Search

Background: It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards. Methods: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Results: The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5–11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. Conclusions: No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

Background: Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis marked by hypotension with an ominous outcome despite the introduction of modern intensive care. The aim of the present study is to obtain a panel with biomarkers, echocardiographic and vascular parameters to better risk stratify patients and identify those at higher risk of ominous outcome. Methods: Between May 2013 and April 2016, 35 consecutive patients admitted at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of ASST Great Metropolitan Hospital Niguarda with the diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. All patients underwent rest echocardiography and several circulating biomarkers of myocardial damage or oxidative stress. Results: The multivariate Cox’s proportional hazard model showed that the only independent prognostic predictor for 30-day mortality was the angiopoietin-2, (HR 1.017, 95% CI 1.000–1.034; P = 0.049). An angiopoietin-2 concentrations ≥ of 33,418 pg/mL was identified as the optimal threshold for the discrimination between survivors and non survivors at the time of admission in ICU, with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 68%. Conclusions: Septic shock has a poor in-hospital outcome even when the best of care is implemented. Among the biochemical parameters angiopoietin was able to identify patients at risk of death. The lowest the value at admission, the highest the risk of in-hospital death. No echocardiographic nor vascular parameter was able to predict outcome in this setting.