Background: Preliminary evidence indicates that prophylactic-dose thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate to control the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-dimer measurement is useful for VTE risk stratification among COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to offer benchmark data on the incidence of VTE and to examine the difference in D-dimer levels among anticoagulated COVID-19 patients with and without VTE incident. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of PubMed from inception to May 2020 was performed for original studies that reported the frequency of VTE and death among COVID-19 patients who received thromboprophylaxis on hospitalization. The endpoints included VTE (a composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT)), PE, DVT, and mortality. Results: A total of 11 cohort studies were included. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 23.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.2% to 33.7%; I2 = 93%) developed VTE despite anticoagulation. PE and DVT were detected in 11.6% (95% CI, 7.5% to 17.5%; I2 = 92%) and 11.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 21.3%; I2 = 93%) of patients, respectively. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had a higher risk for VTE (30.4% )95% CI, 19.6% to 43.9%)) than those in the ward (13.0% (95% CI, 5.9% to 26.3%)). The mortality was estimated at 21.3% (95% CI, 17.0% to 26.4%; I2 = 53%). COVID-19 patients who developed VTE had higher D-dimer levels than those who did not develop VTE (mean difference, 2.05 µg/mL; 95% CI, 0.30 to 3.80 µg/mL; P = 0.02). Conclusions: The heightened and heterogeneous risk of VTE in COVID-19 despite prophylactic anticoagulation calls into research on the pathogenesis of thromboembolic complications and strategy of thromboprophylaxis and risk stratification. Prominent elevation of D-dimer may be associated with VTE development and can be used to identify high-risk subsets.

No abstract

Background The optimal treatment approach for spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) remains unclear. Objectives The study aims to compare in-hospital and long-term clinical outcomes of SCAD patients initially managed with medical therapy (conservative approach) versus percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting (revascularization approach) based on published data. Methods We identified relevant studies by performing a systematic search in the Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies with N at least 10 that report in-hospital outcomes [death, myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularization] or long-term outcomes (death, MI, revascularization, SCAD recurrence, and heart failure) were included. Risk difference between conservative and revascularization approach was estimated with the inverse variance-weighted method in a fixed-effect or random-effect model. Results A total of 22 nonrandomized, observational studies were analyzed (N = 1435). Compared with the initial revascularization approach, the conservative approach was associated with a comparable risk of in-hospital outcomes [risk difference: death, −0.61% (95% confidence interval, −2.13–0.91%), P = 0.43; MI, −0.99% (−4.65–2.67%), P = 0.60; revascularization, −3.02% (−8.79–2.75%), P = 0.31] and long-term outcomes [death, −0.06% (−2.33–2.20%), P = 0.96; MI, 0.96% (−2.35–4.27%), P = 0.57; revascularization, −3.31% (−7.63–1.02%), P = 0.13; SCAD recurrence, 3.75% (−2.05–9.55%), P = 0.21; heart failure, −0.01% (−3.13–3.11%), P = 0.99]. There was no significant heterogeneity across these studies. Conclusion Pooled results suggest that SCAD patients initially managed with a conservative strategy may have similar in-hospital and long-term outcomes compared with those who received revascularization in the absence of ongoing ischemia or left main artery involvement. More data from prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.