4.6 Article

Clinical and computed tomography characteristics of COVID-19 associated acute pulmonary embolism: A different phenotype of thrombotic disease?

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 86-89

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.06.010

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism; COVID-19; Computed tomography; Thrombosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: COVID-19 infections are associated with a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism, particularly pulmonary embolism (PE). It is suggested that COVID-19 associated PE represents in situ immunothrombosis rather than venous thromboembolism, although the origin of thrombotic lesions in COVID-19 patients remains largely unknown. Methods: In this study, we assessed the clinical and computed tomography (CT) characteristics of PE in 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and compared these to those of 100 consecutive control patients diagnosed with acute PE before the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, RV/LV diameter ratio, pulmonary artery trunk diameter and total thrombus load (according to Qanadli score) were measured and compared. Results: We observed that all thrombotic lesions in COVID-19 patients were found to be in lung parenchyma affected by COVID-19. Also, the thrombus load was lower in COVID-19 patients (Qanadli score -8%, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -16 to -0.36%) as was the prevalence of the most proximal PE in the main/lobar pulmonary artery (17% versus 47%; -30%, 95%CI -44% to -8.2). Moreover, the mean RV/LV ratio (mean difference -0.23, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.07) and the prevalence of RV/LV ratio > 1.0 (prevalence difference -23%, 95%CI -41 to -0.86%) were lower in the COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Our findings therefore suggest that the phenotype of COVID-19 associated PE indeed differs from PE in patients without COVID-19, fuelling the discussion on its pathophysiology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available