Clinical outcome with different doses of low-molecular-weight heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

A pro-thrombotic milieu and a higher risk of thrombotic events were observed in patients with CoronaVirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Accordingly, recent data suggested a beneficial role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but the optimal dosage of this treatment is unknown. We evaluated the association between prophylactic vs. intermediate-to-fully anticoagulant doses of enoxaparin and in-hospital adverse events in patients with COVID-19. We retrospectively included 436 consecutive patients admitted in three Italian hospitals. Outcome according to the use of prophylactic (4000 IU) vs. higher (> 4000 IU) daily dosage of enoxaparin was evaluated. The primary end-point was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital cardiovascular death, venous thromboembolism, new-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation. A total of 287 patients (65.8%) were treated with the prophylactic enoxaparin regimen and 149 (34.2%) with a higher dosing regimen. The use of prophylactic enoxaparin dose was associated with a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (25.4% vs. 26.9% with the higher dose; OR at multivariable analysis, including the propensity score: 0.847, 95% CI 0.400-0.1.792; p = 0.664). In the prophylactic dose group, a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death (OR 0.165), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.067), new-onset ARDS (OR 0.454) and mechanical intubation (OR 0.150) was observed. In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a prophylactic dosage of enoxaparin appears to be associated with similar in-hospital overall mortality compared to higher doses. These findings require confirmation in a randomized, controlled study.

Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in Masked and White Coat Uncontrolled Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH and WUCH, respectively) has not yet been investigated. We assessed the risk of new-onset AF in MUCH and WUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. METHODS: The occurrence of AF was evaluated in 2,135 treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years, with baseline sinus rhythm, by electrocardiogram. Controlled hypertension (CH) was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP, regardless of nighttime BP, <135/85 mm Hg, MUCH as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135 and/or ≥85 mm Hg, WUCH as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg, and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135 and/or ≥85 mm Hg. RESULTS: MUCH was identified in 203 patients (9.5% of all the population, 29% of those with normal clinic BP) and WUCH in 503 patients (23.5% of all the population, 35% of those with high clinic BP). During the follow-up (mean 9.7 years), 116 cases of AF occurred. After adjustment for covariates, patients with MUCH (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.85) and SUCH (hazard ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.21) had higher risk of new-onset AF than those with CH, whereas those with WUCH (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.59-2.13) did not. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with patients with CH, those with MUCH and SUCH are at higher risk (approximately doubled) of new-onset AF, whereas those with WUCH are not.