Abstract:Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with high rates of thromboembolic events in hospitalized patients. It remains to be determined if this risk persists following hospital discharge.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of outpatients recently hospitalized for COVID‐19 to determine the incidence of vascular thromboembolic events within 30 days of discharge. We investigated the risk factors associated with these events, including intensive care admission, age, and anticoagu… Show more
“…Of the 120 publications (Table 2 ), 67 (55.9%) presented original data as follows: 43 (35.9%) were original articles/papers [ 20 – 62 ]. Fifteen (12.5%) publications were short articles with original data, as follows: 7 brief communications/reports [ 63 – 69 ] (5 cohort and 1 cross-sectional studies, and 1 case series), 1 commentary [ 70 ] (cross-sectional study), 6 letters to editors [ 71 – 76 ] (4 cross-sectional and 1 cohort studies, and 1 case series), and 1 short communication [ 77 ]. Fifty-four (45%) articles did not present original data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fifty-nine (49.2%) articles presented signs and symptoms of Long COVID. Twenty-three (19.2%) articles reported on the generalized signs/symptoms (21 adults, 2 pediatrics), and the remaining 36 (30%) articles focused on specific organs/systems (9 focused on thromboembolism [ 29 , 30 , 36 , 50 , 66 , 69 , 114 , 117 , 118 ], 8 respiratory [ 23 , 27 , 37 , 41 , 44 , 67 , 75 , 127 ], 4 neurology [ 46 , 61 , 102 , 116 ], 2 musculoskeletal [ 53 , 72 ], 5 cardiovascular [ 39 , 49 , 54 , 112 , 120 ], 3 mental health [ 21 , 58 , 108 ], 2 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome [MIS] [ 43 , 113 ] (one about pediatrics MIS [ 43 ] and one on adults MIS [ 113 ]), 1 skin manifestations [ 70 ], 2 were exclusively about post-acute infectious fatigue [ 33 , 122 ]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, a multi-center study showed that the incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who were followed for 45 days after hospitalization was “relatively low”[ 29 ]. Moreover, Eswaran et al, reported that among 447 patients who were followed after discharge from the hospital, only 2% developed vascular thromboembolism 30 days after discharge; and they concluded against the routine post-discharge thromboprophylaxis [ 69 ]. In light of these controversies, there is an urgent need for more extensive randomized clinical trials.…”
Purpose
To find out what is known from literature about Long COVID until January 30, 2021.
Methods
We undertook a four-step search with no language restriction. A preliminary search was made to identify the keywords. A search strategy of all electronic databases resulted in 66 eligible studies. A forward and backward search of the references and citations resulted in additional 54 publications. Non-English language articles were translated using Google Translate. We conducted our scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist.
Results
Of 120 papers, we found only one randomized clinical trial. Of the 67 original studies, 22 were cohort, and 28 were cross-sectional studies. Of the total 120 publications, 49.1% focused on signs and symptoms, 23.3% on management, and 10.8% on pathophysiology. Ten publications focused on imaging studies. The results are also presented extensively in a narrative synthesis in separated sections (nomenclature, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk factors, signs/symptoms, management).
Conclusions
The controversies in its definition have impaired proper recognition and management. The predominant symptoms were: fatigue, breathlessness, arthralgia, sleep difficulties, and chest pain. Recent reports also point to the risk of long-term sequela with cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, mental health, neurologic, and renal involvement in those who survive the acute phase of the illness.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01666-x.
