Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 4/2020

Open Access 03.08.2020 | COVID-19

Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Syed Shahzad Hasan, Sam Radford, Chia Siang Kow, Syed Tabish Razi Zaidi

Erschienen in: Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis | Ausgabe 4/2020

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0–10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%) and 27% (95% CI 17–40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11239-020-02235-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

  • Despite receiving anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis, a high rate of venous thromboembolism was still observed among COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit.
  • The failure rate of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis may be lower with the use of therapeutic anticoagulation among COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit.
  • An individualized dosing approach of anticoagulant based on anti-factor Xa monitoring, thromboelastography, or rotational thromboelastometry may be useful to reduce the rate of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients.

Introduction

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has claimed over 500,000 lives and infected well over 9 million people as of 27th June 2020 [1]. COVID-19 infection has demonstrated a range of phenotypes from asymptomatic, all the way to multiorgan failure and death. Among the COVID-19 population admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) there has been considerable reporting of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Though hypercoagulability in COVID-19 has been well-recognized, uncertainty still exists as to how best to manage clotting risk in these patients. Like many aspects of care in this rapidly evolving pandemic, the evidence is scarce with adequate quality to inform the approach to the hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients.
Since the recognition of the hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, several interim guidance documents have recommended the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 [24]. Most of these guidelines [24] recommend the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), though the consensus is yet to reach in the recommendations of prophylactic, intermediate, or therapeutic (full) dose anticoagulation. Nevertheless, it is not fully understood how effective pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in preventing VTE among COVID-19 critically ill patients. We seek to systematically review the available evidence to help guide clinicians weighing up decisions regarding the anticoagulation approach for COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units.

Methods

This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [5]. Two authors (CSK and SSH) independently performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, and Google Scholar and two preprint servers (medRxiv and SSRN) up to 25th June 2020. Search terms are depicted in Table S1. The titles and abstracts of the resulting articles were examined to exclude irrelevant studies. The full texts of the remaining articles were read to determine if these articles meet our eligibility criteria. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also reviewed for additional studies. The studies eligible for inclusion reported on the prevalence of venous thromboembolic event (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). Articles were excluded if they consist of no original data, report combined arterial and venous thromboembolic events, report mixed ICU and medical patients, or report no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Case study, case series, and case report that may not reflect the true prevalence of VTE were also excluded.
Two authors (CSK and SSH) independently reviewed the primary studies to assess the appropriateness for inclusion and data were extracted. Any discrepancies were addressed by a joint re-evaluation of the original article. The information extracted from each study included the name of the first author, the country from which the study was reported, the design of the study, age information of patients, the proportion of patients with a reported previous history of VTE, information on body weight or body mass index, information on the anticoagulant regimen, and the proportion of patients who developed VTE.
The outcome measure was the prevalence of patients receiving anticoagulants who developed VTE from individual studies. The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. All meta-analytical calculations were performed using Meta XL, version 5.3 (EpiGear International, Queensland, Australia) [6]. We examined the heterogeneity between studies using the I2 statistics with 50% as the threshold for statistically significant heterogeneity.

