Search

Introduction: COVID-19 may predispose to both venous and arterial thromboembolism due to excessive inflammation, hypoxia, immobilisation and diffuse intravascular coagulation. Reports on the incidence of thrombotic complications are however not available., Methods: We evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital., Results: We studied 184 ICU patients with proven COVID-19 pneumonia of whom 23 died (13%), 22 were discharged alive (12%) and 139 (76%) were still on the ICU on April 5th 2020. All patients received at least standard doses thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome was 31% (95%CI 20-41), of which CTPA and/or ultrasonography confirmed VTE in 27% (95%CI 17-37%) and arterial thrombotic events in 3.7% (95%CI 0-8.2%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication (n = 25, 81%). Age (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.05/per year, 95%CI 1.004-1.01) and coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of the prothrombin time > 3 s or activated partial thromboplastin time > 5 s (aHR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1), were independent predictors of thrombotic complications., Conclusion: The 31% incidence of thrombotic complications in ICU patients with COVID-19 infections is remarkably high. Our findings reinforce the recommendation to strictly apply pharmacological thrombosis prophylaxis in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, and are strongly suggestive of increasing the prophylaxis towards high-prophylactic doses, even in the absence of randomized evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosures Frederikus Klok reports research grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD and Actelion, the Dutch Heart foundation and the Dutch Thrombosis association, all outside the submitted work. Menno Huisman reports grants from ZonMW Dutch Healthcare Fund, and grants and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer-BMS, Bayer Health Care, Aspen, Daiichi-Sankyo, all outside the submitted work. Marieke Kruip reports unrestricted research grants from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Sobi, and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). The other authors having nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: We recently reported a high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of three Dutch hospitals. In answering questions raised regarding our study, we updated our database and repeated all analyses., Methods: We re-evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction and/or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICUs of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital from ICU admission to death, ICU discharge or April 22nd 2020, whichever came first., Results: We studied the same 184 ICU patients as reported on previously, of whom a total of 41 died (22%) and 78 were discharged alive (43%). The median follow-up duration increased from 7 to 14 days. All patients received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome, adjusted for competing risk of death, was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41-57%). The majority of thrombotic events were PE (65/75; 87%). In the competing risk model, chronic anticoagulation therapy at admission was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.29, 95%CI 0.091-0.92). Patients diagnosed with thrombotic complications were at higher risk of all-cause death (HR 5.4; 95%CI 2.4-12). Use of therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with all-cause death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.35-1.8)., Conclusion: In this updated analysis, we confirm the very high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Frederikus Klok reports research grants from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD and Actelion, the Dutch Heart foundation and the Dutch Thrombosis association, all outside the submitted work. Menno Huisman reports grants from ZonMW Dutch Healthcare Fund, and grants and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer-BMS, Bayer Health Care, Aspen, Daiichi-Sankyo, all outside the submitted work. Marieke Kruip reports unrestricted research grants from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Sobi, and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). The other authors having nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Evidence for guideline recommendations for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during anticoagulant therapy is scarce. We aimed to observe and to describe the management of VTE occurring during anticoagulant therapy., Methods: This prospective multi-center, observational study included patients with objectively confirmed VTE during anticoagulant therapy (breakthrough event), with a follow-up of 3 months, after the breakthrough event., Results: We registered 121 patients with a breakthrough event, with a mean age of 56 years (range, 19 to 90); 61 were male (50%). Fifty-eight patients (48%) had an active malignancy. At the time of the breakthrough event, 57 patients (47%) were treated with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), 53 patients (44%) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and 11 patients (9%) with direct oral anticoagulants, unfractionated heparin, or VKA plus LMWH. A total of 21 patients (17%) were receiving a subtherapeutic dose of an