The rate of venous and arterial thrombotic events among patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SAR-CoV-2) is high. This may be due to a hypercoagulable state induced by the severe inflammation that results from the SAR-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to determine hypercoagulable states' incidence based on thromboelastography study and its association with thrombotic events in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Fifty-two COVID-19 patients who had thromboelastography study were retrospectively included. All patients received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The hypercoagulable state was observed in 16 patients (30.8%). Among them, maximum amplitude and a-angle were elevated in 75% and 25%, respectively. Reaction time and K were low in only 12.5% for both of them. Inflammatory and coagulation markers, as well as thromboprophylaxis regimens, were not associated with a hypercoagulable state. Fourteen patients (27%) experienced a total of 16 thrombotic events, including 8 (57%) deep venous thrombosis, 6 (43%) pulmonary embolism, and 2 (14.3%) arterial thrombosis. The hypercoagulable state was not significantly associated with thrombotic events. In summary, we observed a lower rate of hypercoagulable state on thromboelastography study in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Also, the hypercoagulable state was not associated with the occurrence of thrombotic events.

Summary The reported incidence rate of venous and arterial thrombotic events in critically ill patients with COVID‐19 infections is high, ranging from 20% to 60%. We adopted a patient‐tailored thromboprophylaxis protocol based on clinical and laboratory presentations for these patients in our institution. We hypothesised that patients who received high‐intensity thromboprophylaxis treatment would experience fewer thrombotic events. The aims of our study were to explore the incidence of thrombotic events in this population; to assess independent factors associated with thrombotic events and to evaluate the incidence of haemorrhagic events. A retrospective review of all adult patients with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 1 March and 29 May 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events diagnosed during the ICU stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the independent factors associated with thrombotic events. A total of 188 patients met the inclusion criteria. All received some type of thromboprophylaxis treatment except for six patients who did not receive any prophylaxis. Of the 182 patients who received thromboprophylaxis, 75 (40%) received high‐intensity thromboprophylaxis and 24 (12.8%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Twenty‐one patients (11.2%) experienced 23 thrombotic events (incidence rate of 12.2% (95%CI 7.9–17.8)), including 12 deep venous thromboses, 9 pulmonary emboli and 2 peripheral arterial thromboses. The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that only D‐dimer (OR 2.80, p = 0.002) and high‐intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen (OR 0.20, p = 0.01) were independently associated with thrombotic events. Thirty‐one patients (16.5%) experienced haemorrhagic events; among them, 13 were classified as major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Therapeutic anticoagulation, but not the high‐intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen, was associated with major bleeding. A proactive approach to the management of thromboembolism in critically ill COVID‐19 patients utilising a high‐intensity thromboprophylaxis regimen in appropriately selected patients may result in lower thrombotic events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) patients derive a dose‐dependent clinical benefit from medications that are part of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT). The widespread underdosing of these medications and the clinical implications of the lack of titration have been well documented. There is paucity of data on design and outcomes of pharmacist‐led HF clinics.AimThe aim of this study is to describe the establishment of the first pharmacist‐led HF pharmacotherapy clinic (HFPC) in the Middle East gulf region.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of patients seen by the HF pharmacotherapy clinic. We determined the percentage of patients on target doses of GDMT at baseline and at the end of follow‐up in the subgroup of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). All baseline self‐care behaviors and interventions performed were examined.ResultsThe first 100 patient referrals and 193 visits were included in this analysis for an average of 1.9 ± 1.4 visits per patient and a mean follow‐up period of 51 ± 36.1 days. Most patients (94%) had HFrEF and were referred to from the outpatient clinics (72%). Many patients (76%) had at least one inadequacy in medication adherence or self‐care behaviors at baseline, and none were on simultaneous target doses of all GDMTs. At the end of follow‐up, more patients with HFrEF were on target doses when compared with baseline (beta‐blockers 31.9% vs 40.4%, P = .032, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker/angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor 7.4% vs 25.5%, P < .001, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist 37.2% vs 39.4% P = .46, all three target GDMTs 0% vs 6.4%, P = .093). Significantly, more patients were on any dose of all three GDMTs.ConclusionsPharmacist‐led HF medication optimization clinic establishment can contribute to longitudinal medication titration, successful transition of care, and correcting noncompliance and indiscretions. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to fill gaps and help evolve the current HF care model.