Results

Our search yielded 1,056 titles from the selected databases (Fig. 1), of which 535 titles were duplicates. The remaining 521 records were screened as per PRISMA guidelines against the eligibility criteria described in the previous section. A total of 493 records were excluded after reading the title and abstract. The full-texts of the remaining 28 articles were retrieved for a detailed evaluation. Sixteen articles were excluded due to reasons including absence of original data, reported mixed intensive care units and medical patients, case study/series/report, reported combined arterial and venous thromboembolic events and reported no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
We eventually identified twelve studies [718] that reported the prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: three studies from France [79], two studies each from the Netherlands [10, 11], Italy [12, 13], the United Kingdom [14, 15], and one study each from the United States [16], China [17], and Germany [18]. The information extracted from each study is presented in Table 1. The number of patients admitted to intensive care units ranged widely from 20 to 184. Eight out of eleven studies used a retrospective chart review as their study design [7, 916], whereas among the remaining three studies, two reported prospectively enrolled cohort [8, 18] and one reported a cross-sectional analysis [17]. The mean/median age of patients ranged from 59 to 70 years old. Though not all studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE, we observed a low proportion (0-5.3%) in studies [710, 12, 14] which reported the figures except the study by Zerwes et al. [18] which reported a proportion of 10.0%. All studies [718] utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis approach, though with a mixed proportion of patients receiving either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses.
Table 1
Summary of studies reporting on the proportion of VTE among COVID-19 patients in ICU receiving anticoagulation
Study
Country
Study design
Mean/median age (y)
Proportion of patients with previous VTE (%)
Body weight/
BMI
Anticoagulant regimen
Proportion of patients who developed VTE (n/N)
Llitjos et al. [7]
France
Retrospective, multicenter
68
3.8
No mention
LMWH or UFH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 31.0%
Therapeutic anticoagulation: 69.0%
18/26; 69.2%
Helms et al. [8]
France
Prospective, multicentre
631
5.3
No mention
LMWH or UFH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 70.0%
Therapeutic anticoagulation: 30.0%
27/150; 18.0%
Fraissé et al. [9]
France
Retrospective, single-center
61
5.4
Median BMI: 30 kg/m2
No mention of anticoagulant
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 46.7%
Therapeutic anticoagulation: 53.3%
19/92; 20.6%
Middledorp et al. [10]
Netherlands
Retrospective, single-center
62
2.8
Median BMI: 27 kg/m2; 17% of patients with body weight ≥ 100 kg
LMWH
Both prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulationwere utilized though no breakdown on prophylactic vs. therapeutic anticoagulation was provided
35/75; 46.7%
Klok et al. [11]
Netherlands
Retrospective, multicenter
64
No mention
Mean body weight: 87 kg
LMWH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 90.8%
Therapeutic anticoagulation: 9.2%
28/184; 15.2%
Lodigiani et al. [12]
Italy
Retrospective, single-center
61
0
22.9% of patients with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2
LMWH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 95.8%
Therapeutic anticoagulation: 4.2%
8/48; 16.7%
Spiezia et al. [13]
Italy
Retrospective, single-center
67
No mention
Mean BMI: 30 kg/m2
LMWH
No breakdown on prophylactic vs. therapeutic anticoagulation was provided
5/22; 22.7%
Thomas et al. [14]
United Kingdom
Retrospective, single-center
59
1.6
80.9% of patients with body weight between 50–99 kg
LMWH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 100.0%
17/62; 27.4%
Desborough et al. [15]
United Kingdom
Retrospective, single-center
59
No mention
Median BMI: 28 kg/m2
LMWH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 100.0%
10/66; 15.2%
Maatman et al. [16]
United States
Retrospective, multicenter
61
No mention
Mean BMI: 34.8 kg/m2
LMWH or UFH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 100.0%
29/107; 27.1%
Ren et al. [17]
China
Cross-sectional, multicentre
70
No mention
33.3% of patients with BMI ≥ 24 kg/m2
LMWH
Prophylactic anticoagulation: 100.0%
41/47; 87.2%
Zerwes et al. [18]
Germany
Prospective, single-centre
64
10.0
Mean BMI: 28.1 kg/m2
LMWH or UFH
Both prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulationwere utilized though no breakdown on prophylactic vs. therapeutic anticoagulation was provided
4/20; 20.0%
BMI body mass index, LMWH Low molecular weight heparin, UFH unfractionated heparin, VTE venous thromboembolism
The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%; I2: 92%) (Fig. 2). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone in all patients included [1417] reported a pooled prevalence of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%; I2: 96%) (Supplementary Fig. S1). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported mixed therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation in all patients included [713, 18] reported a pooled prevalence of VTE of 27% (95% CI 17–40%; I2: 89%) (Supplementary Fig. S2).

