Evidence Hub

Acute pulmonary embolism and systemic thrombolysis in the era of COVID-19 global pandemic 2020: a case series of seven patients admitted to a regional hospital in the French epidemic cluster

J. Philippe, E. Cordeanu, Marie-Béatrice Leimbach, S. Greciano, W. Younes

European Heart Journal: Case Reports, 2021

19 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background The novel Coronavirus [named severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2)] was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which required mechanical ventilation in a high percentage of critically ill patients. Recent studies have highlighted a state of hypercoagulability in patients with SARS-CoV-2, leading to an increased risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The low proportion of PE-associated to DVT in COVID-19 patients may suggest that they have pulmonary thrombosis rather than embolism. There is no guideline recommendation on the treatment of massive PE in COVID-19 patients suffering from ARDS, without cardiogenic shock. Case summary We described a series of seven SARS-COV-2 patients diagnosed with PE, in our institution, who underwent the use of systemic thrombolysis (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) according to the standard protocol of 10 mg over 15 min, then 90 mg over 120 min. Discussion According to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) severity scale, three patients had high-risk PE and four had intermediate high-risk PE. Systemic thrombolysis was found to be associated with a reduction of the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale in five patients, recording a reduction from 3 to 1 in 2/5 patients, and from 3 to 2 in 3/5 patients. Furthermore, 3/5 patients had an initial improvement of their alveolar partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free