1.
Venous and Arterial Thrombosis in Ambulatory and Discharged COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Mansory EM, Abu-Farhaneh M, Iansavitchene A, Lazo-Langner A
TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis. 2022;6(3):e276-e282
Abstract
Introduction Venous and arterial thromboses are frequently observed complications in patients with severe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who require hospital admission. In this study, we evaluate the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge patients with COVID-19 infection. Materials and Method EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched up to July 21, 2021, in addition to other sources. We included studies that assessed the epidemiology of venous and arterial thrombosis events in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients. Results A total of 16 studies (102,779 patients) were identified. The overall proportion of venous thromboembolic events in all patients, that is, ambulatory and postdischarge, was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28), 0.28% (95% CI: 0.07-0.64), and 1.16% (95% CI: 0.69-1.74), respectively. Arterial events occurred in 0.75% (95% CI: 0.27-1.47) of all patients, 1.45% (95% CI: 1.10-1.86) of postdischarge patients, and 0.23% (95% CI: 0.019-0.66) of ambulatory patients. The pooled incidence rate estimates per 1,000 patient-days for VTE events were 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) and 0.12 (95% CI: 0.07-0.19) for outpatients and postdischarge, respectively, whereas for arterial events were 0.10 (95% CI: 0-0.30) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.16-0.37). Conclusion This study found a low risk of venous and arterial thrombi in ambulatory and postdischarge COVID-19 patients, with a higher risk in postdischarge patients compared with ambulatory patients. This suggests that regular universal thromboprophylaxis in these patient populations is probably not necessary.
2.
Thrombosis risk associated with COVID-19 infection. A scoping review
Al-Ani F, Chehade S, Lazo-Langner A
Thrombosis research. 2020;192:152-160
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infection by the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been reportedly associated with a high risk of thrombotic complications. So far information is scarce and rapidly emerging. METHODS We conducted a scoping review using a single engine search for studies assessing thrombosis and coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies were identified by secondary review and alert services. RESULTS Studies reported the occurrence of venous thromboembolism and stroke in approximately 20% and 3% of patients, respectively. A higher frequency seems to be present in severely ill patients, in particular those admitted to intensive care units. The thrombotic risk is elevated despite the use of anticoagulant prophylaxis but optimal doses of anticoagulation are not yet defined. Although an increase of biomarkers such as D-dimer has been consistently reported in severely ill COVID-19, the optimal cut-off level and prognostic value are not known. DISCUSSION A number of pressing issues were identified by this review, including defining the true incidence of VTE in COVID patients, developing algorithms to identify those susceptible to develop thrombotic complications and severe disease, determining the role of biomarkers and/or scoring systems to stratify patients' risk, designing adequate and feasible diagnostic protocols for PE, establishing the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy, and developing uniform diagnostic and reporting criteria.
3.
Randomized double-blind safety comparison of intravenous iron dextran versus iron sucrose in an adult non-hemodialysis outpatient population: A feasibility study
Louzada ML, Hsia CC, Al-Ani F, Ralley F, Xenocostas A, Martin J, Connelly SE, Chin-Yee IH, Minuk L, Lazo-Langner A
Bmc Hematology. 2016;16:7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intravenous iron therapy is a treatment option for iron deficient patients who are intolerant to oral iron or where oral iron is ineffective, but with possible adverse effects. Currently, prospective studies comparing different intravenous iron formulations are needed to determine safety and efficacy of these agents. METHODS We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing the safety of high molecular weight intravenous iron dextran, Infufer(R), with intravenous iron sucrose, Venofer(R), in non-hemodialysis adult outpatients. Primary outcome was the occurrence of immediate severe drug reactions. RESULTS We enrolled 143 patients in a one-year period. Overall, 45/143 (31.5 %) patients (20 iron dextran, 25 iron sucrose) developed 48 infusion reactions (14 immediate, 28 delayed, and 3 both). The risk of an immediate reaction was similar in both groups, 9/73 (12.3 %) iron dextran versus 8/70 (11.4 %) iron sucrose, RR = 0.93 (95 % CI; 0.38 to 2.27). The risk of a delayed reaction was significantly higher in the iron sucrose group 22/70 (31.4 %) versus the iron dextran group 9/73 (12.3 %), RR = 2.55 (95 % CI; 1.26 to 5.15; p = 0.0078). CONCLUSION In this limited feasibility study, no major differences in immediate reactions were seen, but a significantly higher number of delayed reactions were seen in the iron sucrose group. Further, under our assumptions and design a full RCT to evaluate the safety of different intravenous iron preparations is not feasible. Future studies should consider modifying the clinical outcomes, utilize multiple centers, and consider other emerging parenteral iron formulations. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT005936197 January 3, 2008).