Optimal dosing of heparin for prophylactic anticoagulation in critically ill COVID-19 patients a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PurposeThe optimal amount of anticoagulation for critically ill COVID-19 patients is controversial. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of escalated doses of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19.Materials and methodsWe conducted a systematic search of three major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included comparing therapeutic or intermediate doses to standard prophylactic doses of anticoagulants in critically ill COVID-19 patients, with heparins as the only anticoagulation therapy considered.ResultsOut of the six RCTs, 2130 patients were administered escalated dose anticoagulation (50.2%) and standard thromboprophylaxis therapy (49.8%). The escalated dose showed no significant impact on mortality (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90–1.13). Although there was no significant difference in DVT (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61–1.08), the risk of PE was significantly reduced in patients receiving escalated dose anticoagulation (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21–0.60), with an increased risk of bleeding events (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.08–2.53).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis fail to support escalated anticoagulation doses to reduce mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, higher doses of anticoagulants appear to reduce thrombotic events while increasing the risk of bleeding effectively.     

Delayed retroperitoneal hemorrhage during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 patients: A case report and literature review

BACKGROUNDRetroperitoneal hemorrhage (RPH) is a rare and severe complication in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Clinical diagnosis is difficult.CASE SUMMARYThree cases of RPH patients with corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) were included in this study. All three suffered from respiratory failure, were treated with veno-venous or veno-arterial-venous ECMO, and experienced RPH during ECMO treatment. Two of the COVID-19 cases were diagnosed after the patients experienced abdominal pain. The other patient exhibited decreases in the ECMO circuit flow rate and hemoglobin level. Two cases were treated by transcatheter arterial embolization, and one was treated conservatively. The hemorrhage in each of the three cases did not deteriorate. Satisfactory treatment results were achieved for the three patients because of prompt diagnosis and treatment.CONCLUSIONAlthough the incidence of RPH during ECMO treatment is low, the risk is increased by anticoagulant use and local mechanical injury. If declines in blood flow velocity and hemoglobin are detected, RPH should be considered, and prompt aggressive therapy should be started.     

A comparative analysis of the outcomes of patients with influenza or COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital in Belgium

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a global health problem, associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 or with seasonal influenza in a teaching hospital in Belgium.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center cohort study, 1384 patients with COVID-19 and 226 patients with influenza were matched using a propensity score with a ratio of 3:1. Primary outcomes included admission to intensive care unit (ICU), intubation rates, hospital length of stay, readmissions within 30 days and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary bacterial superinfection, cardiovascular complications and ECMO.ResultsBased on the analysis of the matched sample, patients with influenza had an increased risk of readmission within 30 days (Risk Difference (RD): 0.07, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.11) and admission to intensive care unit (RD: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.15) compared with those with COVID-19. Patients with influenza had also more pulmonary bacterial superinfections (46.2% vs 7.4%) and more cardiovascular complications (32% vs 3.9%) than patients with COVID-19.However, a two-fold increased risk of mortality (RD: ?0.10, 95% CI: 0.15 to ?0.05) was observed in COVID-19 compared to influenza. ECMO was also more required among the COVID-19 patients who died than among influenza patients (5% vs 0%).ConclusionsCOVID-19 is associated with a higher in-hospital mortality compared to influenza infection, despite a high rate of ICU admission in the influenza group. These findings highlighted that the severity of hospitalized patients with influenza should not be underestimated.     

