Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 22/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared to therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: The review comprised of 24 studies and over 2500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 (95% CI 0.24, 0.39 I2 94%), of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63 I2 91%), of deep-venous-thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32 I2 96%), of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20 I2 90%). In a subgroup of studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared to therapeutic anticoagulation (OR 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57 I2 0%). Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages seem to reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared to standard prophylactic anticoagulation; ongoing randomized controlled trials will further confirm this.


Introduction
Ten studies examining 478 patients using systematic screening, revealed a higher VTE 1 4 2 proportion of 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63 I 2 91% Q 109) with significant heterogeneity (Figure 3). DVT events and may underestimate the overall VTE proportion. In most studies utilizing nonsystematic screening, the authors addressed the high threshold for 1 5 2 screening and imaging due to infection control implications. They stated that this might have  The overall pooled proportion of DVT from 22 studies examining a total of 2401 was 0.23 (95% 1 6 0 CI 0.14, 0.32 I 2 96% Q 531) with significant heterogeneity ( Figure 5). The funnel plot suggested . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 DVT from studies utilizing nonsystematic screening was 0.08 (95% CI 0.04, 0.12 I 2 87% Q 85) Pulmonary embolism was not screened systematically. The analysis of 2096 patients (17 studies) 1 6 7 revealed a pooled proportion of 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20 I 2 90% Q 159) ( Figure 6). The funnel 1 6 8 plot revealed a major asymmetry suggestive of publication bias (Supplementary S 10). Sensitivity analysis showed consistency of the results upon single-study-ordered exclusion. across these studies. In one study (pre-and post-intervention), a higher prophylactic dosage of 1 7 4 nadroparin with adjustment guided by factor X-a activity (labeled as semi-therapeutic) was 1 7 5 compared with standard prophylactic dose. 4,14,21 For synthesis, we considered this adjusted dosage 1 7 6 therapeutic and analyzed it in the corresponding arm (due to the paucity of studies). The VTE 1 7 7 odds ratio was increased in the prophylactic anticoagulation group with uncertainty in the final 1 7 8 point estimate OR 2.34 (95% CI 0.77, 7.14 I 2 53% Q 10). Three studies utilized systematic 1 7 9 screening, hence, they provided a better estimate of the true VTE prevalence. 21 We analyzed 1 8 0 these studies separately, and the results showed significantly increased odds of VTE events with 1 8 1 prophylactic dosing OR 5.45 (95% CI 1.90, 15.57 I 2 0% Q 1.2), and there was no evidence of  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 Most of the constituent studies had moderate or unclear risk of bias ( P=0.03) were significantly lower in the aggressive thromboprophylaxis group. 21 Emerging 2 3 0 evidence showed that even in COVID-19 patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, there is 2 3 1 a high incidence of heparin resistance, and sub-optimal peak in anti-Xa levels. 37,38 This may 2 3 2 explain, in part, the high rate of VTE in patients on usual prophylactic doses and, even in patients 2 3 3 on therapeutic dosing (although relatively at a lower rate).

3 4
Our review also aimed to address the uncertainty of using higher vs. standard prophylactic doses. When we limited our analysis to studies that only used systematic screening, and thus reduce the 2 3 6 chances of missing fatal VTE events, we found that prophylactic dosing was associated with 2 3 7 increased odds of VTE compared to therapeutic dosing (one study was counted in the therapeutic 2 3 8 side although it used subtherapeutic dosing, due to limited studies). 21 The results were homogenous. The reader should consider that the odds of VTE in the therapeutic arm were lower  intensive thromboprophylaxis was not addressed in our review due to data paucity. Nonetheless, two recent observational studies suggested that this intensive thromboprophylaxis is safe in terms 2 5 0 of inducing major bleeding events. 39,40 Thus, we believe that the intensive thromboprophylaxis 2 5 1 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. Limitations of our review are the heterogeneity in the pooled prevalence in the constituent 2 5 4 studies. This is likely due to varying detection methods (systematic vs. nonsystematic, imaging 2 5 5 modalities used, timing, etc.), screening threshold (many studies reported that the threshold was 2 5 6 high due to infection control concerns), varying severity of illness, prophylaxis strategies, and ups. Additionally, the inability to provide a mortality comparison between VTE group and non-2 5 9 VTE group due to data paucity (we contacted the primary authors; however, we could not get the autopsies to ascertain causes of death, adds to the limitations of our review. Notwithstanding this, there are many strengths to our review that are worthy of mention. This is 2 6 6 the most extensive review examining the prevalence of VTE exclusively in critically ill patients. Additionally, the review examines VTE prevalence based on the utilized screening method 2 6 8 providing the readers with a better estimate of VTE prevalence. We also pooled a proportion that 2 6 9 reflects the prevalence; nonetheless, we acknowledged its limited accuracy. Finally, we believe 2 7 0 that the results of the limited comparison between lower and higher dosing of chemoprophylaxis 2 7 1 will help inform therapeutic decisions until further data from RCTs becomes available. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020.       individualised thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.24.20175745 doi: medRxiv preprint     . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. .  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.24.20175745 doi: medRxiv preprint validity (if necessary)?; (8) Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects?; (9) Were the numerator(s) and denominator r(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.24.20175745 doi: medRxiv preprint  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted August 29, 2020. .