Back

Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets in COVID-19: Impact on Survival and Thromboembolism Development

Salmon, T.; Titley, M.; Noori, Z.; Crosby, M.; Sankaranarayanan, R.

2021-07-07 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2021.07.03.21254541
Show abstract

BackgroundHigher rates of venous and arterial thromboembolism have been noted in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). There has been limited research on the impact of anticoagulant and antiplatelet choice in COVID-19. MethodsThis was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of 933 patients with COVID-19 infection presenting between 01/02/2020 and 31/05/2020. Survival time at 90 days post-diagnosis and thromboembolism development were the measured outcomes. ResultsOf 933 total patients, mean age was 68 years and 54.4% were male. 297 (31.8%) did not survive at 90 days. A Cox proportional hazards model analysis found no statistically significant relationship between anticoagulant or antiplatelet choice and survival (p<0.05). 57 (6.3%) developed thromboembolism. Antiplatelet choice was not shown to have a statistically significant relationship with thromboembolism development. Warfarin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use did not have a statistically significant impact on thromboembolism development (p<0.05). Therapeutic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) use was associated with increased thromboembolism risk (Odds ratio = 14.327, 95% CI 1.904 - 107.811, p = 0.010). ConclusionsAntiplatelet choice was shown to have no impact on survival or thromboembolism development in COVID-19. Anticoagulant choice did not impact survival or thromboembolism development, aside from LMWH. Therapeutic LMWH use was associated with increased risk of thromboembolism. However, it should be noted that the sample size for patients using therapeutic LMWH was small (n=4), and there may be confounding variables affecting both LMWH use and thromboembolism development. These findings should be repeated with a larger sample of patients using therapeutic LMWH with additional adjustment for cofounding variables.

Matching journals

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

1
Open Heart
based on 18 papers
Top 0.1%
17.4%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 49%
10.4%
3
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
10.4%
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 0.5%
10.4%
5
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 23%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Heart Rhythm
based on 16 papers
Top 0.8%
4.6%
7
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 6%
2.9%
8
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
based on 33 papers
Top 3%
2.9%
9
International Journal of Cardiology
based on 13 papers
Top 1%
2.6%
10
Journal of the American Heart Association
based on 92 papers
Top 7%
2.5%
11
Heart
based on 10 papers
Top 0.9%
2.5%
12
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 64%
2.4%
13
The American Journal of Cardiology
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
1.6%
14
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
15
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
based on 21 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
16
Circulation
based on 37 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
17
European Heart Journal
based on 14 papers
Top 5%
0.9%
18
ERJ Open Research
based on 36 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Neurology
based on 74 papers
Top 11%
0.8%
20
Critical Care Explorations
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Healthcare
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
23
Critical Care
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Medicine
based on 29 papers
Top 9%
0.7%
25
Atherosclerosis
based on 16 papers
Top 4%
0.7%