perceived pain relief, QoR at POD 7, and overall patient satisfaction were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Clinically, triple oral treatment with metamizole, paracetamol and ibuprofen is not superior to oral paracetamol and ibuprofen in multimodal pain treatment at home after ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Clinical Trials Register 2019-002801-23 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04082728.

Predictors of poor outcome in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to identify risk factors associated with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We also aimed to assess protocol violations of the local eligibility criteria of ECMO initiation. METHODS: All 31 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU and treated with ECMO from March 13th 2020 to 8 December 2021 were enrolled. Eligibility criteria for ECMO initiation were: P/F-ratio<50 mmHg >3 hours, P/F-ratio<80 mmHg >6 hours or pH<7.25 + PaCO2>60 mmHg >6 hours, despite maximal protective invasive ventilation. Primary outcome was ICU mortality. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ICU mortality. RESULTS: 12 out of 31 patients (38.7%) did not survive ECMO treatment in ICU. Half of the non-survivors suffered from acute kidney failure compared to 3 out of 19 survivors (15.79%) (p = .04). Half of the non-survivors required CRRT treatment versus 1 patient in the survivor group (5.3%) (p < .01). Higher age (2.45 (0.97-6.18), p = .05), the development of AKI (5.33 (1.00-28.43), p = .05), need of CRRT during ICU stay (18.00 (1.79-181.31), p = .01) and major bleeding during ECMO therapy (0.51 (0.19-0.89), p < .01) were identified to be predictors of ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Almost 60% of patients could be treated successfully with ECMO with sustained results at 3 months. Predictors for ICU mortality were development of AKI and need of CRRT during ICU stay, higher age category and major bleeding. Inadvertent ECMO allocation was noted in almost one in five patients.

Predictive value of serial evaluation of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for intensive care unit mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score has been developed to score the severity of organ dysfunction in critically ill sepsis patients and has been proven to have a high predictive value for intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in severely ill patients. Our goal was to evaluate the prognostic value of the SOFA score as well as trends in SOFA score for ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the ICU between March 13th, 2020, and October 17th, 2020 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The worst SOFA score was evaluated daily. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate the predictive value of SOFA in ICU mortality. RESULTS: 103 patients were included in this study. 30 patients (29%) died during their ICU stay and 73 (71%) patients were discharged alive. The ICU admission SOFA score was 5.2 ± 3.3 in ICU non-survivors vs. 4.3 ± 2.9 in ICU survivors (P = 0.15). The maximum SOFA score in ICU non-survivors was 11.7 ± 4.7 vs. 7.4 ± 4.3 in ICU survivors. SOFA scores increased the first week in both survivors and non-survivors, but the increase was less pronounced in survivors. In the multiple logistic regression models, neither admission SOFA score nor combination with delta SOFA in the first 48 hours was statistically significantly related to ICU mortality. Only the maximum SOFA score remained significant (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11-1.37, P < 0.001) in the multiple logistic models with an AUC of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of SOFA scores in the first 48 hours after ICU admission is not a good prognostic indicator in COVID-19 patients. Only the maximum SOFA score was predictive for ICU mortality.

Secondary infection in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a retrospective single-center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) can develop severe illness necessitating intensive care admission. Critically ill patients are susceptible for the development of secondary bacterial infections. Due to a combination of virus- and drug-induced immunosuppression, critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may even have a higher risk of developing a secondary infection. These secondary infections can aggravate the severity of illness and increase the risk of death. Further research on secondary infections in COVID-19 patients is essential. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the incidence and associated risk factors of secondary bacterial infections and to identify the most common groups of pathogens in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This mono-center, retrospective observational cohort study was performed at the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. All adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU from 13th March 2020 until 17th October 2020, were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data from the resulting 116 patients were prospectively entered into a customized database. The resulting database was retrospectively reviewed to investigate three types of secondary bacterial infections (secondary pneumonia, bloodstream infections of unknown origin, catheter-related sepsis). RESULTS: Of 94 included patients, 68% acquired at least one of the studied secondary bacterial infections during their ICU stay. Almost two thirds of patients (65.96%, n = 62) acquired a secondary pneumonia, whereas 29.79% (n = 28) acquired a bacteremia of unknown origin and a smaller proportion of patients (14.89%, n = 14) acquired a catheter-related sepsis. Male gender (P = 0.05), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.03) and the cumulative dose of corticosteroids (P = 0.004) were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection. The most common pathogens detected in the cultures of patients with secondary pneumonia were Gram-negative bacilli. Bacteremia of unknown origin and catheter-related sepsis were mostly caused by Gram-positive cocci. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the incidence of secondary bacterial infections is very high in critically ill COVID-19 patients. These patients are at highest risk of developing secondary pneumonia. Male gender, a history of diabetes mellitus and the administration of corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection.

