Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, limited data exist on patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. To describe the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and short-term outcomes of patients diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for COVID-19. This is a prospective multinational study of patients with incident VTE during the course of hospitalization for COVID-19. Data were obtained from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry. All-cause mortality, VTE recurrences, and major bleeding during the first 10 days were separately investigated for patients in hospital wards versus those in intensive care units (ICUs). As of May 03, 2020, a total number of 455 patients were diagnosed with VTE (83% pulmonary embolism, 17% isolated deep vein thrombosis) during their hospital stay; 71% were male, the median age was 65 (interquartile range, 55–74) years. Most patients (68%) were hospitalized in medical wards, and 145 in ICUs. Three hundred and seventeen (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 84–91%) patients were receiving thromboprophylaxis at the time of VTE diagnosis. Most patients (88%) received therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin, and 15 (3.6%) received reperfusion therapies. Among 420 patients with complete 10-day follow-up, 51 (12%; 95% CI: 9.3–15%) died, no patient recurred, and 12 (2.9%; 95% CI: 1.6–4.8%) experienced major bleeding. The 10-day mortality rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 6.1–13%) among patients in hospital wards and 19% (95% CI: 13–26%) among those in ICUs. This study provides characteristics and early outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute VTE during hospitalization for COVID-19. Additional studies are needed to identify the optimal strategies to prevent VTE and to mitigate adverse outcomes associated.

Patients with cirrhosis are not only at an increased risk of bleeding but also at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We sought to determine the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes after VTE in patients with cirrhosis. We used the data from RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica), an international registry of patients with VTE, to compare the outcomes in patients with and without cirrhosis. Main outcomes included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality, recurrent VTE, and bleeding. Among 43,611 patients with acute VTE, 187 (0.4%) had cirrhosis. Of these, 184 (98.4%) received anticoagulation for a median of 109 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 43–201 days), most commonly with enoxaparin (median dose: 1.77 [IQR: 1.38–2.00] mg/kg/day). Compared with patients without cirrhosis, those with cirrhosis had a higher rate of all-cause mortality (10.7 vs. 3.4%; odds ratio [OR]: 3.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03–5.46) and fatal bleeding (2.1 vs. 0.2%; OR: 13.94; 95% CI: 3.65–37.90) but similar rates of fatal PE (0.5 vs. 0.5%; OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.03–6.70). Patients with cirrhosis had a higher rate of all-cause mortality per 100 patient-years of follow-up (58.9 vs. 16.0; hazard ratio [HR]: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.69–4.91). One-year hazard ratio of clinically relevant bleeding (HR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.91–4.27), fatal bleeding (HR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.5–20.7), or recurrent VTE (HR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.00–4.36) was higher in patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis is a challenging comorbidity in patients with VTE. Most patients were treated with anticoagulation and had an elevated risk of recurrence, similar risk of fatal PE, and a very high risk of bleeding including fatal bleeds.

No abstract

Background There is scarce information regarding the prevalence and clinical impact of saddle pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with cancer. Objectives To assess the prevalence, clinical findings, and short-term outcomes of patients with cancer-related saddle PE including acute symptomatic and unsuspected events. Patients/Methods Consecutive patients with cancer-related PE (2006 – 2014) were retrospectively reviewed by a chest radiologist to assess PE burden and signs of right ventricular (RV) overload. The clinical outcomes within 30 days were evaluated according to saddle vs. non-saddle PE. Results Thirty-six (12%) out of 289 patients with newly diagnosed cancer-related PE presented with saddle PE. Saddle PE was found in 21 cases (58%) with acute symptomatic PE and the remaining 15 cases (42%) were found as unsuspected findings. Patients with saddle PE had more frequently experienced a previous thrombotic event (31% vs. 13%; p=0.008) and it occurred more frequently as an acute symptomatic event (58% vs. 39%; p=0.025) compared to those with non-saddle PE. Signs of RV overload including RV/left ventricle ratio > 1 (22% vs. 4%; p<0.001) and interventricular septum displacement (53% vs. 20%; p<0.001) were also more common in patients with saddle PE compared to non-saddle PE. Overall, PE-related mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding within 30 days were found to be similar according to saddle vs. non-saddle PE. Conclusions Saddle PE is not uncommon in patients with cancer-related PE including in those with unsuspected PE. Similar 30-day outcomes were found according to saddle vs. non-saddle PE in our cohort.

PURPOSE Patients with isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have lower rates of adverse outcomes (death, venous thromboembolism [VTE] recurrence or major bleeding) than those with proximal DVT. It is uncertain if such findings are also observed in patients with cancer. METHODS Using data from the international Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica venosa registry, we compared the risks of adverse outcomes at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]; 95% CI) and 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR; 95% CI]) in 886 patients with cancer-associated distal DVT versus 5,196 patients with cancer-associated proximal DVT and 5,974 patients with non–cancer-associated distal DVT. RESULTS More than 90% of patients in each group were treated with anticoagulants for at least 90 days. At 90 days, the adjusted risks of death, VTE recurrence, or major bleeding were lower in patients with non–cancer-associated distal DVT than in patients with cancer-associated distal DVT (reference): aOR = 0.16 (0.11-0.22), aOR = 0.34 (0.22-0.54), and aOR = 0.47 (0.27-0.80), respectively. The results were similar at 1-year follow-up: aHR = 0.12 (0.09-0.15), aHR = 0.39 (0.28-0.55), and aHR = 0.51 (0.32-0.82), respectively. Risks of death, VTE recurrence, and major bleeding were not statistically different between patients with cancer-associated proximal versus distal DVT, both at 90 days: aOR = 1.11 (0.91-1.36), aOR = 1.10 (0.76-1.62), and aOR = 1.18 (0.76-1.83), respectively, and 1 year: aHR = 1.01 (0.89-1.15), aHR = 1.02 (0.76-1.35), and aHR = 1.10 (0.76-1.61), respectively. However, more patients with cancer-associated proximal DVT, compared with cancer-associated distal DVT, developed fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) during follow-up: The risk difference was 0.40% (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.58). CONCLUSION Cancer-associated distal DVT has serious and relatively comparable outcomes compared with cancer-associated proximal DVT. The lower risk of fatal PE from cancer-associated distal DVT needs further investigation.