Empiric Anticoagulation Therapy in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: An Evaluation of Bleeding Risk Scores Performances in Predicting Bleeding Events

2Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Currently, there is no standardized consensus on anticoagulation (AC) among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), which has an overwhelming bleeding risk. We aimed to compare the patterns of AC in COVID-19 patients and compare two validated risk scores in predicting bleeding events. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for COVID-19 patients who received empiric anticoagulation therapy. The primary outcomes included bleeding events, survival, and mechanical ventilation needs. We applied the HAS-BLED and ORBIT bleeding risk scores to assess the predictive accuracy, using c-statistics and the receiver operating curve (ROC) method. Of the included patients (n = 921), with a mean age of 58.1 ± 13.2, 51.6% received therapeutic AC and 48.4% received a prophylactic AC dose. Significantly higher values of d-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) among the therapeutic AC users (p < 0.001) were noted with a significantly prolonged duration of hospital stay and mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively). The mean value of the HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores were 2.53 ± 0.93 and 2.26 ± 1.29, respectively. The difference between the two tested scores for major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding was significant (p = 0.026 and 0.036, respectively) with modest bleeding predictive performances. The therapeutic AC was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. HAS-BLED showed greater accuracy than ORBIT in bleeding risk predictability.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abdelrahman, M. A., Ahmed, A., Alanazi, A. S., & Osama, H. (2022). Empiric Anticoagulation Therapy in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: An Evaluation of Bleeding Risk Scores Performances in Predicting Bleeding Events. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11174965

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free