Search

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a respiratory disease associated with thrombotic outcomes with coagulation and endothelial disorders. Based on that, several anticoagulation guidelines have been proposed. We aimed to determine whether anticoagulation therapy modifies the risk of developing severe COVID‐19. Methods and Results Patients with COVID‐19 initially admitted in medical wards of 24 French hospitals were included prospectively from February 26 to April 20, 2020. We used a Poisson regression model, Cox proportional hazard model, and matched propensity score to assess the effect of anticoagulation on outcomes (intensive care unit admission or in‐hospital mortality). The study enrolled 2878 patients with COVID‐19, among whom 382 (13.2%) were treated with oral anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization. After adjustment, anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55–0.88). Analyses performed using propensity score matching confirmed that anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29–0.63) for intensive care unit admission and adjusted hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61–0.98) for composite criteria intensive care unit admission or death. In contrast, therapeutic or prophylactic low‐ or high‐dose anticoagulation started during hospitalization were not associated with any of the outcomes. Conclusions Anticoagulation therapy used before hospitalization in medical wards was associated with a better prognosis in contrast with anticoagulation initiated during hospitalization. Anticoagulation therapy introduced in early disease could better prevent COVID‐19–associated coagulopathy and endotheliopathy, and lead to a better prognosis.

Background A risk model has been proposed to provide a patient individualized estimation of risk for major clinical events (heart failure events, ventricular arrhythmia, all‐cause mortality) in patients with transposition of the great arteries and atrial switch surgery. We aimed to externally validate the model. Methods and Results A retrospective, multicentric, longitudinal cohort of 417 patients with transposition of the great arteries (median age, 24 years at baseline [interquartile range, 18–30]; 63% men) independent of the model development and internal validation cohort was studied. The performance of the prediction model in predicting risk at 5 years was assessed, and additional predictors of major clinical events were evaluated separately in our cohort. Twenty‐five patients (5.9%) met the major clinical events end point within 5 years. Model validation showed good discrimination between high and low 5‐year risk patients (Harrell C index of 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65–0.81]) but tended to overestimate this risk (calibration slope of 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03–0.36]). In our population, the strongest independent predictors of major clinical events were a history of heart failure and at least mild impairment of the subpulmonary left ventricle function. Conclusions We reported the first external validation of a major clinical events risk model in a large cohort of adults with transposition of the great arteries. The model allows for distinguishing patients at low risk from those at intermediate to high risk. Previous episode of heart failure and subpulmonary left ventricle dysfunction appear to be key markers in the prognosis of patients. Further optimizing risk models are needed to individualize risk predictions in patients with transposition of the great arteries.