Search

Background: To our knowledge, the treatment, outcome, clinical presentation, risk stratification of patients with venous thromboembolism and COVID-19 have not been well characterized. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews, cohorts, case series, case reports, editor letters, and venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients' abstracts following PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. We analyzed therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolism COVID-19 patients. Inclusion: COVID-19 patients with venous thromboembolism confirmed by an imaging method (venous doppler ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion lung scan, computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, pulmonary angiography). We assessed and reported the original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for each pulmonary embolism patient. In addition, we defined major bleedings according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Results: We performed a systematic review from August 9 to August 30, 2020. We collected 1,535 papers from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley, and Opengrey. We extracted data from 89 studies that describe 143 patients. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin was used as parenteral anticoagulation in 85/143 (59%) cases. The Food and Drug Administration-approved alteplase regimen guided the advanced treatment in 39/143 (27%) patients. The mortality was high (21.6%, CI 95% 15.2-29.3). The incidence of major bleeding complications was 1 (0.9%) in the survival group and 1 (3.2%) in the death group. Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was class I in 11.6% and II in 22.3% in survivors compared to 0% and 6.5% in non-survivors, respectively. Patients who experienced venous thromboembolism events at home were more likely to live than in-hospital events. Conclusions: We determined a high mortality incidence of pulmonary embolism and a low rate of bleeding. Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin drove parenteral anticoagulation and alteplase the advanced treatment in both groups. The original Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index could be helpful in the risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic various ambulatory health care models (SARS-CoV-2 contact points: Subspecialised Primary Care Practices, Fever Clinics, and Special Places for Corona-Testing) were organised in a short period in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a region in Southern Germany. The aim of these SARS-CoV-2 contact points was to ensure medical treatment for patients with (suspected) and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to assess the beliefs and practices of primary care physicians who either led a Subspecialised Primary Care Practice or a Primary Care Practice providing care as usual in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on a paper-based questionnaire in primary care physicians during the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were identified via the web page of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Baden-Wuerttemberg. The questionnaire was distributed in June and July 2020. It measured knowledge, practices, self-efficacy and fears towards SARS-CoV-2, using newly developed questions. Data was descriptively analysed. Results: One hundred fifty-five participants (92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points/ 63 leads of primary care practices) completed the questionnaire. Out of 92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points 74 stated to lead n Subspecialised Primary Care Practices. About half participants of both groups did not fear an own infection with the novel virus (between 50.8% and 62.2%), however about 75% feared financial loss. Knowledge was gained using various sources; main sources were the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (between 82.5% and 83.8%) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (RKI) (between 88.9% and 95.9%). Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident to perform anamnestic/diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001). The same was found for the confidence level regarding decision-making concerning the further treatment (p < 0.001). Several prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were adopted. Subspecialised Primary Care Practice had treated on average more patients with (suspected) COVID-19 (mean 408.12) than primary care practices (mean 83.8) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the Subspecialised Primary Care Practice that were implemented during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic contributed containment of the pandemic. Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice indicated that physical separation of patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection was easier compared to those who continued working in their own practice. Additionally, leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident in dealing with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial registration: The study has been prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00022224). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]