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a worldwide pandemic and significant public health issue. The effectiveness of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in treating COVID-19 patients has been called into question.AIMTo conduct a meta-analysis on the mortality of COVID-19 patients who require ECMO.METHODSThis analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes 2020 (PRISMA) and has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42020227414). A quality assessment for all the included articles was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Studies with tenor more COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO were included. The random-effects model was used to obtain the pooled incidence of mortality in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO. The source of heterogeneity was investigated using subgroup and sensitivity analyses.RESULTSWe identified 18 articles with 1494 COVID-19 patients who were receiving ECMO. The score of the quality assessment ranged from 5 to 8 on the NOS. The majority of patients received veno-venous ECMO (93.7%). Overall mortality was estimated to be 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-0.39; I² = 84.8%] based on random-effect pooled estimates. There were significant differences in mortality between location groups (33.0% vs 55.0% vs 37.0% vs 18.0%, P < 0.001), setting groups (28.0% vs 34.0%, P < 0.001), sample size (37.0% vs 31.0%, P < 0.001), and NOS groups (39.0% vs 19.0%, P < 0.001). However, both subgroup analyses based on location, setting, and sample size, and sensitivity analysis failed to identify the source of heterogeneity. The funnel plot indicated no evident asymmetry, and the Egger''s (P = 0.95) and Begg''s (P = 0.14) tests also revealed no significant publication bias.CONCLUSIONWith more resource assessment and risk-benefit analysis, our data reveal that ECMO might be a feasible and effective treatment for COVID-19 patients.     

The effect of higher-intensity dosing of anticoagulation on the clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ObjectiveWe aimed to perform a meta-analysis to summarize the overall evidence from randomized controlled trials related to higher-intensity anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes between intermediate/ therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest at a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsEight randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 5405 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.71–1.19) but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.42–0.72), and significantly increased odds of development of major bleeding (pooled OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.20–2.72) with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. Subgroup analysis in patients with a severe course of COVID-19 observed a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.45–0.98) but no significant difference in the odds of development of major bleeding events (pooled OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.74–2.56), with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation.ConclusionThere could be net clinical benefits with higher-intensity dosing of anticoagulation relative to prophylactic-dosing of anticoagulation among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.     

Efficacy and Safety of Blood Derivative Therapy for Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in more than 200 million infections and 4 million deaths. The blood derivative therapy represented by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and convalescent plasma (CP) therapy may be the promising therapeutics for COVID-19.MethodsA systematic article search was performed for eligible studies published up to August 3, 2021, through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated.ResultsA total of 5 IVIG therapy and 13 CP therapy randomized controlled trials were included with a sample size of 13,696 subjects diagnosed with COVID-19. IVIG could reduce the mortality compared with the control group (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46–0.93, p = 0.02). The use of CP did not effectively reduce the mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91–1.03, p = 0.38), the length of hospital stay (MD −0.47, 95% CI: −4.13 to 3.20, p = 0.80), and the mechanical ventilation use (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89–1.07, p = 0.62) of the patients with COVID-19. Treatment with IVIG or CP was not significantly associated with an increase in reported adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.94–1.22, p = 0.28).ConclusionsTreatment with IVIG could be effective and safe to improve survival for patients with COVID-19. But the benefit of CP in the treatment of COVID-19 is limited. The certainty of the evidence was moderate for all outcomes.     

One hundred ECMO retrivals before and during the Covid-19 pandemic: an observational study

ObjectivesPatients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome may require veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) support. For patients in peripheral hospitals, retrieval by mobile ECMO teams and transport to high-volume centers is associated with improved outcomes, including the recent COVID-19 pandemic. To enable a safe transport of patients, a specialised ECMO-retrieval program needs to be implemented. However, there is insufficient evidence on how to safely and efficiently perform ECMO retrievals. We report single-centre data from out-of-centre initiations of VV-ECMO before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design & settingSingle-centre retrospective study. We include all the retrievals performed by our ECMO centre between January 1st, 2014, and April 30th, 2021.ResultsOne hundred ECMO missions were performed in the study period, for a median retrieval volume of 13 (IQR: 9–16) missions per year. the cause of the acute respiratory distress syndrome was COVID-19 in 10 patients (10 %). 98 (98 %) patients were retrieved and transported to our ECMO centre. To allow safe transport, 91 of them were cannulated on-site and transported on V-V ECMO. The remaining seven patients were centralised without ECMO, but they were all connected to V-V ECMO in the first 24 hours. No complications occurred during patient transport. The median duration of the ECMO mission was 7 hours (IQR: 6–9, range: 2 – 17). Median duration of ECMO support was 14 days (IQR: 9–24), whereas the ICU stay was 24 days (IQR:18–44). Overall, 73 patients were alive at hospital discharge (74 %). Survival rate was similar in non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 group (73 % vs 80 %, p = 0.549).ConclusionIn this single-centre experience, before and during COVID-19 era, retrieval and ground transportation of ECMO patients was feasible and was not associated with complications. Key factors of an ECMO retrieval program include a careful selection of the transport ambulance, training of a dedicated ECMO mobile team and preparation of specific checklists and standard operating procedures.     

