Purpose: We sought to identify clinical factors that predict extubation failure (reintubation) and its prognostic implications in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: Retrospective, multi-center cohort study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Multivariate competing risk models were employed to explore the rate of reintubation and its determining factors. Results: Two hundred eighty-one extubated patients were included (mean age, 61.0 years [±13.9]; 54.8% male). Reintubation occurred in 93 (33.1%). In multivariate analysis accounting for death, reintubation risk increased with age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04 per 1-year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 -1.06), vasopressors (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.60), renal replacement (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.22-3.29), maximum PEEP (HR 1.07 per 1-unit increase, 95% CI 1.02 -1.12), paralytics (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.08-2.25) and requiring more than nasal cannula immediately post-extubation (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.37-3.50). Reintubation was associated with higher mortality (36.6% vs 2.1%; P < 0.0001) and risk of inpatient death after adjusting for multiple factors (HR 23.2, 95% CI 6.45-83.33). Prone ventilation, corticosteroids, anticoagulation, remdesivir and tocilizumab did not impact the risk of reintubation or death. Conclusions: Up to 1 in 3 critically ill COVID-19 patients required reintubation. Older age, paralytics, high PEEP, need for greater respiratory support following extubation and non-pulmonary organ failure predicted reintubation. Extubation failure strongly predicted adverse outcomes.

Background: Hypercoagulability may contribute to COVID-19 pathogenicity. Evidence comparing clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19 receiving therapeutic compared to prophylactic dose anticoagulation is limited. We evaluated whether therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) is associated with improved survival compared to prophylactic (pAC) and no anticoagulation (AC) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted between March 13th, 2020 and May 5th, 2020 to eight hospitals within a large academic system in Southeast Michigan, USA. Participants were assigned to three groups based on whether they received no AC, pAC throughout most of their hospitalization, or at least 3 days of tAC. Major bleeding was defined as transfusion of five or more units of packed red blood cells within 48 hours regardless of hemoglobin level, hemoglobin &lt; 7g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion or a diagnosis code for major bleeding during the hospitalization or radiological evidence of intracranial hemorrhage Results: A total of 3480 patients were included (mean age, 64.5 years [17.0]; 51.5% female; 52.1% black and 40.6% white). 18.5% (n=642) were treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). 60.9% received pAC (n=2121), 28.7% received at least 3 days of tAC (n=998), and 10.4% (n=361) did not receive AC. Propensity score (PS) weighted Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrated a statistical difference in the 25-day survival probability in the tAC group compared to the pAC group (57.5% vs 50.7%, Figure). In a PS weighted multivariate proportional hazards model adjusting for age, body mass index and ICU status, AC was associated with a reduced risk of death at both prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.22-0.54]) and therapeutic doses (HR 0.14 [95% CI 0.05-0.23]) compared to no AC. Major bleeding occurred more frequently among tAC patients (81 [8.1%]) compared to those who received no AC (20 [5.5%]) or pAC (46 [2.2%]). Conclusions : Higher doses of AC are associated with lower mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The lowest hazard ratio was observed in ICU patients, but risk was also significantly lower in non-ICU hospitalized patients. Bleeding occurred more frequently with higher doses of anticoagulation. Ongoing randomized trials are warranted to prospectively evaluate efficacy and risk of tAC in patients with COVID-19. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

In this report, we describe the case of a woman with suspected COVID-19 immunization-induced probable catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome. The patient is a 35-year-old female with a past medical history significant for antiphospholipid syndrome, not on anticoagulation, who presented with a 5-day history of abdominal pain and distention, nausea, vomiting, and shortness of breath. She had received her first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine one day prior to the onset of symptoms. After extensive workup at an outside hospital, she was found to be in acute heart failure exacerbated by severe mitral and tricuspid regurgitation. She was transferred to our hospital for escalation of care. EKG showed evidence of prior inferior and septal myocardial infarction. Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed reduced ejection fraction, severe mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, and a left ventricular thrombus. Cardiac MRI showed subendocardial late gadolinium enhancement indicative of ischemia. However, CTA of the coronary vessels showed no signs of obstruction. Therefore, her acute heart failure was thought to be due to small vessel thrombosis secondary to antiphospholipid syndrome. During admission, she had several absence seizure-like episodes. CT head showed several hypodensities of the deep white matter and brain MRI demonstrated multiple hyperintense T2 FLAIR signal foci with restriction diffusion and enhancement involving the cerebral hemisphere, consistent with subacute strokes attributed to being secondary to antiphospholipid syndrome or embolic from the left ventricular thrombus. She was treated with heparin for suspected catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome and high-dose corticosteroid therapy for concomitant Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). She was discharged in a stable condition.

Introduction Sickle trait (Hb SA) or sickle disease (Hb SS) carries increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Hb SS patients are young and lack common comorbid conditions that qualify them for VTE prophylaxis (VTEP). Methods Retrospective, multicenter analysis of Hb SS/Hb SA adult patients between January 2013 and December 2018. Results There were 803 Hb SA (525 patients) and 1020 Hb SS admissions (262 patients). VTEP use was similar between Hb SA and controls (42% vs. 46%; p‐value = .06) and Hb SS and controls (45% vs. 42%; p‐value = .13). Hb SS/Hb SA patients more frequently received more than half of prescribed doses of VTEP. In multivariate analysis, increasing age and longer hospitalizations were positive predictors. Odds of VTEP use varied with treatment site for Hb SS patients, whereas comorbid conditions, admission hemoglobin and platelet count were not predictive. By contrast, in Hb SA patients, comorbid conditions, higher admission hemoglobin, and higher admission platelet counts raised the odds of VTEP being offered. Conclusions VTEP is underused in Hb SS/Hb SA patients. There may be a trend toward offering more VTEP in Hb SS disease, but not in Hb SA patients, where VTEP prescribing is driven by comorbid conditions rather than genotype. Patient compliance does not appear to play a major role, but intercenter variability suggests provider education may improve VTEP use.