Worsening COVID-19 Disease Course After Surgical Trauma: A Case Series.

Introduction: Current guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend postponing elective surgery on COVID-19-positive patients for a minimum of four to twelve weeks. However, literature focusing on the outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients undergoing surgery is scarce. In this case series, the outcome of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients undergoing acute or semi-urgent surgery was evaluated. Case Presentation: A case series of four patients between 32 and 82 years old with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing acute or semi-urgent surgery was presented here. All four patients were asymptomatic for COVID-19, developing severe respiratory failure following endo CABG, caesarian section, a thyroidectomy, or abdominal surgery. ICU admission, together with invasive ventilation, was necessary for all patients. Two patients required venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment. A mortality of 50% was observed. Conclusions: In conclusion, the present case series suggests that elective surgery in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected patients might elicit an exacerbated COVID-19 disease course. This study endorses the current international guidelines recommending postponing elective surgery for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients for seven weeks, depending on the severity of the surgery and perioperative morbidities, to minimize postoperative mortality.

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. RESULTS: 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

The analgesic efficacy of forearm versus upper arm intravenous regional anesthesia (Bier's block): A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if a forearm (FA) intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) with a lower, less toxic, local anesthetic dosage is non-inferior to an upper arm (UA) IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing hand and wrist surgery. DESIGN: Observer-blinded, randomized non-inferiority study. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: 280 patients undergoing hand surgery were randomly assigned to UA IVRA (n = 140) or FA IVRA (n = 140). INTERVENTIONS: Forearm IVRA or upper arm IVRA in patients undergoing hand and wrist surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was block success rate of both techniques. Block success was defined as no need of additional analgesics. A second, alternative non-inferiority outcome was defined as no need of conversion to general anesthesia. A difference in success rate of <5% was considered non-inferior. Secondary endpoints were tourniquet pain measured with a Numerical Rating Scale (0-10), satisfaction of patients and surgeons, onset time, surgical time and total OR time. MAIN RESULTS: Non-inferiority of block success rate, defined as no need of additional analgesics or conversion to general anesthesia was inconclusive (5.24%, 95% CI:-4.34%,+14.82%). Non-inferiority of no need of conversion to general anesthesia was confirmed (+0.73%, 95% CI:-0.69%,+2.15%). No differences were observed in onset time (FA: 5 (5, 8) vs UA: 6 (5, 7) min, p = 0.74), surgical time (FA: 8 (5, 12) vs UA: 7 (5, 11) min, p = 0.71), nor total OR stay time (FA: 34 (27, 41) vs UA: 35 (32, 39) min, p = 0.09). Tourniquet pain after 10 min was significantly lower after FA IVRA compared to UA IVRA (FA: 2.00 (0.00, 4.00) vs UA: 3.00 (1.00,5.00) min, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: We failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of forearm IVRA with a lower dosage of LA in providing a surgical block without rescue opioids and LA. Non-inferiority of no need of conversion to general anesthesia was confirmed.

Efficacy of ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block versus forearm intravenous regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Distal upper extremity surgery is commonly performed under regional anaesthesia, including intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block. This study aimed to investigate if ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior to forearm IVRA in producing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. METHODS: In this observer-blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial, 100 patients undergoing carpal tunnel release were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block (n = 50) or forearm IVRA (n = 50). The primary outcome was anaesthetic efficacy evaluated by classifying the blocks as complete vs incomplete. Complete anaesthesia was defined as total sensory block, incomplete anaesthesia as mild pain requiring more analgesics or need of general anaesthesia. Pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (0-10) was recorded. Surgeon satisfaction with hemostasis, surgical time, and OR stay time were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the quality of the block was assessed at POD 1. RESULTS: In total, 43 (86%) of the forearm nerve blocks were evaluated as complete, compared to 33 (66%) of the forearm IVRA (p = 0.019). After the forearm nerve block, pain intensity was lower at discharge (-1.76 points lower, 95% CI (-2.92, -0.59), p = 0.0006) compared to patients treated with forearm IVRA. No differences in pain experienced at the start of the surgery, during surgery, and at POD1, nor in surgical time or total OR stay were observed between groups. Surgeon (p = 0.0016) and patient satisfaction (p = 0.0023) were slightly higher after forearm nerve block. CONCLUSION: An ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior compared to forearm IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered as NCT03411551.