Discussion

The hypercoagulable state in COVID-19, which has been termed thrombo-inflammation or COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) by some experts, can be explained in terms of Virchow’s triad: endothelial injury, stasis of blood flow, and hypercoagulability. In terms of endothelial injury, there is evidence of direct invasion of endothelial cells by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, potentially leading to cell injury [19]. Other sources of endothelial injury may include intravascular catheters and mediators of the acute systemic inflammatory response such as cytokines (e.g., interleukin-6) other acute phase reactants [20]. On the other hand, immobilization during hospitalization with COVID-19, especially severely ill patients admitted to intensive care units, can cause stasis of blood flow. In terms of hypercoagulability, many changes in circulating prothrombotic factors have been reported or proposed in patients with severe COVID-19, including elevated factor VIII level, elevated fibrinogen level, circulating prothrombotic microparticles, and neutrophil extracellular traps [2123].
Therefore, with the recognition of hypercoagulability in COVID-19, the need for effective thromboprophylaxis cannot be overstated. Since no head-to-head trial comparing pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis versus no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis among ICU patients, as of the time of writing (doubt such trial will be conducted), a comparison of our findings (Table 1) with non-COVID-19 critical care patients is worth exploring. The landmark PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical care (PROTECT) trial that compared the comparative effectiveness of LMWH and UFH in 3764 critically ill patients found the average incidence of VTE of 8.2% and 9.9%, respectively [24]. A subsequent analysis of the PROTECT study by Lim et al. found an overall incidence of VTE of 7.7% [25]. A more relevant comparison of our findings is with critically ill patients who developed sepsis during their hospitalisation, and thus may be at a higher risk of VTE prophylaxis failure. The incidence of VTE in sepsis patients admitted to ICU ranged from 12.5% in a retrospective study of 335 patients to 37% in a prospective study of 113 patients [26, 27]. it is important to note that in the aforementioned prospective study, the average body mass index (BMI) of included patients was 31.7 kg/m2 and high BMI is a known factor of VTE as noted in the PROTECT sub-analysis [25].
Since preliminary evidence indicating a possibility of a higher rate of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis failure in ICU patients with COVID-19 compared to their non-COVID-19 counterparts, a reconsideration of the current approach may be needed, including the need to implement individualized VTE prophylaxis. It has previously been demonstrated that prophylactic LMWH dosing is associated with subtherapeutic anti-factor Xa levels in critically ill patients, and therefore an individualized dosing approach based on anti-factor Xa monitoring may be useful in COVID-19 patients [2831]. Indeed, it has also been recently discovered that prophylactic LMWH dosing was associated with subtherapeutic anti-factor Xa levels among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Dutt et al. [32] reported that 95% of COVID-19 patients had sub-therapeutic anti-factor Xa levels despite prophylactic LMWH, a figure which was about 3.5 times higher compared to the patients admitted to medical wards (27%).
The outcomes of individual adjustment of LMWH dosing guided by anti-factor Xa monitoring are encouraging, though thus far it was only investigated in surgical or trauma patients [33, 34]. The lower pooled prevalence of VTE in studies reported mixed anticoagulation approach (prophylactic and therapeutic) compared to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation only (27% versus 38%) may have been possibly driven by on average higher rate of attaintment of target anti-factor Xa levels due to the use of therapeutic anticoagulation in some included patients. Nevertheless, sub-therapeutic anti-factor Xa levels have also been observed in COVID-19 patients on twice-daily therapeutic LMWH regimens [35].
Similarly, anti-factor Xa monitoring in patients receiving unfractionated heparin is associated with better attainment of therapeutic anticoagulation compared to activated partial thromboplastin time monitoring whereby it shortens the time to reach the therapeutic range as well as improves the length of time in the therapeutic range [36]. In fact, the phenomenon of heparin resistance has been observed up to 80% of COVID-19 patients treated with unfractionated heparin in which there was a need for high doses of unfractionated heparin (more than 35,000 IU/day) to achieve the target activated partial thromboplastin time presumably due to increased factor VIII levels [37]. Patients requiring high doses of unfractionated heparin to achieve the target activated partial thromboplastin time may also develop life-threatening bleeding events if they proceed without monitoring of antithrombotic activity via an anti-factor Xa assay.
There has been an increased interest to utilize thromboelastography (TEG) or rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) in critically ill COVID-19 patients where both tests may be useful to inform individualized clinical decision-making regarding VTE prophylaxis among COVID-19 patients [38]. Viscoelastic observations with TEG among critically ill COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit revealed hypercoagulable state with decreased R time and K time as well as elevated fibrinogen activity greater than a 73° angle and maximum amplitude more than 65 mm with heparinase correction [39, 40]. Whereas, viscoelastic observations with ROTEM observed significantly higher maximum clot firmness and clotting time as well as significantly shorter clot formation time among COVID-19 patients compared with healthy controls (p < 0.001) [41]. In fact, comparison among COVID-19 patients reported that maximum clot firmness and clotting time were significantly longer in those admitted to medical wards relative to those in specialized wards (intermediate wards/intensive care units). Thus far, there is only one randomized controlled trial [42] which assessed TEG-based protocol for the dosing of unfractionated heparin among patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation which reported reduced dose of heparin used compared with aPTT-based protocol, with no difference between the two protocols in terms of thrombotic and haemorrhagic events.
Our analysis does have some limitations. Firstly, there were no randomized controlled trials available that investigate the effectiveness of heparin-based pharmacological thromboprophylaxis among critically ill COVID-19 patients at the time of the literature search. Secondly, ten out of twelve studies included in our meta-analysis originate from European countries, which may limit the generalizability of the results to COVID-19 populations from other continents. Thirdly, we were unable to perform subgroup analysis strictly on patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation and patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation since the included original studies did not segregate their data based on the intensity of anticoagulation.

