Publications

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 5 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Empiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic options for patients with AF and HFrEF are limited due to few antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) choices and historically equivocal effects of procedural interventions on mortality. However, recent randomized trials examining catheter ablation (CA) in AF patients with HFrEF have shown a beneficial effect on arrhythmic burden and HF symptoms, as well as an improvement in mortality. This review focuses on the role of CA for AF patients with HFrEF.

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvulopathy requiring replacement by means of the surgical or transcatheter approach. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has quickly become a viable and often preferred treatment strategy compared to surgical aortic valve replacement. However, transcatheter heart valve system deployment not infrequently injures the specialized electrical system of the heart, leading to new conduction disorders including high-grade atrioventricular block and complete heart block (CHB) necessitating permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), which may lead to deleterious effects on cardiac function and patient outcomes. Additional conduction disturbances (e.g., new-onset persistent left bundle branch block, PR/QRS prolongation, and transient CHB) currently lack clearly defined management algorithms leading to variable strategies among institutions. This article outlines the current understanding of the pathophysiology, patient and procedural risk factors, means for further risk stratification and monitoring of patients without a clear indication for PPI, our institutional approach, and future directions in the management and evaluation of post-TAVR conduction disturbances.

The COVID-19 crisis has forced physicians to make daily decisions that require knowledge and skills they did not acquire as part of their biomedical training. Physicians are being called upon to be both managers-able to set processes and structures-and leaders-capable of creating vision and inspiring action. Although these skills may have been previously considered as just nice to have, they are now as central to being a physician as physiology and biochemistry. While traditionally only selected physicians have received management training, either through executive or joint degree programs, the authors argue that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of all physicians learning management and leadership skills. Training should emphasize skills related to interpersonal management, systems management, and communication and planning; be seamlessly integrated into the medical curriculum alongside existing content; and be delivered by existing faculty with leadership experience. While leadership programs, such as the Pediatric Leadership for the Underserved program at the University of California, San Francisco, and the Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program at Mass General Brigham, may include project work, instruction by clinical leaders, and content delivered over time, examples of leadership training that seamlessly blend biomedical and management training are lacking. The authors present the Leader and Leadership Education and Development curriculum used at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, which is woven through 4 years of medical school, as an example of leadership training that approximates many of the principles espoused here. The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched the logistical capabilities of health care systems and the entire United States, revealing that management and leadership skills-often viewed as soft skills-are a matter of life and death. Training all physicians in these skills will improve patient care, the well-being of the health care workforce, and health across the United States.