Yu Bo, Gutierrez Victor Perez, Carlos Alex, Hoge Gregory, Pillai Anjana, Kelly J Daniel, Menon Vidya
Department of Medicine, New York City Health + Hospitals, Lincoln Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Biomark Res. 2021 May 1;9(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s40364-021-00283-y.
Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients.
We retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 5 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts.
The analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016).
Empiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.
COVID-19住院患者发生血栓栓塞的风险更高。对于高危患者,即使未确诊血栓栓塞,也建议进行抗凝治疗(AC)。然而,由于临床数据不足,AC的获益和风险尚未得到充分评估。我们对大量COVID-19患者AC治疗的结局进行了回顾性分析。
我们回顾性分析了2020年3月5日至5月15日期间因COVID-19住院的1189例患者,主要结局为死亡率、有创机械通气和大出血。排除因已知适应症接受治疗性AC的患者。对基线特征和入院参数进行倾向评分匹配,以尽量减少队列间的偏差。
分析队列包括973例患者。排除44例因确诊血栓栓塞事件和心房颤动接受治疗性AC的患者。经过倾向评分匹配后,133例患者接受经验性治疗性AC,215例接受低剂量预防性AC。总体而言,有创机械通气率(73.7%对65.6%,p = 0.133)或死亡率(60.2%对60.9%,p = 0.885)无差异。然而,在需要有创机械通气的患者中,经验性治疗性AC是较低死亡率的独立预测因素(风险比[HR] 0.476,95%置信区间[CI] 0.345 - 0.657,p < 0.001),中位生存期更长(14天对8天,p < 0.001),但在总体队列中未观察到这些关联(p = 0.063)。此外,在不同D-二聚体水平临界值的各个亚组中,接受经验性治疗性AC与预防性AC的患者死亡率无显著差异。接受治疗性AC的患者大出血发生率更高(13.8%对3.9%,p < 0.001)。此外,HAS-BLED评分≥2的患者死亡风险更高(HR 1.482,95% CI 1.110 - 1.980,p = 0.008),而评分≥3的患者大出血风险更高(优势比:1.883,CI:1.114 - 3.729,p = 0.016)。
经验性使用治疗性AC对需要有创机械通气的患者有生存获益,但对COVID-19住院的非重症患者未显示出获益。在考虑提高AC强度之前,应仔细评估出血风险。