Utility of D-dimer in predicting venous thromboembolism in non-mechanically ventilated COVID-19 survivors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nauka PC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834437 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Utility of D-dimer in predicting venous thromboembolism in non-mechanically ventilated COVID-19 survivors.
Nauka Peter C PC Baron Sarah W SW Assa Andrei A Mohrmann Laurel L Jindal Shawn S Oran Erick E Glazman-Kuczaj Galina G Southern William N WN Chekuri Sweta S
Thrombosis research 20201226
Similar Datasets
Project description:Fig. 1 Diagnostic performance of D-dimer using two different assays in patients presenting with syncope. A Left: Receiver-operating characteristic curves quantifying the diagnostic performance of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red) for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Right: Clinical application of D-dimer using the 2-level Wells-score with age-adjusted1 or fixed cutoffs versus the YEARS-algorithm with probability-adjusted cut offs2. B Left: Specificity for different cufoffs of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red) for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Right: Percentage of patients ruled-in and correctly identified VTE patients for different cutoffs of Innovance® D-dimer (blue) and hs-Loci-Innovance® D-dimer (red). 1In patients 50 years or younger, D-dimer concentration < 0.5 mg/l was considered negative. For patients older than 50 years, we used the formula: age in years divided by 100. 2YEARS-algorithm: assessment of only three items from the Wells-score (clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, pulmonary embolism the most likely diagnosis) and using a D-dimer test threshold of 0.5 mg/l in presence, and 1.0 mg/l in absence of one of the YEARS-items.
| S-EPMC10151303 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9799109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients, prone positioning has quickly become an important treatment strategy, however, prone positioning is labor intensive and comes with potential adverse effects. Therefore, identifying which critically ill intubated COVID-19 patients will benefit may help allocate labor resources.MethodsFrom the multi-center Dutch Data Warehouse of COVID-19 ICU patients from 25 hospitals, we selected all 3619 episodes of prone positioning in 1142 invasively mechanically ventilated patients. We excluded episodes longer than 24 h. Berlin ARDS criteria were not formally documented. We used supervised machine learning algorithms Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine and Extreme Gradient Boosting on readily available and clinically relevant features to predict success of prone positioning after 4 h (window of 1 to 7 h) based on various possible outcomes. These outcomes were defined as improvements of at least 10% in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilatory ratio, respiratory system compliance, or mechanical power. Separate models were created for each of these outcomes. Re-supination within 4 h after pronation was labeled as failure. We also developed models using a 20 mmHg improvement cut-off for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and using a combined outcome parameter. For all models, we evaluated feature importance expressed as contribution to predictive performance based on their relative ranking.ResultsThe median duration of prone episodes was 17 h (11-20, median and IQR, N = 2632). Despite extensive modeling using a plethora of machine learning techniques and a large number of potentially clinically relevant features, discrimination between responders and non-responders remained poor with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.62 for PaO2/FiO2 ratio using Logistic Regression, Random Forest and XGBoost. Feature importance was inconsistent between models for different outcomes. Notably, not even being a previous responder to prone positioning, or PEEP-levels before prone positioning, provided any meaningful contribution to predicting a successful next proning episode.ConclusionsIn mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, predicting the success of prone positioning using clinically relevant and readily available parameters from electronic health records is currently not feasible. Given the current evidence base, a liberal approach to proning in all patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS is therefore justified and in particular regardless of previous results of proning.
| S-EPMC9583049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hypercoagulability is a recognized feature in SARS-CoV-2 infection. There exists a need for a dedicated risk assessment model (RAM) that can risk-stratify hospitalized COVID-19 patients for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and guide anticoagulation. We aimed to build a simple clinical model to predict VTE in COVID-19 patients. This large-cohort, retrospective study included adult patients admitted to four hospitals with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Model training was performed on 3531 patients hospitalized between March and December 2020 and validated on 2508 patients hospitalized between January and September 2021. Diagnosis of VTE was defined as acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). The novel RAM was based on commonly available parameters at hospital admission. LASSO regression and logistic regression were performed, risk scores were assigned to the significant variables, and cutoffs were derived. Seven variables with assigned scores were delineated as: DVT History = 2; High D-Dimer (>500-2000 ng/mL) = 2; Very High D-Dimer (>2000 ng/mL) = 5; PE History = 2; Low Albumin (<3.5 g/dL) = 1; Systolic Blood Pressure <120 mmHg = 1, Tachycardia (heart rate >100 bpm) = 1. The model had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 53%. This simple, robust clinical tool can help individualize thromboprophylaxis for COVID-19 patients based on their VTE risk category.
