Back

Coronavirus-19 and coagulopathy: A Systematic Review

Lee, S. G.; Fralick, M.; Tang, G.; Tse, B.; Baumann Kreuziger, L.; Cushman, M.; Juni, P.; Sholzberg, M.

2021-01-06 hematology
10.1101/2021.01.05.20248202
Show abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and coagulopathy may assist clinical prognostication, and influence treatment and outcomes. We aimed to systematically describe the relationship between hemostatic laboratory parameters and important clinical outcomes among adults with COVID-19. MethodsA systematic review of randomized clinical trials, observational studies and case series published in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and CENTRAL from December 1, 2019 to March 25, 2020. Studies of adult patients with COVID-19 that reported at least one hemostatic laboratory parameter were included. ResultsData were extracted from 57 studies (N=12,050 patients) that met inclusion criteria. The average age of patients was 52 years and 45% were women. Of the included studies, 92.7% (N=38/41 studies) reported an average platelet count [≥] 150 x 109/L, 68.2% (N=15/22 studies) reported an average prothrombin time (PT) between 11-14 s, 55% (N=11/20 studies) reported an average activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) between 25-35 s, and 34.4% (N=11/32 studies) reported a D-dimer concentration above the upper limit of normal (ULN). Eight studies (7 cohorts and 1 case series) reported hemostatic lab values for survivors versus non-survivors. Among non-survivors, D-dimer concentrations were reported in 4 studies and all reported an average above the ULN. InterpretationMost patients had a normal platelet count, elevated D-dimer, PT and aPTT values in the upper reference interval; D-dimer elevation appeared to correlate with poor outcomes. Further studies are needed to better correlate these hemostatic parameters with the risk of adverse outcomes such as thrombosis and bleeding.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 21%
18.4%
2
British Journal of Haematology
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
14.1%
3
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
8.2%
4
Blood
based on 14 papers
Top 0.3%
6.9%
5
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 2%
5.1%
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 4%
3.2%
8
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 46%
3.2%
9
Blood Advances
based on 16 papers
Top 0.6%
2.5%
10
Leukemia
based on 11 papers
Top 0.7%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Transfusion
based on 14 papers
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Atherosclerosis
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
14
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 11%
1.4%
15
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
based on 10 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 5%
1.4%
17
Critical Care
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Open Heart
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
19
Public Health in Practice
based on 11 papers
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 17%
1.3%
21
Critical Care Explorations
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
22
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
based on 33 papers
Top 6%
0.9%
23
ERJ Open Research
based on 36 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
24
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 23%
0.7%
25
Tropical Medicine & International Health
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
26
European Journal of Neurology
based on 20 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 6%
0.7%