Thrombotic complication, both macro- and micro-thrombotic, is a major concern among physicians involved in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. Our study describes the outcomes of 921 predominantly Hispanic and Black patients stratified by the type of anticoagulation received during the hospital admission. We analyzed a group of patients already on therapeutic anticoagulation at admission for various reasons, as a surrogate for starting anticoagulation early in the disease process. As previously described, male sex is associated with higher infection rate and worse mortality [10, 11]. We noticed a higher mortality rate in our population, which is consistent with previous analyses showing Black and Hispanic patients have worse outcomes with COVID-19 [12, 13]. Our results show that patients on therapeutic anticoagulation had a higher mortality compared with patients on prophylactic anticoagulation. This is expected as patients who are started on therapeutic anticoagulation are generally sicker with higher D-dimer levels. This is evidenced by the higher D-dimer level at admission and higher peak D-dimer in these patients. When the analysis is limited to patients requiring mechanical ventilation, patients with therapeutic anticoagulation did better in terms of inpatient mortality. Recently, another study from a neighboring New York City hospital also found improved mortality with anticoagulation (29.1% vs 62.7%) in 395 intubated patients [14].
Interestingly, patients who were continued on therapeutic anticoagulation at admission did not differ from other groups in terms of outcomes, suggesting that early anticoagulation in these patients may not be relevant. However, the number of patients in this group was small, and therefore, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Predictably, the rates of mechanical ventilation and length of stay were higher in the New_AC group but not significant among other groups, again owing to the higher severity of disease in these patients. Other outcomes such as rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation and duration of mechanical ventilation were not significantly impacted by the type of anticoagulation.
The rate of VTE in our patients was 1.7%, which is higher than usual hospitalizations, but other studies have reported a much higher incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19 [15, 16]. There is a significant potential for under-diagnosis of VTE due to a higher threshold to obtain radiographic imaging in these patients secondary to concern for spread of infection. The study by Middeldorp et al. employed screening for asymptomatic patients, which also resulted in higher percentage of confirmed cases [16]. The risk of stroke in these patients has been demonstrated in previous studies and again found in our patient population as well [17, 18]. Patients who developed thrombotic complications had a higher D-dimer level at admission. It is hard to say if the high D-dimer in these patients was due to the thrombosis itself or a manifestation of the severity of the disease, but the very high D-dimer levels observed in these patients suggest that patients with higher severity of the disease are at higher risk for thrombotic events. None of the patients already on anticoagulation experienced thrombotic complications. This points towards a potential benefit for early anticoagulation. On the other hand, patients who were on only on prophylactic anticoagulation had less clinically significant bleeding. Zhang et al. recently reported the predictive value of D-dimer at admission for inpatient mortality [19]. Our study showed similar findings where D-dimer levels were predictive of inpatient mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic complications. There were also strong associations between peak D-dimer levels and need for mechanical ventilation. These findings suggest that D-dimer is a useful marker for gauging the severity of the disease and could be followed to predict adverse outcomes including the need for mechanical ventilation. During times of hospital overload, this knowledge can be a handy tool for rapid triage of patients with COVID-19.
Our study has several limitations; it is a retrospective series, and thus, the results need to be validated in a prospective research study. The exact timing of anticoagulation relative to the clinical adverse events in our patients is not examined, and therefore, its full impact is difficult to predict. A more extensive study with deep collection of data regarding comorbid conditions and their severity will be helpful to delineate the exact correlation of anticoagulation with outcomes.