Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a global health threat often accompanied with coagulopathy. Despite use of thromboprophylaxis in this population, thrombotic event rates are high. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study comparing the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis strategies at 2 institutions in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Regimen A utilized a higher-than-standard thromboprophylaxis dosage and Regimen B received full-dose anticoagulation for any D-dimer 3 mcg/mL or greater and prophylactic for less than 3 mcg/mL. The primary outcome compared the rate of thrombotic events between treatment groups. Secondary endpoints compared rates of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding as well as the proportion of patients in each group experiencing thrombotic events within 30 days of discharge. Results: One-hundred fifty-three patients were included in the analysis, 64 receiving Regimen A and 89 receiving Regimen B. Seven (4.6%) thrombotic events occurred, 3 (4.7%) in patients receiving Regimen A, and 4 (4.5%) in Regimen B ( P = 1.0). Twelve patients (13.5%) receiving Regimen B had a bleeding event versus 2 (3.1%) in Regimen A ( P = .04), half of which were major in each group. All patients who bled in either treatment group were receiving mechanical ventilation, and 12 of 14 were receiving full-dose anticoagulation. One patient receiving Regimen A was readmitted with a pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: In this study, the thromboprophylactic regimen impacted bleeding, but no significant difference was seen with thrombotic outcomes. Almost all patients who experienced a bleed were mechanically ventilated and receiving full-dose anticoagulation. The use of full-dose anticoagulation should be cautioned in this population without an additional indication.

:Tirofiban has been used historically as a bridge to platelet inhibition with clopidogrel in ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to prevent stent thrombosis. However, ticagrelor and prasugrel reach similar levels of platelet inhibition at 30 minutes to that of clopidogrel at 6 hours, challenging the need for long-duration tirofiban. This 1-year, retrospective cohort study compared ischemic and bleeding outcomes of short-duration versus long-duration tirofiban regimens in patients with STEMI who received ticagrelor or prasugrel at the time of PCI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, or stroke. Secondary outcomes included individual MACE, all-cause mortality, bleeding events defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, thirty-day readmissions for MACE and bleeding, and tirofiban pharmacy cost. A total of 283 charts were reviewed and 177 included (short duration n = 57; long duration n = 120). MACE rates were similar between short-duration and long-duration groups (0 [0%] vs. 5 [4.2%]; P = 0.18), including 4 cardiovascular deaths and 1 recurrent myocardial infarction. Bleeding event rates were also similar in short-duration versus long-duration groups including major bleeds (2 [3.5%] vs. 2 [1.7%]; P = 0.60) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds (3 [5.3%] vs. 9 [7.5%]; P = 0.75). Cost analysis indicated lower pharmacy cost with the short-duration group. In this cohort of patients with STEMI receiving a fast-acting P2Y12 inhibitor, the length of tirofiban infusion did not affect ischemic or bleeding outcomes, yet short-duration regimens were lower cost.