Conclusions

Further study into anticoagulant selection, dosing regimens, and monitoring are needed in this important population of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Until prospective or randomised studies with a clear description of baseline factors and adequate follow up, the best approach for managing VTE will be uncertain. Individualised rather than protocolised thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim. Besides, maintaining a strong index of suspicion for VTE and the possibility of chemoprophylaxis failure is recommended. Likewise, future studies may investigate the effectiveness of anti-factor Xa-guided or TEG/ROTEM-based heparin dosing in reducing the high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure in COVID-19 patients.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

e.Med Anästhesiologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Anästhesiologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes AINS, den Premium-Inhalten der AINS-Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten AINS-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Anhänge

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhai Z, Li C, Chen Y et al (2020) Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with coronavirus disease 2019 infection: A Consensus Statement before Guidelines. Thromb Haemost 120(6):937–948CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Zhai Z, Li C, Chen Y et al (2020) Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with coronavirus disease 2019 infection: A Consensus Statement before Guidelines. Thromb Haemost 120(6):937–948CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bikdeli B, Madhavan MV, Jimenez D et al (2020) COVID-19 and thrombotic or thromboembolic disease: implications for prevention, antithrombotic therapy, and follow-up: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol 75(23):2950–2973CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bikdeli B, Madhavan MV, Jimenez D et al (2020) COVID-19 and thrombotic or thromboembolic disease: implications for prevention, antithrombotic therapy, and follow-up: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol 75(23):2950–2973CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Thachil J, Tang N, Gando S et al (2020) ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost 18(5):1023–1026CrossRefPubMed Thachil J, Tang N, Gando S et al (2020) ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost 18(5):1023–1026CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 151(4):264‐269 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 151(4):264‐269
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Helms J, Tacquard C, Severac F et al (2020) High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 46(6):1089–1098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Helms J, Tacquard C, Severac F et al (2020) High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 46(6):1089–1098CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Fraissé M, Logre E, Pajot O, Mentec H, Plantefève G, Contou D (2020) Thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a French monocenter retrospective study. Crit Care 24(1):275CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fraissé M, Logre E, Pajot O, Mentec H, Plantefève G, Contou D (2020) Thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a French monocenter retrospective study. Crit Care 24(1):275CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM et al (2020) Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res S0049–3848(20):30120–30121 Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM et al (2020) Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res S0049–3848(20):30120–30121
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lodigiani C, Iapichino G, Carenzo L et al (2020 Jul) Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res 191:9–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lodigiani C, Iapichino G, Carenzo L et al (2020 Jul) Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res 191:9–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas W, Varley J, Johnston A et al (2020) Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res 191:76–77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thomas W, Varley J, Johnston A et al (2020) Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res 191:76–77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Desborough MJR, Doyle AJ, Griffiths A, Retter A, Breen KA, Hunt BJ (2020) Image-proven thromboembolism in patients with severe COVID-19 in a tertiary critical care unit in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res 193:1–4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Desborough MJR, Doyle AJ, Griffiths A, Retter A, Breen KA, Hunt BJ (2020) Image-proven thromboembolism in patients with severe COVID-19 in a tertiary critical care unit in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res 193:1–4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Zerwes S, Hernandez Cancino F, Liebetrau D et al (2020) Erhöhtes Risiko für tiefe Beinvenenthrombosen bei Intensivpatienten mit CoViD-19-Infektion? – Erste Daten [Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis in intensive care unit patients with CoViD-19 infections?-Preliminary data] [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 5]. Chirurg. 1–7 Zerwes S, Hernandez Cancino F, Liebetrau D et al (2020) Erhöhtes Risiko für tiefe Beinvenenthrombosen bei Intensivpatienten mit CoViD-19-Infektion? – Erste Daten [Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis in intensive care unit patients with CoViD-19 infections?-Preliminary data] [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 5]. Chirurg. 1–7
