Search

Introduction COVID‐19 predisposes patients to a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), although the extent of these implications is unclear and the risk of bleeding has been poorly evaluated. To date, no studies have reported long‐term outcomes of patients with COVID‐19 and VTE. Method Prospective observational study to evaluate long‐term (90 days or more) outcomes of patients diagnosed with VTE (PE, DVT of the extremities, or both) in the setting of COVID‐19. The main outcome of the study was a compound of major bleeding and death. Results The study comprised 100 patients (mean age 65 ± 13.9 years). At the time of VTE diagnosis, 66% patients were hospitalized, 34.8% of them in the ICU. Mean follow‐up was 97.9 ± 23.3 days. During the study period, 24% patients died and median time to death was 12 (IQR: 2.25‐20.75) days, 11% patients had major bleeding and median time to event was 12 (IQR: 5‐16) days. The cause of death was PE in 5% and bleeding in 2% of patients. There were no VTE recurrences. The main study outcome occurred in 29% patients. Risk of death or major bleeding was independently associated with ICU admission (HR 12.2; 95% CI 3.0‐48.3), thrombocytopenia (HR 4.5; 95% CI 1.2‐16.5), and cancer (HR 21.6; 95% CI 1.8‐259). Conclusion In patients with COVID‐19 and VTE, mortality and major bleeding were high and almost a third of deaths were VTE‐related. The majority of complications occurred in the first 30 days. ICU admission, thrombocytopenia, and cancer are risk factors for poor prognosis.

The relationship between inflammation and venous thrombosis is not well understood. An inflammatory response may be both the cause and consequence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In fact, several risk factors of VTE modulate thrombosis through inflammatory markers. Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is burdened by a remarkable mortality rate, up to 34% in severely ill patients presenting with hemodynamic instability. Initial mortality risk stratification is based on hemodynamic instability. Patients with a situation of hemodynamic stability require immediate further risk assessment based on clinical, imaging, and circulating biomarkers, as well as the presence of comorbidities. Some inflammatory biomarkers have shown potential usefulness in the risk stratification of patients with VTE, especially acute PE. C-reactive protein on admission is associated with 30-day mortality and bleeding in VTE patients. P-selectin is associated with right ventricle dysfunction in PE patients and might be associated with VTE recurrences and the extension of thrombosis. Tissue factor microparticles are associated with VTE recurrence in cancer-associated thrombosis. Other inflammatory biomarkers present scarce evidence (inflammatory cytokines, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fibrinogen, leukocyte count). In this manuscript, we will review the prognostic role of different inflammatory biomarkers available both for clinical practice and research in VTE patients.

Background Niemann-Pick disease (NPD) is a rare autosomal recessive hereditary disease characterized by deficient activity of acid sphingomyelinase. Case presentation We present a case of NPD type B with a unique compound heterozygosity for SMPD1 (NM_000543.4:c.[84delC];[96G > A]) in which both mutations that induce an early stop codon are located before the second in-frame initiation codon. The clinical presentation of the patient is compatible with NPD type B. She was initially diagnosed of Gaucher Disease, but her altered lipid profile led to a clinical suspicion of NPD. Combined high doses of atorvastatin and ezetimibe were given to treat the severe hypercholesterolemia. Conclusions The pharmacological management of the lipid profile in these patients is important. A unique compound mutation in SMPD1 gene is described.

Aim An increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) has been reported. Whether COVID-19 increases the risk of VTE in non-ICU wards remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the burden of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in COVID-19 patients with elevated D-dimer levels. Method In this prospective study consecutive patients hospitalized in non-intensive care units with diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia and D-dimer > 1000 ng/mL were screened for asymptomatic DVT with complete compression doppler ultrasound (CCUS). The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Results The study comprised 156 patients (65.4% male). All but three patients received standard doses of thromboprophylaxis. Median days of hospitalization until CCUS was 9 (IQR 5–17). CCUS was positive for DVT in 23 patients (14.7%), of whom only one was proximal DVT. Seven patients (4.5%) had bilateral distal DVT. Patients with DVT had higher median D-dimer levels: 4527 (IQR 1925-9144) ng/ml vs 2050 (IQR 1428-3235) ng/ml; p 1570 ng/mL were associated with asymptomatic DVT (OR 9.1; CI 95% 1.1–70.1). D-dimer showed an acceptable discriminative capacity (area under the ROC curve 0.72, 95% CI 0.61–0.84). Conclusion In patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia and elevated D-dimer levels, the incidence of asymptomatic DVT is similar to that described in other series. Higher cut-off levels for D-dimer might be necessary for the diagnosis of DVT in COVID-19 patients., Highlights • An increased risk of VTE in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to intensive care unit. • The most consistent hemostatic abnormalities with COVID-19 include mild thrombocytopenia and increased D-dimer levels. • In patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia and elevated D-dimer levels, the incidence of asymptomatic DVT is similar to that described in other series • Systematic screening for DVT in the absence of clinical signs does not seem justified in these patients. • Higher cut-off levels for D-dimer might be necessary for the diagnosis of DVT in COVID-19 patients.