aPTT-guided anticoagulation monitoring during ECMO support: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionThe initiation of the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex coagulatory and inflammatory processes and consequently needed anticoagulation. Systemic anticoagulation bears an additional risk of serious bleeding, and its monitoring is of immense importance. Therefore, our work aims to analyze the association of anticoagulation monitoring with bleeding during ECMO support.Material and methodsSystematic literature review and meta-analysis, complying with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO-CRD42022359465).ResultsSeventeen studies comprising 3249 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients experiencing hemorrhage had a longer activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), a longer ECMO duration, and higher mortality. We could not find strong evidence of any aPTT threshold association with the bleeding occurrence, as less than half of authors reported a potential relationship. Finally, we identified the acute kidney injury (66%, 233/356) and hemorrhage (46%, 469/1046) to be the most frequent adverse events, while almost one-half of patients did not survive to discharge (47%, 1192/2490).ConclusionThe aPTT-guided anticoagulation is still the standard of care in ECMO patients. We did not find strong evidence supporting the aPTT-guided monitoring during ECMO. Based on the weight of the available evidence, further randomized trials are crucial to clarify the best monitoring strategy.     

Traumatic Brain Injury in Patients Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants

BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are faced with a growing number of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, there remains uncertainty about the bleeding risk, rate of hematoma expansion, and the efficacy of reversal strategies in these patients.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the risk of traumatic hemorrhagic complications in patients with TBI using DOACs.MethodsIn this retrospective study we included patients with TBI. All TBI patients were using DOACs, attended one of the three EDs of our hospital between January 2016 and October 2019, and received a computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain. The primary outcome was any traumatic intracranial hemorrhage on CT. Secondary outcomes were the use of reversal agents, secondary neurological deterioration, a neurosurgical intervention within 30 days after the injury, length of stay (LOS), Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at discharge, and mortality.ResultsOf the included patients (N = 316), 24 patients (7.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2–9.8) presented with a traumatic intracranial hematoma (ICH). Seven patients (2.2%, 95% CI 0.6–3.8) received a reversal agent and 1 patient (0.3%, 95% CI ?0.3–0.9) underwent a neurosurgical intervention. Of the 24 patients with a traumatic ICH, progression of the lesion was seen in 6 patients (1.9%, 95% CI 0.4–3.4). The mean LOS was 6.5 days (95% CI 3.0–10.1) and the mean GOS at discharge was 4 (95% CI 3.6–4.6). Death occurred in 1 patient (0.3%, 95% CI ?0.3–0.9) suffering from an ICH.ConclusionBased on the present findings it can be postulated that TBI patients using DOACs have a low risk for ICH. Hematoma progression occurred, however, in a substantial number of patients. Considering the retrospective nature of the present study, future prospective trials are needed to confirm this finding.     

The Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage clinical decision rule for classifying emergency department headache patients

BackgroundSubarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a serious cause of headaches. The Ottawa subarachnoid hemorrhage (OSAH) rule helps identify SAH in patients with acute nontraumatic headache with high sensitivity, but provides limited information for identifying other intracranial pathology (ICP).ObjectivesTo assess the performance of the OSAH rule in emergency department (ED) headache patients and evaluate its impact on the diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and other ICP.MethodWe conducted a retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to March 2017. Patients with acute headache with onset within 14 days of the ED visit, were included. We excluded patients with head trauma that occurred in the previous 7 days, new onset of abnormal neurologic findings, or consciousness disturbance. According to the OSAH rule, patients with any included predictors required further investigation.ResultsOf 913 patients were included, 15 of them were diagnosed with SAH. The OSAH rule had 100% (95% CI, 78.2%–100%) sensitivity and 37.0% (95% CI, 33.8–40.2%) specificity for identifying SAH. Twenty-two cases were identified as SAH or ICH with 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 84.6%–100%) and 37.3% (95% CI, 34.1%–40.5%) specificity. As for non-hemorrhagic ICP, both the sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPV) decreased to 75.0% (95% CI, 53.3%–90.2%) and 98.2% (95% CI, 96.1%–99.3%), respectively.ConclusionsThe OSAH rule had 100% sensitivity and NPV for diagnosing SAH and ICH with acute headache. The sensitivity and specificity were lower for non-hemorrhagic ICP. The OSAH rule may be an effective tool to exclude acute ICH and SAH in our setting.     

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio on admission to predict the severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

BackgroundThe neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), an inflammatory marker, was suggested to be predictive of severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Here, we investigated whether NLR levels on admission could predict the severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA literature search was conducted on 23 July 2020 to retrieve all published articles, including grey literature and preprints, investigating the association between on-admission NLR values and severity or mortality in COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the overall standardized mean difference (SMD) in NLR values and the pooled risk ratio (RR) for severity and mortality with the 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI).ResultsA total of 38 articles, including 5699 patients with severity outcomes and 6033 patients with mortality outcomes, were included. The meta-analysis showed that severe and non-survivors of COVID-19 had higher on-admission NLR levels than non-severe and survivors (SMD 0.88; 95%CI 0.72–1.04; I² = 75.52% and 1.87; 95%CI 1.25–2.49; I² = 97.81%, respectively). Regardless of the different NLR cut-off values, the pooled mortality RR in patients with elevated vs. normal NLR levels was 2.74 (95%CI 0.98–7.66).ConclusionHigh NLR levels on admission were associated with severe COVID-19 and mortality. Further studies need to focus on determining the optimal cut-off value for NLR before clinical use.     

Glycemic Control and Clinical Outcomes in U.S. Patients With COVID-19: Data From the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Database

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship between HbA_1c and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with acute COVID-19 infection.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe conducted a retrospective study using observational data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a longitudinal, multicenter U.S. cohort of patients with COVID-19 infection. Patients were ≥18 years old with T2D and confirmed COVID-19 infection by laboratory testing or diagnosis code. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality following the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included need for invasive ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), hospitalization within 7 days before or 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis, and length of stay (LOS) for patients who were hospitalized.RESULTSThe study included 39,616 patients (50.9% female, 55.4% White, 26.4% Black or African American, and 16.1% Hispanic or Latino, with mean ± SD age 62.1 ± 13.9 years and mean ± SD HbA_1c 7.6% ± 2.0). There was an increasing risk of hospitalization with incrementally higher HbA_1c levels, but risk of death plateaued at HbA_1c >8%, and risk of invasive ventilation or ECMO plateaued >9%. There was no significant difference in LOS across HbA_1c levels.CONCLUSIONSIn a large, multicenter cohort of patients in the U.S. with T2D and COVID-19 infection, risk of hospitalization increased with incrementally higher HbA_1c levels. Risk of death and invasive ventilation also increased but plateaued at different levels of glycemic control.     

