Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of COVID-19, so that the importance of adequate in-hospital thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is well established. However, the incidence of VTE after discharge and whether postdischarge thromboprophylaxis is beneficial and safe are unclear. In this prospective observational single-center study, we report the incidence of VTE 6 weeks after hospitalization and the use of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Methods Patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 were invited to a multidisciplinary follow-up clinic 6 weeks after discharge. D-dimer and C-reactive protein were measured, and all patients were screened for deep vein thrombosis with venous duplex-ultrasound. Additionally, selected high-risk patients received computed tomography pulmonary angiogram or ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) scan to screen for incidental pulmonary embolism. Results Of 485 consecutive patients hospitalized from March through June 2020, 146 patients were analyzed, of which 39% had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 28% of patients, but was used more frequently after ICU stay (61%) and in patients with higher maximal D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels during hospitalization. Six weeks after discharge, elevated D-dimer values were present in 32% of ward and 42% of ICU patients. Only one asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (0.7%) and one symptomatic pulmonary embolism (0.7%) were diagnosed with systematic screening. No bleedings were reported. Conclusion In patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, systematic screening for VTE 6 weeks after discharge revealed a low incidence of VTE. A strategy of selectively providing postdischarge thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients seems safe and potentially effective.

BackgroundSeveral randomised clinical trials have studied convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using different protocols, with different severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralising antibody titres, at different time-points and severities of illness.MethodsIn the prospective multicentre DAWn-plasma trial, adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were randomised to 4 units of open-label convalescent plasma combined with standard of care (intervention group) or standard of care alone (control group). Plasma from donors with neutralising antibody titres (50% neutralisation titre (NT50)) ≥1/320 was the product of choice for the study.ResultsBetween 2 May 2020 and 26 January 2021, 320 patients were randomised to convalescent plasma and 163 patients to the control group according to a 2:1 allocation scheme. A median (interquartile range) volume of 884 (806–906) mL) convalescent plasma was administered and 80.68% of the units came from donors with neutralising antibody titres (NT50) ≥1/320. Median time from onset of symptoms to randomisation was 7 days. The proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation on day 15 was not different between both groups (convalescent plasma 83.74% (n=267) versus control 84.05% (n=137)) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59–1.66; p=0.9772). The intervention did not change the natural course of antibody titres. The number of serious or severe adverse events was similar in both study arms and transfusion-related side-effects were reported in 19 out of 320 patients in the intervention group (5.94%).ConclusionsTransfusion of 4 units of convalescent plasma with high neutralising antibody titres early in hospitalised COVID-19 patients did not result in a significant improvement of clinical status or reduced mortality.

No abstract

Objectives We review the evidence for tranexamic acid (TXA) for the treatment and prevention of bleeding caused by surgery, trauma and bleeding disorders. We highlight therapeutic areas where evidence is lacking and discuss safety issues, particularly the concern regarding thrombotic complications. Methods An electronic search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify clinical trials, safety reports and review articles. Findings TXA reduces bleeding in patients with menorrhagia, and in patients undergoing caesarian section, myomectomy, hysterectomy, orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery, orthognathic surgery, rhinoplasty, and prostate surgery. For dental extractions in patients with bleeding disorders or taking antithrombotic drugs, as well as in cases of idiopathic epistaxis, tonsillectomy, liver transplantation and resection, nephrolithotomy, skin cancer surgery, burn wounds and skin grafting, there is moderate evidence that TXA is effective for reducing bleeding. TXA was not effective in reducing bleeding in traumatic brain injury and upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding. TXA reduces mortality in patients suffering from trauma and postpartum hemorrhage. For many of these indications, there is no consensus about the optimal TXA dose. With certain dosages and with certain indications TXA can cause harm, such as an increased risk of seizures after high TXA doses with brain injury and cardiac surgery, and an increased mortality after delayed administration of TXA for trauma events or postpartum hemorrhage. Whereas most trials did not signal an increased risk for thrombotic events, some trials reported an increased rate of thrombotic complications with the use of TXA for gastro-intestinal bleeding and trauma. Conclusions TXA has well-documented beneficial effects in many clinical indications. Identifying these indications and the optimal dose and timing to minimize risk of seizures or thromboembolic events is work in progress.

No abstract