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Varga Z, Flammer AJ, Steiger P et al (2020) Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19. Lancet S0140-6736(20):30937–30935 Varga Z, Flammer AJ, Steiger P et al (2020) Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19. Lancet S0140-6736(20):30937–30935
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Begbie M, Notley C, Tinlin S, Sawyer L, Lillicrap D (2000) The Factor VIII acute phase response requires the participation of NFkappaB and C/EBP. Thromb Haemost 84(2):216–222PubMed Begbie M, Notley C, Tinlin S, Sawyer L, Lillicrap D (2000) The Factor VIII acute phase response requires the participation of NFkappaB and C/EBP. Thromb Haemost 84(2):216–222PubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Panigada M, Bottino N, Tagliabue P et al. (2020) Hypercoagulability of COVID-19 patients in Intensive Care Unit. A Report of Thromboelastography Findings and other Parameters of Hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. doi:10.1111/jth.14850 Panigada M, Bottino N, Tagliabue P et al. (2020) Hypercoagulability of COVID-19 patients in Intensive Care Unit. A Report of Thromboelastography Findings and other Parameters of Hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost. doi:10.1111/jth.14850
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Maier CL, Truong AD, Auld SC, Polly DM, Tanksley CL, Duncan A (2020) COVID-19-associated hyperviscosity: a link between inflammation and thrombophilia? Lancet 395(10239):1758–1759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Maier CL, Truong AD, Auld SC, Polly DM, Tanksley CL, Duncan A (2020) COVID-19-associated hyperviscosity: a link between inflammation and thrombophilia? Lancet 395(10239):1758–1759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat PROTECT Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Cook D, Meade M et al. Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1305–1314CrossRef PROTECT Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Cook D, Meade M et al. Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1305–1314CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Lim W, Meade M, Lauzier F et al (2015) Failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis: risk factors in medical-surgical critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 43(2):401–410CrossRefPubMed Lim W, Meade M, Lauzier F et al (2015) Failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis: risk factors in medical-surgical critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 43(2):401–410CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanify JM, Dupree LH, Johnson DW, Ferreira JA (2017) Failure of chemical thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical and surgical patients with sepsis. J Crit Care 37:206–210CrossRefPubMed Hanify JM, Dupree LH, Johnson DW, Ferreira JA (2017) Failure of chemical thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical and surgical patients with sepsis. J Crit Care 37:206–210CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaplan D, Casper TC, Elliott CG et al (2015) VTE Incidence and Risk Factors in Patients With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. Chest 148(5):1224–1230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kaplan D, Casper TC, Elliott CG et al (2015) VTE Incidence and Risk Factors in Patients With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. Chest 148(5):1224–1230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Priglinger U, Delle Karth G, Geppert A et al (2003) Prophylactic anticoagulation with enoxaparin: Is the subcutaneous route appropriate in the critically ill? Crit Care Med 31(5):1405–1409CrossRefPubMed Priglinger U, Delle Karth G, Geppert A et al (2003) Prophylactic anticoagulation with enoxaparin: Is the subcutaneous route appropriate in the critically ill? Crit Care Med 31(5):1405–1409CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Rommers MK, Van der Lely N, Egberts TC, van den Bemt PM (2006) Anti-Xa activity after subcutaneous administration of dalteparin in ICU patients with and without subcutaneous oedema: a pilot study. Crit Care 10(3):R93CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rommers MK, Van der Lely N, Egberts TC, van den Bemt PM (2006) Anti-Xa activity after subcutaneous administration of dalteparin in ICU patients with and without subcutaneous oedema: a pilot study. Crit Care 10(3):R93CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Robinson S, Zincuk A, Strøm T, Larsen TB, Rasmussen B, Toft P (2010) Enoxaparin, effective dosage for intensive care patients: double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. Crit Care 14(2):R41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Robinson S, Zincuk A, Strøm T, Larsen TB, Rasmussen B, Toft P (2010) Enoxaparin, effective dosage for intensive care patients: double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. Crit