RESUMEN
Aims. To evaluate the adverse events (and its clinical correlates) in a large prospective cohort of Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Material and Methods. We recruited patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) AF Registry and included those for whom the diabetic mellitus (DM) status was known. We used Cox-regression analysis to assess the 1-year risk of all-cause death, thromboembolic events, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure and major bleeding. Results. Of 4058 patients (mean age 68.5 ± 11.8 years; 34.4% females) considered for this analysis, 999 (24.6%) had DM (age 71 ± 11 years, 36.4% females). Patients with DM had higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc (2.3 ± 1.6 vs. 4.0 ± 1.5, p < 0.001) and HAS-BLED (1.3 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.1, p < 0.001) risk scores and were less treated with rhythm control strategies compared to patients without DM (18.7% vs. 22.0%). After 1-year of follow-up, patients with DM had higher incidence of all-cause death (4.9% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001), cardiovascular death (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.003), and major bleeding (1.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.002) compared to those without DM. On Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, sex, heart failure, coronary and peripheral artery diseases and previous thromboembolic event, DM was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.00-2.19), cardiovascular death (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.01-5.40), and major bleeding (HR 1.91, 95% 1.01-3.60). On interaction analysis, the impact of DM in determining the risk of all-cause death was greater in young than in older patients (p int = 0.010). Conclusions. Given the high rates of adverse outcomes in these Asian AF patients with DM, efforts to optimize the management approach of these high-risk patients in a holistic or integrated care approach are needed.
RESUMEN
The infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is associated with numerous systemic involvements. Besides the severe respiratory injuries and cardiovascular complications, it became obvious early on that this disease carries an increased risk of thromboembolic events, but a higher propensity for bleedings as well. We researched the medical literature over significant PubMed published articles debating on the prevalence, category of patients, the moment of occurrence, and evolution of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but also of venous and arterial "in situ" thrombosis (AT), and hemorrhagic events as well. Most researchers agree on an increased prevalence of thromboembolic events, ranging between 25 and 31% for VTE, depending on the analyzed population. For AT and hemorrhagic complications lower rates were reported, namely, about 2-3%, respectively, between 4.8 and 8%, occurring mostly in older patients, suffering from moderate/severe forms of COVID-19, with associated comorbidities. It is important to mention that patients suffering from hemorrhages frequently received thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant drugs. As a consequence of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications which are both important negative prognostic factors, the evolution of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is aggravated, determining an augmented morbidity and mortality of this population.
RESUMEN
Importance: The use of anticoagulant therapy with heparins decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Even if enoxaparin and fondaparinux have the same clinical indication for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention; to date, there are no data about the use of fondaparinux in terms of safety, effectiveness, and impact on clinical prognosis among COVID-19 patients. Objective: To evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and clinical impact of VTE prophylaxis with fondaparinux and enoxaparin among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in internal medicine units. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective multicenter observation study, including consecutive symptomatic patients with laboratory-proven COVID-19 admitted to internal medicine units of five Italian hospitals from 15th February to 15th March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was the composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding; the primary effectiveness outcome was the composite of all events classified as pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. The secondary effectiveness outcome included acute respiratory distress syndrome and all-cause death. Results: Among 120 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the study, 74 were taking enoxaparin (4,000 or 6,000 units/day) and 46 fondaparinux (2.5 units/day). No statistically significant difference in demographic and laboratory and clinical characteristics between the two groups has been shown. During a median follow-up of 32 (interquartile range: 14-51) days, the cumulative incidence rates of VTE and bleeding events on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis with heparins were 19% and 8%, respectively. The incidence of both VTE (6.5 vs. 13.5%; P = 0.36) and bleeding events (6.5 vs. 4.1%; P = 0.68) did not show a significant difference between COVID-19 patients on fondaparinux compared with those on enoxaparin therapy. The regression model for the risk of outcome events according to different VTE prophylaxis drugs did not show significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Although these results need confirmation by prospective studies including a larger population, our study provides preliminary evidence of a safe and efficacy use of fondaparinux for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Detailed evidence on the societal costs of venous thromboembolism (VTE), i.e. deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and of subsequent major bleeding events, e.g. intracranial and gastrointestinal bleedings, is limited. The objective was to estimate the average 3-year societal event costs attributable to VTE and subsequent major bleedings in Denmark. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on nationwide Danish registers, each incident patient diagnosed with VTE in the period from 2004 to 2016 was identified and matched with four non-VTE patients by nearest-neighbour propensity score matching. For bleeding patients, the reference cohort was VTE patients without bleedings. Event costs in terms of VTE, DVT, PE, and major bleedings in VTE patients were measured by the 'difference-in-actual-cost' method within 3 years after the incidence. Societal costs included healthcare costs (primary care, hospital, and prescription medicine), municipality home care services, and production loss. The study population included 74 137 VTE incident patients (DVT: 43 099; PE: 31 038), and 4887 VTE patients with a major bleeding within 3 years from VTE diagnosis. The 3-year attributable societal VTE event costs were 40 024 EUR (DVT: 34 509 EUR; PE: 50 083 EUR) with 53% of these costs appearing in the first incident year. Similar results for major bleedings were 51 168 EUR with 46% of these costs appearing in the first incident year. CONCLUSION: The societal costs of VTE and subsequent major bleedings are substantial and ought to be considered. Estimated costs of events may be informative in evaluating the impact of preventive interventions targeting VTE and subsequent major bleedings.