Prevalence of thromboembolic events and status of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan

IntroductionOne of the most prominent and concerning complications associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is venous and arterial thromboembolisms. The aim of the present study was to delineate the prevalence of thromboembolic events and the current status of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with COVID-19 in Japan.MethodsBetween February 1 and August 31, 2020, we performed a dual-center, retrospective cohort study based on data obtained from the medical charts of COVID-19 patients admitted to healthcare facilities in Japan. The primary outcome was any thromboembolic event including pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and other systemic thromboemboli.ResultsDuring the study period, we extracted 628 consecutive patients admitted for COVID-19. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy was administered in 63 (10%) patients of whom 20 (31.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thromboembolic events occurred in 18 (2.9%) patients (14.3% of patients in ICU and 2.2% of patients in the general wards). DVT were detected in 13 (2.1%) patients, PE in 11 (1.8%), and both DVT and PE in 6 (0.96%) patients. An increasing prevalence in thromboembolic events was noted with progressive clinical severity. Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.8%.ConclusionsProphylactic anticoagulation therapy was administered in only 10% of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of any thromboembolic events was 2.9% in COVID-19 patients with most events occurring in severe and critical patients. Therefore, prophylactic anticoagulation therapy may be warranted in severe and critical patients but in asymptomatic to moderate patients the practice remains controversial.     

Benefits of ozone on mortality in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, and the death toll continues to surge. Ozone therapy has long been used in the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases, probably through its antioxidant properties and the supply of oxygen to hypoxic tissues. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of ozone on mortality in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Prospective controlled trials on treatment of COVID-19 with ozone, compared with placebo or blank, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsEight trials (enrolling 371 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Ozone therapy showed significant effects on mortality (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17–0.85; P = 0.02), length of hospital stay (WMD −1.63 days, 95% CI −3.05 to −0.22 days; P = 0.02), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.34; P = 0.001).ConclusionsOzone therapy significantly reduced mortality, PCR positivity, and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Ozone therapy should be considered for COVID-19 patients.     

Experience of 101 patients with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) at a tertiary care center in Japan

IntroductionClusters of novel coronavirus infectious disease of 2019 (COVID-19) have spread to become a global pandemic imposing a significant burden on healthcare systems. The lack of an effective treatment and the emergence of varied and complicated clinical courses in certain populations have rendered treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 difficult.MethodsTokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center, a public tertiary acute care center located in Tokyo, the epicenter of COVID-19 in Japan, has been admitting patients with COVID-19 since February 2020. The present, retrospective, case-series study aimed to investigate the clinical course and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the study institution.ResultsIn total, 101 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to our hospital to receive inpatient care. Eleven patients (10.9%) received ECMO, and nine patients (8.9%) died during hospitalization after COVID-19 was diagnosed. A history of smoking and obesity were most commonly encountered among patients with a complicated clinical course. Most patients who died requested to be transferred to advanced palliative care in the early course of their hospitalization.ConclusionsOur experience of caring for these patients demonstrated a relatively lower mortality rate and higher survival rate in those with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation placement than previous reports from other countries and underscored the importance of proactive, advanced care planning in the early course of hospitalization.     

Identifying patients with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 at elevated risk of adverse events: The COVAS score

ObjectiveDevelop and validate a risk score using variables available during an Emergency Department (ED) encounter to predict adverse events among patients with suspected COVID-19.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of adult visits for suspected COVID-19 between March 1 – April 30, 2020 at 15 EDs in Southern California. The primary outcomes were death or respiratory decompensation within 7-days. We used least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) models and logistic regression to derive a risk score. We report metrics for derivation and validation cohorts, and subgroups with pneumonia or COVID-19 diagnoses.Results26,600 ED encounters were included and 1079 experienced an adverse event. Five categories (comorbidities, obesity/BMI ≥ 40, vital signs, age and sex) were included in the final score. The area under the curve (AUC) in the derivation cohort was 0.891 (95% CI, 0.880–0.901); similar performance was observed in the validation cohort (AUC = 0.895, 95% CI, 0.874–0.916). Sensitivity ranging from 100% (Score 0) to 41.7% (Score of ≥15) and specificity from 13.9% (score 0) to 96.8% (score ≥ 15). In the subgroups with pneumonia (n = 3252) the AUCs were 0.780 (derivation, 95% CI 0.759–0.801) and 0.832 (validation, 95% CI 0.794–0.870), while for COVID-19 diagnoses (n = 2059) the AUCs were 0.867 (95% CI 0.843–0.892) and 0.837 (95% CI 0.774–0.899) respectively.ConclusionPhysicians evaluating ED patients with pneumonia, COVID-19, or symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 can apply the COVAS score to assist with decisions to hospitalize or discharge patients during the SARS CoV-2 pandemic.     