anticoagulant. The main regimens to treat recurrence in patients on VKA were: switch to LMWH (33%), temporary double treatment with LMWH and VKA (23%), and VKA with a higher target INR (19%). In patients with a breakthrough on LMWH, the most frequently chosen regimen was a permanent dose increase (74%). During 3-month follow-up, 7% of patients had a second breakthrough event and 8% experienced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding., Conclusion: There is wide variation in the management of VTE during anticoagulant treatment, reflecting a heterogeneous and complex clinical situation. Despite intensifying anticoagulation, the risk of a second breakthrough event in this population is 7%., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Women with Von Willebrand disease (VWD) have an increased risk of developing postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Our aim is to evaluate peripartum management strategies in relation to maternal and neonatal bleeding complications in VWD. Electronic databases were searched up to January 2019. Seventy-one case-reports and -series and 16 cohort studies were selected, including 811 deliveries. Cohort studies reported primary PPH in 32% and secondary PPH in 13% of the women. The overall primary PPH incidence in the individual patient data was 34%, similar between women who received prophylactic treatment to prevent PPH and those who didn't. Neonatal bleeding events were reported in 4.6% of deliveries. Overall, the available evidence on peripartum management in women with VWD was of low quality. The ongoing high risk for PPH is evident, despite prophylactic treatment, as well as the need for higher quality evidence from larger prospective cohort studies to improve management strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosures MCP, MLW, EPM-B, LN, ABUM, MHED, JJD, JMM, KWMB, REGS, ATL, and KPMvG have no conflict of interest related to this review. MJHAK received unrestricted research grants from Pfizer and Innovatiefonds with no involvement in this review. JE received research funding from CSL Behring and honorarium for educational activity from Roche, not related to this review. MP received unrestricted grants from CSL Behring, Pfizer and Novo Nordisk, not related to this review., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Olanzapine, a second generation antipsychotic, has previously been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In this mini-review we describe a case of a thirty-year-old schizophrenic patient who was diagnosed with a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) six months after starting olanzapine therapy, as well as seventeen other VTE cases in patients using olanzapine reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. In 14 of these reports, patients had reported additional risk factors for VTE. We found disproportionate Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs) in the global database VigiBase for olanzapine and the reactions deep vein thrombosis (ROR of 1.38 with a 95% CI (Confidence Interval) of 1.22-1.57) and pulmonary embolism (ROR of 1.99 with a 95% CI of 1.81-2.19). The mechanism behind the association of olanzapine with VTE could be explained by two risk factors, substantial weight gain and lethargy, both common side effects of olanzapine. So far, a direct effect of olanzapine on platelet aggregation or coagulation has not been found. Schizophrenic patients are more likely to have diagnostic delay in the diagnosis of VTE, as symptoms such as lethargy and impaired pain perception result in diminished pain perception and pain expression, while they are at increased risk of developing VTE. Currently no validated risk score is available for detection of psychiatric patients who might benefit from pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. In patients developing a VTE while being treated with olanzapine, discontinuation of olanzapine could be considered based on the individual risk profile, control of psychotic symptoms and antipsychotic treatment options.

Essentials Low-molecular-weight-heparins (LMWH) kinetics differ which may result in different bleeding risks. A cohort of 12 934 venous thrombosis patients on LMWH was followed until major bleeding. The absolute major bleeding risk was low among patients registered at the anticoagulation clinic. Once-daily dosing was associated with a lower bleeding risk as compared with twice-daily., Summary: Background Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are considered members of a class of drugs with similar anticoagulant properties. However, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics between LMWHs differ, which may result in different bleeding risks. As these agents are used by many patients, small differences may lead to a large effect on numbers of major bleeding events. Objectives To determine major bleeding risks for different LMWH agents and dosing schedules. Methods A cohort of acute venous thrombosis patients from four anticoagulation clinics who used an LMWH and a vitamin K antagonist were followed until they ceased LMWH treatment or until major bleeding. Exposures were classified according to different types of LMWHs and for b.i.d. and o.d. use. Cumulative incidences for major bleeding per 1000 patients and risk ratios were calculated and adjusted for study center. Results The study comprised 12 934 patients with a mean age of 59 