Recent studies suggest that thrombotic complications are a common phenomenon in the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection. The main objective of our study is to assess cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in non critically ill COVID-19 patients and to identify its predicting factors associated to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. We retrospectevely reviewed 452 electronic medical records of patients admitted to Internal Medicine Department of a secondary hospital in Madrid during Covid 19 pandemic outbreak. We included 91 patients who underwent a multidetector Computed Tomography pulmonary angiography(CTPA) during conventional hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of PE was assessed ant the clinical, analytical and radiological characteristics were compared between patients with and without PE. PE incidence was 6.4% (29/452 patients). Most patients with a confirmed diagnosed with PE recieved low molecular weight heparin (LMWH): 79.3% (23/29). D-dimer peak was significatly elevated in PE vs non PE patients (14,480 vs 7230 mcg/dL, p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis of patients who underwent a CTPA we found that plasma D-dimer peak was an independen predictor of PE with a best cut off point of > 5000 µg/dl (OR 3.77; IC95% (1.18-12.16), p = 0.03). We found ninefold increased risk of PE patients not suffering from dyslipidemia (OR 9.06; IC95% (1.88-43.60). Predictive value of AUC for ROC is 75.5%. We found a high incidence of PE in non critically ill hospitalized COVID 19 patients despite standard thromboprophylaxis. An increase in D-dimer levels is an independent predictor for PE, with a best cutoff point of > 5000 µg/ dl.

Background: Incidence of thrombotic events associated to Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is difficult to assess and reported rates differ significantly. Optimal thromboprophylaxis is unclear.Objectives: We aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with a confirmed thrombotic complication including inflammatory and hemostatic parameters, compare patients affected by arterial vs venous events and examine differences between survivors and non-survivors. We reviewed compliance with thromboprophylaxis and explored how the implementation of a severity-adjusted protocol could have influenced outcome. Methods: Single-cohort retrospective study of COVID-19 patients admitted, from March 3 to May 3 2020, to the Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid, epicenter of the Spanish outbreak. Results: Among 1127 patients, 80 thrombotic events were diagnosed in 69 patients (6.1% of the entire cohort). Forty-three patients (62%) suffered venous thromboembolism, 18 (26%) arterial episodes and 6 (9%) concurrent venous and arterial thrombosis. Most patients (90%) with a confirmed thrombotic complication where under low-molecular-weight heparin treatment. Overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was rare. Initial ISTH DIC score and pre-event CRP were significantly higher among non-survivors. In multivariate analysis, arterial localization was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 18, 95% CI: 2.4-142, p < .05). Conclusions: Despite quasi-universal thromboprophylaxis, COVID-19 lead to a myriad of arterial and venous thrombotic events. Considering the subgroup of patients with thrombotic episodes, arterial events appeared earlier in the course of disease and conferred very poor prognosis, and an ISTH DIC score ≥ 3 at presentation was identified as a potential predictor of mortality. Severity-adjusted thromboprophylaxis seemed to decrease the number of events and could have influenced mortality. Randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited.

The value of serial lung ultrasound (LUS) in patients with COVID-19 is not well defined. In this multicenter prospective observational study, we aimed to assess the prognostic accuracy of serial LUS in patients admitted to hospital due to COVID-19. The serial LUS protocol included two examinations (0–48 h and 72–96 h after admission) using a 10-zones sequence, and a 0 to 5 severity score. Primary combined endpoint was death or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow test and calibration curves), and discrimination power (area under the ROC curve) of both ultrasound exams (SCORE1 and 2), and their difference (DIFFERENTIAL-SCORE) were performed. A total of 469 patients (54.2% women, median age 60 years) were included. The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (10.9%). Probability risk tertiles of SCORE1 and SCORE2 (0–11 points, 12–24 points, and ≥25 points) obtained a high calibration. SCORE-2 showed a higher discrimination power than SCORE-1 (AUC 0.72 (0.58–0.85) vs. 0.61 (0.52–0.7)). The DIFFERENTIAL-SCORE showed a higher discrimination power than SCORE-1 and SCORE-2 (AUC 0.78 (0.66–0.9)). An algorithm for clinical decision-making is proposed. Serial lung ultrasound performing two examinations during the first days of hospitalization is an accurate strategy for predicting clinical deterioration of patients with COVID-19.

No abstract