4.2 Article

Venous thromboembolism among Medicare acute ischaemic stroke patients with and without COVID-19

Journal

STROKE AND VASCULAR NEUROLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages 259-262

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/svn-2022-001814

Keywords

COVID-19; Stroke; Risk Factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined the prevalence of VTE among acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) patients with and without a history of COVID-19. The results showed a higher prevalence of VTE among patients with a history of hospitalised or non-hospitalised COVID-19 compared to those without a history of COVID-19.
BackgroundCOVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined the prevalence of VTE among acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) patients with and without a history of COVID-19. MethodsWe identified AIS hospitalisations of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries aged >= 65 years from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2022. We compared the prevalence and adjusted prevalence ratio of VTE among AIS patients with and without a history of COVID-19. ResultsAmong 283 034 Medicare FFS beneficiaries with AIS hospitalisations, the prevalence of VTE was 4.51%, 2.96% and 2.61% among those with a history of hospitalised COVID-19, non-hospitalised COVID-19 and without COVID-19, respectively. As compared with patients without a history of COVID-19, the prevalence of VTE among patients with a history of hospitalised or non-hospitalised COVID-19 were 1.62 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.70) and 1.13 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.23) times greater, respectively. ConclusionsThere appeared to be a notably higher prevalence of VTE among Medicare beneficiaries with AIS accompanied by a current or prior COVID-19. Early recognition of coagulation abnormalities and appropriate interventions may help improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available