2021
DOI: 10.1177/20480040211034998
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pulmonary embolism after discharge for COVID-19: A report of two cases

Abstract: Previous studies have found critically ill patients with COVID-19 to have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. In this case report of two patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19, both patients developed pulmonary embolism within a few days after hospital discharge. Both patients received thromboprophylaxis and had an increasing fibrin D-dimer during their hospital stay. Continued thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge may be indicated for patients with COVID-19, especially for patients a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…15 Adjustments to the primary and secondary analyses were performed to further investigate the impact of various potential sources of confounding: (i) a seasonality adjustment to account for potential time-varying confounding due to seasonal changes in incidence rates, (ii) an analysis using the PPV from MRR to conduct QBA to assess robustness of results to event misclassification, and (iii) an analysis excluding individuals with prior COVID-19 infection to account for the hypothesized association between the infection and AEs. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Additionally, there were analyses unique to each evaluation. The primary series study included (i) an exploratory analysis using only the pre-vaccination control interval to assess robustness to temporal variations in baseline risk, and (ii) adjusted analyses varying the definition of events, including care settings as well as risk and control intervals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15 Adjustments to the primary and secondary analyses were performed to further investigate the impact of various potential sources of confounding: (i) a seasonality adjustment to account for potential time-varying confounding due to seasonal changes in incidence rates, (ii) an analysis using the PPV from MRR to conduct QBA to assess robustness of results to event misclassification, and (iii) an analysis excluding individuals with prior COVID-19 infection to account for the hypothesized association between the infection and AEs. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Additionally, there were analyses unique to each evaluation. The primary series study included (i) an exploratory analysis using only the pre-vaccination control interval to assess robustness to temporal variations in baseline risk, and (ii) adjusted analyses varying the definition of events, including care settings as well as risk and control intervals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%