Background: There is limited evidence on the etiology and outcomes of renal infarction. A provoking factor is identified only in one- to two-thirds of patients. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute renal infarction were studied; the sample was divided into two groups according to the presence of at least one provoking factor at the time of diagnosis (atrial fibrillation, flutter, major thrombophilia, or renal artery malformations). Results: The study comprised 59 patients with a mean age of 63 (±16.7) years and a follow-up period of 3.1 (±2.8) years. An identifiable provoking factor was found for 59.3% of the renal infarctions at the time of diagnosis, and atrial fibrillation was the most frequent one (in 49.2% of all patients). Renal impairment was found in 49.2% of the patients at diagnosis and in 50.8% of the patients 6 months after the event (p = 0.525). When compared with the idiopathic group, the patients with provoked infarction were older (69.8 vs. 57.9 years, p = 0.014) and had a higher rate of recurrence of arterial thrombosis during follow-up (18.8 vs. 0%, p = 0.028), but there were no differences in the rest of the baseline characteristics or in mortality rates. Six patients (10.2%) in the idiopathic group were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation during follow-up. Conclusions: Atrial fibrillation, both at diagnosis and at follow-up, is the most common identifiable cause of renal infarction; however, a significant number of patients are idiopathic, and these are younger, but they have a similar burden of cardiovascular disease and a lower risk of arterial recurrence.

To analyze the relationship between therapeutic (weight-adjusted) dose of bemiparin and anti-Xa activity in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer in comparison with a cohort of patients with VTE without cancer, and its relationship with outcomes. This is a prospective cohort study that comprised a cohort of patients with cancer-associated VTE and a cohort of non-cancer patients with VTE, all of them treated with bemiparin. The ethics committee approved the study and informed consent was obtained from the patients. One hundred patients were included (52 with cancer and 48 without cancer), with a median follow-up of 9.8 months. Mean anti-Xa activity was 0.89 (± 0.33) UI/mL in oncological patients and 0.83 (± 0.30) UI/mL in non-cancer patients (mean difference − 0.05 95% CI − 0.18; 0.06). A multiple linear regression model showed that anti-Xa peak was associated with the dose/kg independently of possible confounding variables (presence of cancer, age, sex and eGFR—estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate), in a way that for every 1 UI of dose/kg increase, the anti-Xa peak activity increased 0.006 UI/mL (95% CI 0.003; 0.009) (p

Background The value of D-dimer testing for the diagnosis of thrombosis in unusual sites is not properly established and evidence is scarce. We performed a systematic review of the literature. Methods The search was conducted in MEDLINE and Cochrane Library for papers published in the last 10 years including different presentations of thrombosis in unusual sites. Twenty-three articles were included, from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, comprising 3378 patients with thrombosis in unusual sites (upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, cerebral vein thrombosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results Two articles were related to upper extremity thrombosis, showing a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for D-dimer testing. Twelve articles concerned cerebral vein thrombosis, concluding that the timing of D-dimer testing was important, and that patients with a shorter duration of symptoms showed higher D-dimer levels. Sensitivity and specificity in these patients ranged from 58% to 97% and from 77% to 97.5%, respectively. Nine articles were related to splanchnic vein thrombosis. One described a population of patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis, and the rest included patients with portal vein thrombosis. The D-dimer testing methods and the proposed cut-off levels were remarkably different among the included studies. Conclusion D-dimer testing should not be currently recommended for the diagnosis of thrombosis in unusual sites as a first line diagnostic tool. The development of algorithms combining biomarkers such as D-dimer and clinical decision tools could improve the diagnosis.

Se expone el caso de una gestante de 11 semanas con historia previa de enfermedad tromboembólica venosa de repetición que acude por un episodio de trombosis venosa profunda de miembro superior izquierdo, a pesar de encontrarse recibiendo tratamiento anticoagulante con buen cumplimiento terapéutico. En el estudio realizado se diagnostica una trombofilia de alto riesgo. Se discute el manejo terapéutico que se llevó a cabo en esta paciente y los aspectos más destacados de la anticoagulación en la embarazada con trombofilia.