Search

Background Obesity is a widely accepted risk factor for the development of severe COVID-19. We sought to determine the survival benefit of early initiation of aggressive anticoagulation in obese critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 237 intubated patients at a single academic accredited bariatric center and stratified them based on their BMI into 2 groups, obese (BMI > 30) and non-obese (BMI ≤ 30). We used chi-square tests to compare categorical variables such as age and sex, and two-sample t-tests or Mann Whitney U-tests for continuous variables, including important laboratory values. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were utilized to determine whether obesity was an independent predictor of survival and multivariable analysis was performed to compare risk factors that were deemed significant in the univariable analysis. Survival with respect to BMI and its association with level of anticoagulation in the obese cohort was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier models. Results The overall mortality in the obese and non-obese groups was similar at 47% and 44%, respectively (p = 0.65). Further analysis based on the level of AC showed that obese patients placed on early aggressive AC protocol had improved survival compared to obese patients who did not receive protocol based aggressive AC (ON-aggressive AC protocol 26% versus OFF-aggressive AC protocol 61%, p = 0.0004). Conclusions The implementation of early aggressive anticoagulation may balance the negative effects of obesity on the overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Graphical abstract

Background Although acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) and feeding intolerance (FI) are known independent determinants of worse outcomes and high mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, the incidence of AGI and FI in critically ill COVID-19 patients and their prognostic importance have not been thoroughly studied. Methods We reviewed 218 intubated patients at Stony Brook University Hospital and stratified them into three groups based on AGI severity, according to data collected in the first 10 days of ICU course. We used chi-square test to compare categorical variables such as age and sex and two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U-tests for continuous variables, including important laboratory values. Cox proportional hazards regression models were utilized to determine whether AGI score was an independent predictor of survival, and multivariable analysis was performed to compare risk factors that were deemed significant in the univariable analysis. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis based on the AGI score and the presence of FI. Results The overall incidence of AGI was 95% (45% AGI I/II, 50% AGI III/IV), and FI incidence was 63%. Patients with AGI III/IV were more likely to have prolonged mechanical ventilation (22 days vs 16 days, P-value

Thrombosis in COVID-19 worsens mortality. In our study, we sought to investigate how the dose and type of anticoagulation (AC) can influence patient outcomes.This is a single-center retrospective analysis of critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19, comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) at therapeutic and prophylactic doses. Of 218 patients, 135 received LMWH (70 prophylactic, 65 therapeutic) and 83 UFH (11 prophylactic, 72 therapeutic). The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolic complications confirmed on imaging and major bleeding complications. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to determine whether the type and dose of AC were independent predictors of survival. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to compare the cumulative survivals.Overall, therapeutic AC, with either LMWH (65% vs 79%, P = .09) or UFH (32% vs 46%, P = .73), conveyed no survival benefit over prophylactic AC. UFH was associated with a higher mortality rate than LMWH (66% vs 28%, P = .001), which was also evident in the multivariable analysis (LMWH vs UFH mortality, hazard ratio: 0.47, P = .001) and in the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Thrombotic and bleeding complications did not depend on the AC type (prophylactic LMWH vs UFH: thrombosis P = .49, bleeding P = .075; therapeutic LMWH vs UFH: thrombosis P = .5, bleeding P = .17). When comparing prophylactic with therapeutic AC, the rate of both thrombotic and bleeding complications was higher with the use of LMWH compared with UFH. In addition, transfusion requirements were significantly higher with both therapeutic LMWH and UFH.Among intubated critically ill COVID-19 intensive care unit patients, therapeutic AC, with either LMWH or UFH, conveyed no survival benefit over prophylactic AC. AC with LMWH was associated with higher cumulative survival compared with AC with UFH.