“…Of the 120 publications (Table 2 ), 67 (55.9%) presented original data as follows: 43 (35.9%) were original articles/papers [ 20 – 62 ]. Fifteen (12.5%) publications were short articles with original data, as follows: 7 brief communications/reports [ 63 – 69 ] (5 cohort and 1 cross-sectional studies, and 1 case series), 1 commentary [ 70 ] (cross-sectional study), 6 letters to editors [ 71 – 76 ] (4 cross-sectional and 1 cohort studies, and 1 case series), and 1 short communication [ 77 ]. Fifty-four (45%) articles did not present original data.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fifty-nine (49.2%) articles presented signs and symptoms of Long COVID. Twenty-three (19.2%) articles reported on the generalized signs/symptoms (21 adults, 2 pediatrics), and the remaining 36 (30%) articles focused on specific organs/systems (9 focused on thromboembolism [ 29 , 30 , 36 , 50 , 66 , 69 , 114 , 117 , 118 ], 8 respiratory [ 23 , 27 , 37 , 41 , 44 , 67 , 75 , 127 ], 4 neurology [ 46 , 61 , 102 , 116 ], 2 musculoskeletal [ 53 , 72 ], 5 cardiovascular [ 39 , 49 , 54 , 112 , 120 ], 3 mental health [ 21 , 58 , 108 ], 2 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome [MIS] [ 43 , 113 ] (one about pediatrics MIS [ 43 ] and one on adults MIS [ 113 ]), 1 skin manifestations [ 70 ], 2 were exclusively about post-acute infectious fatigue [ 33 , 122 ]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, a multi-center study showed that the incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients who were followed for 45 days after hospitalization was “relatively low”[ 29 ]. Moreover, Eswaran et al, reported that among 447 patients who were followed after discharge from the hospital, only 2% developed vascular thromboembolism 30 days after discharge; and they concluded against the routine post-discharge thromboprophylaxis [ 69 ]. In light of these controversies, there is an urgent need for more extensive randomized clinical trials.…”
Purpose
To find out what is known from literature about Long COVID until January 30, 2021.
Methods
We undertook a four-step search with no language restriction. A preliminary search was made to identify the keywords. A search strategy of all electronic databases resulted in 66 eligible studies. A forward and backward search of the references and citations resulted in additional 54 publications. Non-English language articles were translated using Google Translate. We conducted our scoping review based on the PRISMA-ScR Checklist.
Results
Of 120 papers, we found only one randomized clinical trial. Of the 67 original studies, 22 were cohort, and 28 were cross-sectional studies. Of the total 120 publications, 49.1% focused on signs and symptoms, 23.3% on management, and 10.8% on pathophysiology. Ten publications focused on imaging studies. The results are also presented extensively in a narrative synthesis in separated sections (nomenclature, diagnosis, pathophysiology, risk factors, signs/symptoms, management).
Conclusions
The controversies in its definition have impaired proper recognition and management. The predominant symptoms were: fatigue, breathlessness, arthralgia, sleep difficulties, and chest pain. Recent reports also point to the risk of long-term sequela with cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, mental health, neurologic, and renal involvement in those who survive the acute phase of the illness.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01666-x.
“…The American College of Chest Physicians has previously defined a threshold symptomatic thrombotic risk of 1.0% in control groups to define an “at‐VTE” or “moderate‐VTE” risk hospitalized medically ill population that would benefit from pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. 2 Although it should be acknowledged that the rate of symptomatic pulmonary emboli in the study by Eswaran et al 1 was ≈0.7%, nearly half of the population had received postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. In addition, applying the criteria used by the authors to define a 2.0% symptomatic thrombotic incidence as “low risk,” no hospitalized medically ill patient—including those with pneumonia and sepsis—would in theory benefit from in‐hospital pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, as the incidence of symptomatic VTE seen in control groups in the early pivotal trials of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients was ≈1.5%.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…We read with interest the retrospective cohort study by Eswaran et al 1 that found a 2.0% incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events in a cohort of 447 hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) within 30 days of discharge. These events encompassed both arterial and venous thromboembolic events (ATEs and VTEs), including four non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarctions, three pulmonary emboli, one ischemic stroke, and one splenic infarct.…”
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
Key Points
Question
Which patients with COVID-19 may benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis following hospital discharge?
Findings
In this cohort study of 2832 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, postdischarge venous thromboembolic events occurred more often in those with a history of venous thromboembolism, peak dimerized plasmin fragment D (D-dimer) level greater than 3 μg/mL, and predischarge C-reactive protein level greater than 10 mg/dL. Patients who received postdischarge anticoagulation therapy had fewer events.
Meaning
These findings suggest that postdischarge anticoagulation therapy may be considered for high-risk patients with COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.