Pulmonary Thromboembolism in Patients After COVID-19: Predictive Indicators for Correct Diagnosis

  1. Dilyana Yakova-Hristova
  2. Iana Simova
  3. Pavlin Pavlov
  4. Martin Hristov
  5. Todor Kundurzhiev
  6. Nikolai Dimitrov
  7. Toni Vekov

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 can lead to significant procoagulant events, sometimes involving life-threatening pulmonary thromboembolism (PE). Additional conditions complicating the diagnosis are the presence of risk factors for PE in almost all patients with COVID-19 and the overlap of clinical presentation between PE and COVID-19. Objectives: We conducted a single-center study at the Heart and Brain Hospital, Pleven, from December 2020 to February 2021. It included 27 consecutively hospitalized patients with recent pneumonia caused by COVID-19 and clinical presentations corresponding to PE. Methods: The cohort was divided into two groups with and without a definitive diagnosis of PE, proven by CT pulmoangiography. The aim was to find the indicators predicting the presence of PE in patients with acute or post-acute COVID-19 conditions. Results: Our results showed that some ECG criteria, including S-wave over 1.5 mm in leads I and aVL (P = 0.007), Q-wave in leads III and aVF (P = 0.020), and D-dimer as a quantitative variable (P = 0.025), were independent predictors of PE. The RV/LV diameter ratios ≥ 1.0 and right ventricular dysfunction showed a sensitivity (Se) of 62.5%, specificity (Sp) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86.4% to verify the PE diagnosis. Besides, the D-dimer cutoff value of 1,032 ng/mL had an optimal Se of 87.5%, Sp of 57.9%, PPV of 46.7%, and NPV of 91.7% for PE diagnosis (P = 0.021). Conclusions: Against the background of acute and post-acute COVID-19 conditions, ECG and EchoCG criteria remain the PE predictors. We suggest that a higher D-dimer cutoff value be applied in COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients to confirm/dismiss PE diagnosis.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.5812/archcid.118892
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.24.21258842: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years of age, with active or experienced Covid-19 pneumonia, with clinical, laboratory and diagnostic criteria for PE and no allergy to iodine-containing contrast agents, who confirmed their participation by written consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analyses: Statistical analyzes were performed using statistical software SPSS for Windows version 20.0.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Our limitations are related to the small selected group of patients, but our work continues in terms of expanding the cohort and presenting more detailed results.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.24.21258842v1 on medRxiv