Care 14(2):R41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Mayr AJ, Dünser M, Jochberger S et al (2002) Antifactor Xa activity in intensive care patients receiving thromboembolic prophylaxis with standard doses of enoxaparin. Thromb Res 105(3):201–204CrossRefPubMed Mayr AJ, Dünser M, Jochberger S et al (2002) Antifactor Xa activity in intensive care patients receiving thromboembolic prophylaxis with standard doses of enoxaparin. Thromb Res 105(3):201–204CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Karcutskie CA, Dharmaraja A, Patel J et al (2018) Association of anti-Factor Xa-guided dosing of enoxaparin with venous thromboembolism after trauma. JAMA Surg 153(2):144–149CrossRefPubMed Karcutskie CA, Dharmaraja A, Patel J et al (2018) Association of anti-Factor Xa-guided dosing of enoxaparin with venous thromboembolism after trauma. JAMA Surg 153(2):144–149CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Kramme K, Sarraf P, Munene G (2020) Prophylactic enoxaparin adjusted by anti-factor Xa peak levels compared with recommended thromboprophylaxis and rates of clinically evident venous thromboembolism in surgical oncology patients. J Am Coll Surg 230(3):314–321CrossRefPubMed Kramme K, Sarraf P, Munene G (2020) Prophylactic enoxaparin adjusted by anti-factor Xa peak levels compared with recommended thromboprophylaxis and rates of clinically evident venous thromboembolism in surgical oncology patients. J Am Coll Surg 230(3):314–321CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat White D, MacDonald S, Bull T et al (2020) Heparin resistance in COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1-5 White D, MacDonald S, Bull T et al (2020) Heparin resistance in COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1-5
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Guervil DJ, Rosenberg AF, Winterstein AG, Harris NS, Johns TE, Zumberg MS (2011) Activated partial thromboplastin time versus antifactor Xa heparin assay in monitoring unfractionated heparin by continuous intravenous infusion. Ann Pharmacother 45(7–8):861–868CrossRefPubMed Guervil DJ, Rosenberg AF, Winterstein AG, Harris NS, Johns TE, Zumberg MS (2011) Activated partial thromboplastin time versus antifactor Xa heparin assay in monitoring unfractionated heparin by continuous intravenous infusion. Ann Pharmacother 45(7–8):861–868CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Beun R, Kusadasi N, Sikma M, Westerink J, Huisman A (2020) Thromboembolic events and apparent heparin resistance in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Int J Lab Hematol 42(Suppl 1):19–20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Beun R, Kusadasi N, Sikma M, Westerink J, Huisman A (2020) Thromboembolic events and apparent heparin resistance in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Int J Lab Hematol 42(Suppl 1):19–20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Panigada M, Bottino N, Tagliabue P et al (2020) Hypercoagulability of COVID-19 patients in intensive care unit: A report of thromboelastography findings and other parameters of hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 18(7):1738–1742CrossRefPubMed Panigada M, Bottino N, Tagliabue P et al (2020) Hypercoagulability of COVID-19 patients in intensive care unit: A report of thromboelastography findings and other parameters of hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 18(7):1738–1742CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Mortus JR, Manek SE, Brubaker LS et al (2020) Thromboelastographic results and hypercoagulability syndrome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who are critically Ill. JAMA Netw Open 3(6):e2011192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mortus JR, Manek SE, Brubaker LS et al (2020) Thromboelastographic results and hypercoagulability syndrome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who are critically Ill. JAMA Netw Open 3(6):e2011192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Almskog L, Wikman A, Svensson J et al. Rotational Thromboelastometry predicts care level in Covid-19. medRxiv; 2020.06.11.20128710 Almskog L, Wikman A, Svensson J et al. Rotational Thromboelastometry predicts care level in Covid-19. medRxiv; 2020.06.11.20128710
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Panigada M, Iapichino E, Brioni G (2018) M, et al. Thromboelastography-based anticoagulation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a safety and feasibility pilot study. Ann Intensive Care 8(1):7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Panigada M, Iapichino E, Brioni G (2018) M, et al. Thromboelastography-based anticoagulation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a safety and feasibility pilot study. Ann Intensive Care 8(1):7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Syed Shahzad Hasan
Sam Radford
Chia Siang Kow
Syed Tabish Razi Zaidi
Publikationsdatum
03.08.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Schlagwort
COVID-19
Erschienen in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0929-5305
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-742X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-020-02235-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2020

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 4/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.