Search

Background: The effect of supplemental oxygen therapy in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) who do not have hypoxemia at baseline is uncertain., Research Question: Does supplemental oxygen improve echocardiographic parameters in nonhypoxemic patients with intermediate-risk PE?, Study Design and Methods: This pilot trial randomly assigned nonhypoxemic patients with stable PE and echocardiographic right ventricle (RV) enlargement to receive anticoagulation plus supplemental oxygen for the first 48 h vs anticoagulation alone. The primary outcome was normal echocardiographic RV size 48 h after randomization. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the numerical change in the RV to left ventricle (LV) diameter ratio measured 48 h and 7 days after randomization with respect to the baseline ratio measured at inclusion., Results: The study was stopped prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 70 patients (mean ± SD age, 67.3 ± 16.1 years; 36 female [51.4%]) with primary outcome data. Forty-eight h after randomization, normalization of the RV size occurred in 14 of the 33 patients (42.4%) assigned to oxygen and in eight of the 37 patients (21.6%) assigned to ambient air (P = .08). In the oxygen group, the mean RV to LV ratio was reduced from 1.28 ± 0.28 at baseline to 1.01 ± 0.16 at 48 h (P < .001); in the ambient air group, mean RV to LV ratios were 1.21 ± 0.18 at baseline and 1.08 ± 0.19 at 48 h (P < .01). At 90 days, one major bleeding event and one death (both in the ambient air group) had occurred., Interpretation: In analyses limited by a small number of enrollees, compared with ambient air, supplemental oxygen did not significantly increase the proportion of patients with nonhypoxemic intermediate-risk PE whose RV to LV ratio normalized after 48 h of treatment. This pilot trial showed improvement in some ancillary efficacy outcomes and provides support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04003116; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: L. J.-P. reports personal fees from Bayer Hispania, Actelion, Rovi, Pfizer, Menarini, and Leo Pharma, outside the submitted work. R. O.-C. has served as an advisor or consultant for Leo Pharma, Actelion, Bayer Hispania, and Sanofi; as a speaker or a member of a speakers’ bureau for Leo Pharma, Sanofi, and Rovi; and has received grants for clinical research from Leo Pharma and Bayer Hispania. P. R.-A. has served as an advisor or consultant for Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Viatris; has served as a speaker or a member of a speakers’ bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, ROVI, and Viatris; and has received grants for clinical research from ROVI. M. M. has served as an advisor or consultant for Leo Pharma and Sanofi; has served as a speaker or a member of a speakers’ bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi; and has received grants for clinical research from Sanofi and ROVI. B. B. reports that he is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of inferior vena cava filters. D. J. has served as an advisor or consultant for Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, ROVI, and Sanofi; has served as a speaker or a member of a speakers’ bureau for Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, ROVI, and Sanofi; and has received grants for clinical research from Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and ROVI. None declared (D. B., D. D., C. R., J. M., A. R., J. L. L., R. L., L. C., A. M.)., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a debate about whether marginalized communities suffered the disproportionate brunt of the pandemic's mortality. Empirical studies addressing this question typically suffer from statistical uncertainties and potential biases associated with uneven and incomplete reporting. We use geo-coded micro-level data for the entire population of Sweden to analyze how local neighborhood characteristics affect the likelihood of dying with COVID-19 at individual level, given the individual's overall risk of death. We control for several individual and regional characteristics to compare the results in specific communities to overall death patterns in Sweden during 2020. When accounting for the probability to die of any cause, we find that individuals residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were not more likely to die with COVID-19 than individuals residing elsewhere. Importantly, we do find that individuals show a generally higher probability of death in these neighborhoods. Nevertheless, ethnicity is an important explanatory factor for COVID-19 deaths for foreign-born individuals, especially from East Africa, who are more likely to pass away regardless of residential neighborhood., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We investigate whether an individual's information milieu-an individual's residential neighborhood and co-workers-affects the decision to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The decision to accept or refuse a vaccine is intensely personal and involves the processing of information about phenomena likely to be unfamiliar to most individuals. One can thus expect an interplay between an individual's level of education and skills and the information processing of others whom with whom she can interact and whose decision she can probe and observe. Using individual-level data for adults in Sweden, we can identify