Background : Few observations exist with respect to the pro-coagulant profile of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports of thromboembolic complications are scarce but suggestive for a clinical relevance of the problem.

No abstract

No abstract

The EuroSCORE II represents a useful update of the previous EuroSCORE version, with a much better clinical performance and the same good level of accuracy. It is possible that for the risk stratification of very high-risk patients, other factors (rare but associated with a mortality rate >50%) should be included in the future models.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated coagulopathy is characterized by a prothrombotic state not yet comprehensively studied. We investigated the coagulation pattern of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), comparing patients who survived to those who did not. Methods: In this prospective cohort study on 20 COVID-19 ARDS patients, the following biomarkers were measured: thrombin generation (prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (PF 1 + 2)), fibrinolysis activation (tissue plasminogen activator (tPA)) and inhibition (plasminogen activator inhibitor 2 (PAI-2)), fibrin synthesis (fibrinopeptide A) and fibrinolysis magnitude (plasmin–antiplasmin complex (PAP) and D-dimers). Measurements were done upon intensive care unit (ICU) admission and after 10–14 days. Results: There was increased thrombin generation; modest or null release of t-PA; and increased levels of PAI-2, fibrinopeptide A, PAP and D-dimers. At baseline, nonsurvivors had a significantly (p = 0.014) higher PAI-2/PAP ratio than survivors (109, interquartile range (IQR) 18.1–216, vs. 8.7, IQR 2.9–12.6). At follow-up, thrombin generation was significantly (p = 0.025) reduced in survivors (PF 1 + 2 from 396 pg/mL, IQR 185–585 to 237 pg/mL, IQR 120–393), whereas it increased in nonsurvivors. Fibrinolysis inhibition at follow-up remained stable in survivors and increased in nonsurvivors, leading to a significant (p = 0.026) difference in PAI-2 levels (161 pg/mL, IQR 50–334, vs. 1088 pg/mL, IQR 177–1565). Conclusion: Severe patterns of COVID-19 ARDS are characterized by a thrombin burst and the consequent coagulation activation. Mechanisms of fibrinolysis regulation appear unbalanced toward fibrinolysis inhibition. This pattern ameliorates in survivors, whereas it worsens in nonsurvivors.

No abstract

Acquired fibrinogen deficiency is a major determinant of severe bleeding in different clinical conditions, including cardiac surgery, trauma, postpartum hemorrhage, liver surgery, and transplantation. The existing guidelines recommend to supplement fibrinogen in patients with severe bleeding when the fibrinogen concentration is <1.5 g/L. Viscoelastic tests (VETs) provide a fast determination of the fibrinogen contribution to clot firmness and allow prompt treatment of acquired fibrinogen deficiency. However, different VET devices are presently available on the market, based on different technologies and different activators and platelet inhibitors. The available tests are the functional fibrinogen (FF, thromboelastography), the fibrinogen contribution to clot firmness (fibrinogen determination [FIBTEM], thromboelastometry), and the fibrinogen contribution to clot strength (FCS, sonorheometry). All these tests have a moderate to very good correlation with the Clauss fibrinogen assays; however, when comparing VET-based fibrinogen contribution to clot firmness with Clauss fibrinogen concentration, strong differences occur within the same test under different conditions and between different tests. The most widely studied test is the thromboelastometric FIBTEM; the best predictor of a Clauss fibrinogen <1.5 g/L is placed at a maximum clot firmness around 8 mm of amplitude. Fewer data are available for thromboelastographic FF, but the correspondent value is in the range of 12 mm. Overall, due to an incomplete inhibition of platelet contribution, FF overestimates the fibrinogen contribution with respect to FIBTEM. Data on sonorheometry FCS are limited and conflicting. When addressing the correlation between different tests, it is good in general, but no fixed conversion factors can be proposed, due to a considerable dispersion of the experimental points. In conclusion, VET-based fibrinogen tests are certainly powerful tools that are presently suggested by the existing guidelines; however, when using them for clinical decision-making, users should consider the possible sources of bias, which include the different level of platelet inhibition, the role of platelet count and function, the possible different degrees of blood activation with tissue factor, the important role of factor XIII in stabilizing the fibrin clot, and others.

Patient-specific factors determine the effectiveness of thienopyridine treatment and platelet function recovery rate. Among these, platelet count (for thienopyridine resistance) and serum bilirubin values (for platelet function recovery rate) should be considered.