4.6 Article

Pulmonary Thrombosis or Embolism in a Large Cohort of Hospitalized Patients With Covid-19

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00557

关键词

COVID-19; pulmonary thrombosis; pulmonary embolism (MeSH); thromboprophylaxis; anticoagulant (MeSH); thromboinflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:We set out to analyze the incidence and predictive factors of pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Methods:We prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 admitted to the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, a university hospital in Barcelona, between March 9 and April 15, 2020. Patients with suspected PE, according to standardized guidelines, underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Results:A total of 1,275 patients with Covid-19 were admitted to hospital. CTPA was performed on 76 inpatients, and a diagnosis of PE was made in 32 (2.6% [95%CI 1.7-3.5%]). Patients with PE were older, and they exhibited lower PaO2:FiO(2)ratios and higher levels of D-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP). They more often required admission to ICU and mechanical ventilation, and they often had longer hospital stays, although in-hospital mortality was no greater than in patients without PE. High CRP and D-dimer levels at admission (>= 150 mg/L and >= 1,000 ng/ml, respectively) and a peak D-dimer >= 6,000 ng/ml during hospital stay were independent factors associated with PE. Prophylactic low molecular weight heparin did not appear to prevent PE. Increased CRP levels correlated with increased D-dimer levels and both correlated with a lower PaO2:FiO(2). Conclusions:The 2.6% incidence of PE in Covid-19 hospitalized patients is clearly high. Higher doses of thromboprophylaxis may be required to prevent PE, particularly in patients at increased risk, such as those with high levels of CRP and D-dimer at admission. These findings should be validated in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据