Extracorporeal support for trauma: A trauma quality improvement project (TQIP) analysis in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

IntroductionThe use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in trauma patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to evolve. The objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of trauma patients with ARDS who received ECMO to a propensity matched cohort of patients who underwent conventional management.MethodsThe Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried from 2013 to 2016 for all patients with ARDS and those who received ECMO. Demographics, as well as clinical, injury, intervention, and outcome data were collected and analyzed. Patients with ARDS were divided into two groups, those who received ECMO and those who did not. A propensity score analysis was performed using the following criteria: age, gender, vital signs (HR, SBP) and GCS on admission, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score in several body regions. Outcomes between the groups were subsequently compared using univariate as well as Cox regression analyses.Secondary outcomes such as hospitalization (HLOS), ICU length-of-stay (LOS) and ventilation days stratified for patient demographics, timing of ECMO and anticoagulation status were compared.ResultsOver the 3-year study period, 8990 patients with ARDS were identified from the TQIP registry. Following exclusion, 3680 were included in the final analysis, of which 97 (2.6%) received ECMO. On univariate analysis following matching, patients who underwent ECMO had lower overall hospital mortality (23 vs 50%, p < 0.001) with higher rates of complications (p < 0.005), including longer HLOS. In those undergoing ECMO, early initiation (<7 days) was associated with shorter HLOS, ICU LOS, and fewer ventilator days. No difference was observed between the two groups with regard to anticoagulation.ConclusionExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in trauma patients with ARDS may be associated with improved survival, especially for young patients with thoracic injuries, early in the course of ARDS. Anticoagulation while on circuit was not associated with increased risk of hemorrhage or mortality, even in the setting of head injuries. The mortality benefit suggested with ECMO comes at the expense of a potential increase in complication rate and prolonged hospitalization.     

On-admission anemia predicts mortality in COVID-19 patients: A single center,retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesWe investigated the impact of anemia based on admission hemoglobin (Hb) level as a prognostic risk factor for severe outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsA single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted from a random sample of 733 adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) obtained from a total of 4356 laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases who presented to the Emergency Department of Montefiore Medical Center between March–June 2020. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital severe outcomes of COVID-19. A secondary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality.ResultsAmong the 733 patients included in our final analysis, 438 patients (59.8%) presented with anemia. 105 patients (14.3%) had mild, and 333 patients (45.5%) had moderate-severe anemia. Overall, 437 patients (59.6%) had a composite endpoint of severe outcomes. On-admission anemia was an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality, (Odds Ratio 1.52, 95% CI [1.01–2.30], p = 0.046) but not for composite severe outcomes. However, moderate-severe anemia (Hb < 11 g/dL) on admission was independently associated with both severe outcomes (OR1.53, 95% CI [1.05–2.23], p = 0.028) and mortality (OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09–2.56], p = 0.019) during hospitalization.ConclusionAnemia on admission was independently associated with increased odds of all-cause mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Furthermore, moderate-severe anemia (Hb <11 g/dL) was an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Moving forward, COVID-19 patient management and risk stratification may benefit from addressing anemia on admission.     

The influence of pre-admission antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy on the illness severity in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Japan

IntroductionMany articles have reported that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes coagulation abnormalities and pulmonary thrombosis, contributing to a poorer prognosis. The study aimed to evaluate whether pre-admission anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy prevented severe COVID-19 illness or not.Materials and methodsWe conducted a study to determine whether taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation agents before admission affected the severity on admission using a large nationwide cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan. We analyzed a large nationwide cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Japan from February 9 to July 31, 2020.Results and conclusionA total of 4265 patients from 342 facilities in Japan were included. Their use was associated with a slight reduction in the disease severity on admission in a propensity score-matched analysis which controlled for underlying diseases. However, this difference was not statistically significant.