IMPORTANCE Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×10 3 /μL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, −6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −ϱ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days...

No abstract

No abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. Despite the changing landscape of VTE treatment with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants many uncertainties remain regarding the optimal use of traditional parenteral agents. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. This specific chapter addresses the practical management of heparins including low molecular weight heparins and fondaparinux. For each anticoagulant a list of the most common practice related questions were created. Each question was addressed using a brief focused literature review followed by a multidisciplinary consensus guidance recommendation. Issues addressed included initial anticoagulant dosing recommendations, recommended baseline laboratory monitoring, managing dose adjustments, evidence to support a relationship between laboratory tests and meaningful clinical outcomes, special patient populations including extremes of weight and renal impairment, duration of necessary parenteral therapy during the transition to oral therapy, candidates for outpatient treatment where appropriate and management of over-anticoagulation and adverse effects including bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. This article concludes with a concise table of clinical management questions and guidance recommendations to provide a quick reference for the practical management of heparin, low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux.

No abstract

Dual antiplatelet therapy, composed of aspirin plus a P2Y12-receptor antagonist, is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A number of U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved P2Y12-receptor antagonists are available for treating patients with ACS, including the thienopyridine compounds clopidogrel and prasugrel. Ticagrelor, the first of a new class of antiplatelet agents, is a noncompetitive, direct-acting P2Y12-receptor antagonist. Unlike the thienopyridine compounds, ticagrelor does not require metabolism for activity. Also, whereas clopidogrel and prasugrel are irreversible inhibitors of the P2Y12 receptor, ticagrelor binds reversibly to inhibit receptor signaling and subsequent platelet activation. In pharmacodynamic studies, ticagrelor demonstrated faster onset and more potent inhibition of platelet aggregation than clopidogrel. These properties of ticagrelor may contribute to reduced rates of thrombotic outcomes compared with clopidogrel, as demonstrated in a phase III clinical trial. However, in addition to bleeding, distinctive adverse effects of this new chemical entity have not been reported with the thienopyridine P2Y12-receptor inhibitors. Although ticagrelor represents an advancement in P2Y12-receptor inhibition therapy, a thorough understanding of this compound as an antiplatelet therapy remains to be elucidated.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)has led to a worldwide pandemic, and patients with the infection are referred to as having COVID-19. Although COVID-19 is commonly considered a respiratory disease, there is clearly a thrombotic potential that was not expected. The pathophysiology of the disease and subsequent coagulopathy produce an inflammatory, hypercoagulable, and hypofibrinolytic state. Several observational studies have demonstrated surprisingly high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in both general ward and intensive care patients with COVID-19. Many of these observational studies demonstrate high rates of VTE despite patients being on standard, or even higher intensity, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Fibrinolytic therapy has also been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Unfortunately, high quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. A literature search was performed to provide the most up-to-date information on the pathophysiology, coagulopathy, risk of VTE, and prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. These topics are reviewed in detail, along with practical issues of anticoagulant selection and duration. Although a number of international organizations have produced guideline or consensus statements, they do not all cover the same issues regarding anticoagulant therapy for patients with COVID-19, and they do not all agree. These statements and the most recent literature are combined into a list of clinical considerations that clinicians can use for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19.

The 7th conference of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP7) provides recommendations on the type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the extent to which hospitals follow these criteria has not been well studied. Discharge and billing records for patients admitted to any of 16 acute-care hospitals from January 2005 to December 2006 were obtained. Patients 18 years or older who had an inpatient stay ≥2 days and no apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis were grouped into the categories of critical care, surgery and medically ill before being assessed for additional VTE risk factors based on the diagnostic criteria outlined in ACCP7. For patients at risk, the recommended type (mechanical or pharmacologic), dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis was identified based on the guidelines and compared to the regimen actually received, if any. Among the 258,556 hospitalized patients, 68,278 (26.4%) were determined to be at risk of VTE without apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis. The proportions of patients who received the appropriate type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis were 10.5, 9.8, and 17.9% for critical care, medical, and surgical patients, respectively. Of those at risk, 36.8% received no thromboprophylaxis and an additional 50.2% received thromboprophylaxis deemed inappropriate for one or more reasons. The implementation of ACCP7 guidelines for type, dosage, and duration of thromboprophylaxis is low in patients at risk of VTE. There is a need for physicians and health systems to improve awareness and implementation of recommended thromboprophylaxis.