years; 6218 (48%) were men. The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 2.5 per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-3.5). Enoxaparin b.i.d. or o.d. was associated with a relative bleeding risk of 1.7 (95% CI, 0.2-17.5) compared with nadroparin o.d. In addition, a nadroparin b.i.d. dosing schedule was associated with a 2.0-fold increased major bleeding risk (95% CI, 0.8-5.1) as compared with a nadroparin o.d. dosing schedule. Conclusions Absolute major bleeding rates were low for all LMWH agents and dosing schedules in a large unselected cohort. Nevertheless, twice-daily dosing with nadroparin appeared to be associated with an increased major bleeding risk as compared with once-daily dosing, as also suggested in a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials., (© 2017 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Mild inherited bleeding disorders are relatively common in the general population. Despite recent advances in diagnostic approaches, mild inherited bleeding disorders still pose a significant diagnostic challenge. Hemorrhagic diathesis can be caused by disorders in primary hemostasis (von Willebrand disease, inherited platelet function disorders), secondary hemostasis (hemophilia A and B, other (rare) coagulant factor deficiencies) and fibrinolysis, and in connective tissue or vascular formation. This review summarizes the currently available diagnostic methods for mild bleeding disorders and their pitfalls, from structured patient history to highly specialized laboratory diagnosis. A comprehensive framework for a diagnostic approach to mild inherited bleeding disorders is proposed., (© 2016 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Unlabelled: Essentials Statins, especially rosuvastatin, may reduce venous thrombosis risk, but the mechanism is unclear. We performed a randomized trial investigating the effect of rosuvastatin on platelet reactivity. Thromboxane-A2 mediated platelet aggregation was measured before and after rosuvastatin therapy. Rosuvastatin did not inhibit thromboxane-mediated platelet aggregation in venous thrombosis patients., Summary: Background Statins may exert a protective effect against the risk of venous thrombosis (VT), but the mechanism is unclear. Objectives In this open-label, randomized clinical trial (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01613794), we aimed to determine the ex vivo effect of rosuvastatin on platelet reactivity in patients with a history of VT. Methods Platelet reactivity, in platelet reaction units (PRUs), was measured at baseline and after 28 days with VerifyNow, which uses arachidonic acid to determine thromboxane-mediated platelet aggregation, in 50 consecutive patients included in our study (25 receiving rosuvastatin and 25 without intervention). Results Forty-seven of 50 (94.0%) consecutively enrolled patients had two valid PRU measurements. The mean PRUs in rosuvastatin users were 609 at baseline and 613 at the end of the study (mean change 5; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 18 to 27). The mean PRUs in non-users were 620 at baseline and 618 at the end of the study (mean change - 2; 95% CI - 15 to 12). The mean difference in PRU change between users and non-users was 6 (95% CI - 20 to 33). After exclusion of patients who used antiplatelet medication, or had thrombocytopenia, similar results were obtained, i.e. no apparent effect of rosuvastatin on PRUs, with a mean difference in PRU change between users and non-users of - 1 (95% CI - 20 to 19). Conclusions Rosuvastatin does not affect platelet reactivity when arachidonic acid is used as an agonist in patients with a history of VT., (© 2016 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background: Quantitative D-Dimer tests are established methods in the non-invasive diagnostic management to rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE). The diagnostic performance and the clinical efficiency different D-Dimer assays in the exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) have not yet been compared in a clinical outcome study., Objective: Evaluation of the efficiency and safety of excluding the diagnosis of PE with two different quantitative D-Dimer assays in consecutive patients with clinically suspected PE., Patients and Methods: We studied the VTE-failure rate of 2206 consecutive patients with an unlikely clinical probability in whom VIDAS or Tinaquant D-Dimer tests were performed., Results: The prevalence of PE in 1238 patients whose D-Dimer level was analyzed with Tinaquant assay was 11%. The VIDAS assay group consisted of 968 patients with a PE prevalence of 13%. The VIDAS assay had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95%CI; 96- >99.9%), the Tinaquant assay of 97.3% (95%CI; 93 -99%). The negative predictive value (NPV) in the Tinaquant assay group was 99.4% (95%CI 98-99.8%) in comparison to 99.7% (95%CI 99->99.9%) in the VIDAS assay group. During 3 month of follow-up, there were no fatal cases of PE among patients with normal D-Dimer and unlikely clinical probability in both D-Dimer assay groups. In addition, the test efficiency of Tinaquant assay was significantly higher in comparison to VIDAS assay (52% vs 42%, p<0.001)., Conclusion: Both Tinaquant and VIDAS D-Dimer tests perform equally well in combination with an unlikely clinical probability in excluding PE. The Tinaquant test was shown to be more efficient.