| S-EPMC9325096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: To date, there are no large-scale data on the association between D-dimer levels at admission and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Japanese patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results: The CLOT-COVID study was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study enrolling consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across 16 centers in Japan from April 2021 to September 2021. Among 2,894 enrolled patients, 2,771 (96%) had D-dimer levels measured at admission. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on tertiles of D-dimer levels at admission (1st tertile, D-dimer ≤0.5 μg/mL, n=949; 2nd tertile, D-dimer 0.51-1.09 μg/mL, n=894; 3rd tertile, D-dimer ≥1.1 μg/mL, n=928). The higher the tertile group, the more severe the COVID-19 status at admission. The incidence of VTE during hospitalization was highest in the 3rd tertile group (1st tertile, 0.3%; 2nd tertile, 0.3%; 3rd tertile, 3.6%; P<0.001). Even after adjusting for confounders in the multivariable logistic regression model, the higher D-dimer levels in the 3rd tertile (≥1.1 μg/mL) were independently associated with a higher risk of VTE during hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio 4.83 [95% confidence interval 1.93-12.11; P<0.001]; reference=1st tertile). Conclusions: Higher D-dimer levels at admission were associated with a higher risk of VTE events during hospitalization in Japanese patients with COVID-19. This could be helpful in determining patient-specific anticoagulation management strategies for COVID-19 in Japan.
| S-EPMC9072098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and raised D-dimer levels have high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods We used data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that were tested for pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) because of raised D-dimer levels. We aimed to identify patients at increased risk for VTE. Results From March 25 to July 5th, 2020, 1,306 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and raised D-dimer levels underwent testing for VTE in 12 centers. In all, 171 of 714 (24%) had PE, and 161 of 810 (20%) had DVT. The median time elapsed from admission to VTE testing was 12 days, and the median time from D-dimer measurement to testing 2 days. Most patients with VTE were men (62%), mean age was 62 ± 15 years, 45% were in an intensive care unit. Overall, 681 patients (52%) received VTE prophylaxis with standard doses, 241 (18%) with intermediate doses and 100 (7.7%) with therapeutic doses of anticoagulants. On multivariable analysis, patients with D-dimer levels >20 times the upper normal range (19% of the whole cohort) were at increased risk for VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 3.24; 95%CI: 2.18–4.83), as were those with a platelet count <100,000/μL (OR: 4.17; 95%CI: 1.72–10.0). Conclusions Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and D-dimer levels >20 times the upper normal range were at an increased risk for VTE. This may help to identify what patients could likely benefit from the use of higher than recommended doses of anticoagulants for VTE prophylaxis.
| S-EPMC7832524 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7367026 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7495176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHandgrip strength (HGS) is an alternative tool to evaluate respiratory muscle function. HGS cutoff value indicating extubation success or failure has not been investigated. This study aimed to determine HGS cutoff value to predict successful extubation.MethodsA prospective study was conducted. Patients requiring intubated mechanical ventilation with intubation ≥ 48 hours in medical wards were recruited. HGS test was performed at 10 minutes before and 30 minutes after spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). Rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) was measured at 10 minutes before SBT.ResultsNinety-three patients (58% men) were included. Mean age was 71.6 ± 15.2 years. Weaning failure rate was 6.5%. The area under the ROC curve of 0.84 for the best HGS cutoff value at 10 minutes before SBT was 12.7 kg, with 75.9% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity (P = 0.005). The best HSG cutoff value at 30 minutes after SBT was 14.9 kg, with the area under the ROC curve of 0.82, with 58.6% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity (P = 0.009). The best RSBI cutoff value was 43.5 breaths/min/L, with the area under the ROC curve of 0.46, 33.3% sensitivity and 66.6% specificity (P = 0.737).ConclusionsHGS may be a predictive tool to guide extubation with better sensitivity and specificity than RSBI. A prospective study is needed to verify HGS test as adjunctive to RSBI in ventilator weaning protocol.
| S-EPMC8530306 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8082325 | biostudies-literature