the proportion of an individual's neighborhood and workplace who are unvaccinated as indicators of possible peer effects. We find that individuals with low levels of educational attainment and occupational skills are more likely to be unvaccinated when exposed to other unvaccinated individuals at work and in the residential neighborhood. The peer effects in each of these information milieus further increases the likelihood of not getting vaccinated-with the two acting as information channels that reinforce one another., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Klaesson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop pulmonary embolism (PE) in the full spectrum of patient care settings need to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics, treatment, and 90-day outcomes in patients diagnosed with PE while recovering from COVID-19 in the outpatient setting versus those who were diagnosed with PE while being hospitalized with COVID-19. Data from the international Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry were used. The major study outcomes were all-cause death, major bleeding, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrences during the first 90 days after PE. From March 2020 to March 2021, 737 patients with COVID-19 experienced acute PE. Of these, 340 (46%) were recovering from COVID-19 as outpatients (267 patients who had been treated at home for COVID-19 and 73 discharged after being hospitalized with COVID-19). Compared with inpatients with COVID-19, those recovering in the outpatient setting upon PE were less likely to be men (odds ratio [OR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.72) and less likely to have hypertension (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.74) or diabetes (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76). At 90-day follow-up, eight patients (none recovering from COVID-19 as outpatient vs. 2.4% of inpatients with COVID-19) developed recurrent VTE, 34 (1.9 vs. 7.9%) had major bleeding, and 128 (10 vs. 24%) died. On multivariable analysis, inpatients with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 6.80; 95% CI: 1.52-30.4) or death (adjusted HR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.40-3.58). In conclusion, using a large multinational registry of patients with COVID-19 who experienced PE, thromboembolic episodes occurring in those recovering from COVID-19 as outpatients were associated with less ominous outcomes than inpatients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: B.B. reported being a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of inferior vena cava filters. M.M. reported honoraria for lectures from Sanofi, Pfizer, Rovi, and Alfa sigma, support for meetings from Sanofi, and he participated in advisory meetings with Sanofi and Leo Pharma. The other coauthors have nothing to disclose., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but also for bleeding. We previously derived a prognostic score including four variables (elevated D-dimer, elevated ferritin, critical illness, and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation) that identified those at increased risk for major bleeding., Methods: We aimed to validate the score in a subsequent cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving standard-, intermediate- or therapeutic doses of VTE prophylaxis. We evaluated its capacity to predict major bleeding, non-major bleeding, and bleeding-related death., Results: The cohort included 972 patients from 29 hospitals, of whom 280 (29%) received standard-; 412 (42%) intermediate-, 157 (16%) therapeutic doses of VTE prophylaxis and 123 (13%) other drugs. Median duration of prophylaxis was 14.7 ± 10.3 days. Major bleeding occurred in 65 patients (6.7%) and non-major bleeding in 67 (6.9%). Thirty patients with major bleeding (46%) died within the first 30 days after bleeding. The prognostic score identified 203 patients (21%) at very low risk, 285 (29%) at low risk, 263 (27%) intermediate-risk and 221 (23%) at high risk for bleeding. Major bleeding occurred in 1.0%, 2.1%, 8.7% and 15.4% of the patients, respectively. Non-major bleeding occurred in 0.5%, 3.5%, 9.5% and 14.2%, respectively. The c-statistics was: 0.74 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.68-0.79) for major bleeding, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) for non-major bleeding and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87) for bleeding-related death., Conclusions: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we validated that a prognostic score including 4 easily available items may identify those at increased risk for bleeding.

This paper investigates neighbourhood characteristics related to an individual's likelihood of getting the first COVID-19 vaccination and implementing official recommendations for the three-shot vaccination regime. We use full population-geocoded microdata for Sweden to measure important individual-level attributes and the marginalisation of their residential communities in terms of ethnicity, education and income. The findings show that the likelihood of getting vaccinated and obtaining all three recommended vaccine doses decrease for individuals residing in neighbourhoods with larger shares of marginalised residents. The effects also appear to be more pronounced if the individual themself belongs to a marginalised group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]