Evaluation of a comprehensive pre-procedural screening protocol for COVID-19 in times of a high SARS CoV-2 prevalence: a prospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, an ambulant screening protocol for COVID-19 in patients before admission to the hospital was implemented, combining the SARS CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab, a chest computed tomography (CT) and assessment of clinical symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluatethe diagnostic yield and the proportionality of this pre-procedural screeningprotocol. METHODS: In this mono-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all patients admitted to the hospital between 22nd April 2020 until 14th May 2020 for semi-urgent surgery, haematological or oncological treatment, or electrophysiological investigationunderwent a COVID-19 screening 2 days before their procedure. At a 2-week follow-up, the presence of clinical symptoms was evaluated by telephone as a post-hoc evaluation of the screening approach.Combined positive RT-PCR assay and/or positive chest CT was used as gold standard. Post-procedural outcomes of all patients diagnosed positive for COVID-19 were assessed. RESULTS: In total,528 patients were included of which 20 (3.8%) were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive and 508 (96.2%) as COVID-19 negative. 11 (55.0%) of COVID-19 positive patients had only a positive RT-PCR assay, 3 (15.0%) had only a positive chest CT and 6 (30%) had both a positive RT-PCR assay and chest CT. 10 out of 20 (50.0%) COVID-19 positive patients reported no single clinical symptom at the screening. At 2 week follow-up, 50% of these patients were still asymptomatic. 37.5% of all COVID-19 negative patients were symptomatic at screening. In the COVID-19 negative group without symptoms at screening, 78 (29.3%) patients developed clinical symptoms at a 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that routine chest CT and assessment of self-reported symptoms have limited value in the preprocedural COVID-19 screening due to low sensitivity and/or specificity.

Four-Week Pain Profile and Patient Non-Adherence to Pharmacological Pain Therapy After Day Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, complicated and painful surgical procedures are encouraged to be carried out in an ambulatory setting. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess 4-week postoperative pain profiles of 4 painful ambulatory surgical procedures. We analyzed the prevalence of and reasons for non-adherence and partial adherence of patients to a predefined treatment schedule after the ambulant surgery. METHODS: The current study analyzed data from a large randomized trial by evaluating the effect of postoperative pain medication on acute postoperative pain at home during the first 4 postoperative days (POD) in patients scheduled for ambulatory hemorrhoid surgery, shoulder or knee arthroscopy, and inguinal hernia repair. Postoperative pain intensity was assessed at POD 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28 via the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Adherence was assessed on POD 1, 2, 3, and 4. RESULTS: Median average pain scores were above an NRS of 3 during the first postoperative week after shoulder arthroscopy and even above 4 during the first postoperative week after hemorrhoid surgery. 26% of patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy and hemorrhoid surgery still had moderate pain 1 week after surgery. Median average pain scores were below an NRS of 3 during the whole study period after inguinal hernia repair and knee arthroscopy. 24.61% of patients did not use the study medication as prescribed, 5.76% of whom were non-adherent, and 18.85% were partially adherent. CONCLUSIONS: Each type of ambulant surgery has its unique postoperative pain profile. New strategies should be developed for pain therapy at home, particularly after the ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery and hemorrhoid surgery. Non-adherence is uncommon if they are provided with a multimodal analgesic home kit together with clear verbal, written instructions, and intensive follow-up.

Impact of implementation of an individualised thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: A longitudinal controlled before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. METHODS: In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p < 0.001). After correction for confounding variables, one-month mortality was significantly higher in the before group (p = 0.02, OR 8.86 (1.46, 53.75)). The cumulative incidence of VTE and CRRT was respectively 41% and 30.4% in the before group and dropped to 15% (p = 0.03) and 3.8% (p = 0.01), respectively. After correction for confounding variables, risk of VTE (p = 0.03, 6.01 (1.13, 32.12)) and CRRT (p = 0.02, OR 19.21 (1.44, 255.86)) remained significantly higher in the before group. CONCLUSION: Mortality, cumulative risk of VTE and need for CRRT may be significantly reduced in COVID-19 patients by implementation of a more aggressive thromboprophylaxis protocol. Future research should focus on confirmation of these results in a randomized design and on uncovering the mechanisms underlying these observations. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04394000.