Introduction Emerging evidence points to an association between severe clinical presentation of COVID-19 and increased risk of thromboembolism. One-third of patients hospitalized due to severe COVID-19 develops macrovascular thrombotic complications, including venous thromboembolism, myocardial injury/infarction and stroke. Concurrently, the autopsy series indicate multiorgan damage pattern consistent with microvascular injury. Prophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment COVID-19 associated coagulopathy has distinct features, including markedly elevated D-dimers concentration with nearly normal activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time and platelet count. The diagnosis may be challenging due to overlapping features between pulmonary embolism and severe COVID-19 disease, such as dyspnoea, high concentration of D-dimers, right ventricle with dysfunction or enlargement, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Both macro- and microvascular complications are associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Therefore, early recognition of coagulation abnormalities among hospitalized COVID-19 patients are critical measures to identify patients with poor prognosis, guide antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, and improve patients’ clinical outcomes. Recommendations for clinicians Most of the guidelines and consensus documents published on behalf of professional societies focused on thrombosis and hemostasis advocate the use of anticoagulants in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as 2-6 weeks post hospital discharge in the absence of contraindications. However, since there is no guidance for deciding the intensity and duration of anticoagulation, the decision-making process should be made in individual-case basis. Conclusions Here, we review the mechanistic relationships between inflammation and thrombosis, discuss the macrovascular and microvascular complications and summarize the prophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment of thromboembolism in patients affected by COVID-19.

Abstract Background International guidelines have endorsed the use of edoxaban or rivaroxaban as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial of apixaban versus dalteparin in patients with cancer was completed. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated VTE. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were systematically searched up to March 30, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs versus LMWH for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. The two coprimary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 6 months. Data were pooled by the Mantel–Haenszel method and compared by relative risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Four randomized controlled studies (2,894 patients) comparing apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban with dalteparin were included in the meta-analysis. Recurrent VTE occurred in 75 of 1,446 patients (5.2%) treated with oral factor Xa inhibitors and in 119 of 1,448 patients (8.2%) treated with LMWH (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.91; I 2, 30%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 (4.3%) and 48 (3.3%) patients receiving oral factor Xa inhibitors or LMWH, respectively (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.83–2.08; I 2, 23%). Conclusion In patients with cancer-associated VTE, oral factor Xa inhibitors reduced the risk of recurrent VTE without a significantly higher likelihood of major bleeding at 6 months compared with LMWH.

Background and Purpose— Despite treatment with oral anticoagulants, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience ischemic cerebrovascular events. The aims of this case-control study in patients with AF were to identify the pathogenesis of and the risk factors for cerebrovascular ischemic events occurring during non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) therapy for stroke prevention. Methods— Cases were consecutive patients with AF who had acute cerebrovascular ischemic events during NOAC treatment. Controls were consecutive patients with AF who did not have cerebrovascular events during NOACs treatment. Results— Overall, 713 cases (641 ischemic strokes and 72 transient ischemic attacks; median age, 80.0 years; interquartile range, 12; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale on admission, 6.0; interquartile range, 10) and 700 controls (median age, 72.0 years; interquartile range, 8) were included in the study. Recurrent stroke was classified as cardioembolic in 455 cases (63.9%) according to the A-S-C-O-D (A, atherosclerosis; S, small vessel disease; C, cardiac pathology; O, other causes; D, dissection) classification. On multivariable analysis, off-label low dose of NOACs (odds ratio [OR], 3.18; 95% CI, 1.95–5.85), atrial enlargement (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, 4.63–9.52), hyperlipidemia (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.83–3.16), and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (OR, 1.72 for each point increase; 95% CI, 1.58–1.88) were associated with ischemic events. Among the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc components, age was older and presence of diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and history of stroke or transient ischemic attack more common in patients who had acute cerebrovascular ischemic events. Paroxysmal AF was inversely associated with ischemic events (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33–0.61). Conclusions— In patients with AF treated with NOACs who had a cerebrovascular event, mostly but not exclusively of cardioembolic pathogenesis, off-label low dose, atrial enlargement, hyperlipidemia, and high CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score were associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events.

No abstract

Background The optimal management of patients with isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT), concerning both the need for anticoagulation and its duration, is undefined. Objectives We performed a meta-analysis of randomized and cohort studies in patients with IDDVT to assess the clinical benefit of: (i) anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation; and (ii) anticoagulant treatment for 6 weeks versus for > 6 weeks. Methods The primary outcome of this analysis was recurrent venous thromboembolism (proximal propagation, recurrence of deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism). Data were pooled and compared by the use of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A reduction in the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism was observed in patients who received anticoagulation relative to those who did not receive anticoagulation (either therapeutic or prophylactic) (20 studies, 2936 patients; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79), without an increase in the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15-2.73). The rate of pulmonary embolism was lower in anticoagulant-treated patients than in controls (15 studies, 1997 patients; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.91). A lower rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism was observed in patients who received > 6 weeks of anticoagulant therapy than in those who received 6 weeks of anticoagulant therapy (four studies, 1136 patients; OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.90). Conclusions In patients with IDDVT, anticoagulation (both therapeutic and prophylactic) reduces the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism and the incidence of pulmonary embolism as compared with no anticoagulation, without an increased risk of major bleeding. Anticoagulation for > 6 weeks should be preferred over shorter durations.