Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients and prediction model: a multicenter cohort study.
Anticoagulation
COVID-19
Deep vein thrombosis
Pulmonary embolism
Risk prediction
Risk stratification
Venous thromboembolism
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 May 2022
13 May 2022
Historique:
received:
18
08
2021
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
13
5
2022
pubmed:
14
5
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with COVID-19 infection are commonly reported to have an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The choice of anti-thrombotic agents and doses are currently being studied in randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies. There exists a need for individualized risk stratification of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to assist clinicians in decision-making on anticoagulation. We sought to identify the risk factors of VTE in COVID-19 patients, which could help physicians in the prevention, early identification, and management of VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and improve clinical outcomes in these patients. This is a multicenter, retrospective database of four main health systems in Southeast Michigan, United States. We compiled comprehensive data for adult COVID-19 patients who were admitted between 1st March 2020 and 31st December 2020. Four models, including the random forest, multiple logistic regression, multilinear regression, and decision trees, were built on the primary outcome of in-hospital acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and tested for performance. The study also reported hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS in the VTE and the non-VTE patients. Four models were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and confusion matrix. The cohort included 3531 admissions, 3526 had discharge diagnoses, and 6.68% of patients developed acute VTE (N = 236). VTE group had a longer hospital and ICU LOS than the non-VTE group (hospital LOS 12.2 days vs. 8.8 days, p < 0.001; ICU LOS 3.8 days vs. 1.9 days, p < 0.001). 9.8% of patients in the VTE group required more advanced oxygen support, compared to 2.7% of patients in the non-VTE group (p < 0.001). Among all four models, the random forest model had the best performance. The model suggested that blood pressure, electrolytes, renal function, hepatic enzymes, and inflammatory markers were predictors for in-hospital VTE in COVID-19 patients. Patients with COVID-19 have a high risk for VTE, and patients who developed VTE had a prolonged hospital and ICU stay. This random forest prediction model for VTE in COVID-19 patients identifies predictors which could aid physicians in making a clinical judgment on empirical dosages of anticoagulation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patients with COVID-19 infection are commonly reported to have an increased risk of venous thrombosis. The choice of anti-thrombotic agents and doses are currently being studied in randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies. There exists a need for individualized risk stratification of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to assist clinicians in decision-making on anticoagulation. We sought to identify the risk factors of VTE in COVID-19 patients, which could help physicians in the prevention, early identification, and management of VTE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and improve clinical outcomes in these patients.
METHOD
METHODS
This is a multicenter, retrospective database of four main health systems in Southeast Michigan, United States. We compiled comprehensive data for adult COVID-19 patients who were admitted between 1st March 2020 and 31st December 2020. Four models, including the random forest, multiple logistic regression, multilinear regression, and decision trees, were built on the primary outcome of in-hospital acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and tested for performance. The study also reported hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS in the VTE and the non-VTE patients. Four models were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and confusion matrix.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The cohort included 3531 admissions, 3526 had discharge diagnoses, and 6.68% of patients developed acute VTE (N = 236). VTE group had a longer hospital and ICU LOS than the non-VTE group (hospital LOS 12.2 days vs. 8.8 days, p < 0.001; ICU LOS 3.8 days vs. 1.9 days, p < 0.001). 9.8% of patients in the VTE group required more advanced oxygen support, compared to 2.7% of patients in the non-VTE group (p < 0.001). Among all four models, the random forest model had the best performance. The model suggested that blood pressure, electrolytes, renal function, hepatic enzymes, and inflammatory markers were predictors for in-hospital VTE in COVID-19 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with COVID-19 have a high risk for VTE, and patients who developed VTE had a prolonged hospital and ICU stay. This random forest prediction model for VTE in COVID-19 patients identifies predictors which could aid physicians in making a clinical judgment on empirical dosages of anticoagulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35562677
doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07421-3
pii: 10.1186/s12879-022-07421-3
pmc: PMC9100286
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
462Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 29;21(1):308
pubmed: 33781216
J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Jul;18(7):1743-1746
pubmed: 32320517
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:148-150
pubmed: 32381264
Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jun;27(6):461-468
pubmed: 32311790
Blood Adv. 2021 Feb 9;5(3):872-888
pubmed: 33560401
Thromb Haemost. 2021 Aug;121(8):1043-1053
pubmed: 33472255
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):268-277
pubmed: 32374815
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:9-14
pubmed: 32353746
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 31;16(3):e0248029
pubmed: 33788866
Chest. 2020 Sep;158(3):1143-1163
pubmed: 32502594
Am J Cardiol. 2022 Jun 15;173:64-72
pubmed: 35382929
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2020 Oct;50(3):558-566
pubmed: 32617807
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 6;22(11):e24018
pubmed: 33027032
JAMA. 2020 Aug 25;324(8):782-793
pubmed: 32648899
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 7;76(1):122-124
pubmed: 32387623
N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 26;385(9):790-802
pubmed: 34351721
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021 Nov;9(6):1371-1381.e4
pubmed: 33744497
Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Sep;27(9):811-820
pubmed: 32734624
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 9;383(2):120-128
pubmed: 32437596
Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2021 Feb 24;5(2):296-300
pubmed: 33733028
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
Thromb Res. 2020 Dec;196:27-30
pubmed: 32823173
N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 26;385(9):777-789
pubmed: 34351722
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 16;73(12):2283-2293
pubmed: 33400771
Thromb Res. 2020 Dec;196:308-312
pubmed: 32977128
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2111788
pubmed: 34115129
Vasc Med. 2021 Aug;26(4):415-425
pubmed: 33818197
Thromb Res. 2020 Jul;191:145-147
pubmed: 32291094
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2020 Sep;40(9):2332-2337
pubmed: 32628040
JAMA. 2021 Apr 27;325(16):1620-1630
pubmed: 33734299
Lancet Haematol. 2020 Jun;7(6):e438-e440
pubmed: 32407672
Circulation. 2020 Jul 14;142(2):184-186
pubmed: 32330083
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Nov 06;2020:9126148
pubmed: 33204727
J Thromb Haemost. 2021 Oct;19(10):2522-2532
pubmed: 34260813