==== Front Thromb J Thromb J Thrombosis Journal 1477-9560 BioMed Central London 37400813 518 10.1186/s12959-023-00518-y Research Predictors of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 Bahk Jeeyune 1 Rehman Abdul 2 Ho Kam Sing 1 Narasimhan Bharat 1 Baloch Hafiza Noor Ul Ain 3 Zhang Jiafang 4 Yip Rowena 4 Lookstein Robert 5 Steiger David J david.steiger@mountsinai.org 3 1 grid.59734.3c 0000 0001 0670 2351 Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA 2 grid.430387.b 0000 0004 1936 8796 Department of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, ISA USA 3 grid.59734.3c 0000 0001 0670 2351 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10019 USA 4 grid.59734.3c 0000 0001 0670 2351 Department of Biostatistics, Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA 5 Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA 3 7 2023 3 7 2023 2023 21 7312 4 2023 24 6 2023 © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Background High venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates have been described in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that specific clinical characteristics may help differentiate hypoxic COVID-19 patients with and without a diagnosed pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods We performed a retrospective observational case-control study of 158 consecutive patients hospitalized in one of four Mount Sinai Hospitals with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 8, 2020, who received a Chest CT Pulmonary Angiogram (CTA) to diagnose a PE. We analyzed demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, treatment characteristics, and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with and without PE. Results 92 patients were negative (CTA-), and 66 patients were positive for PE (CTA+). CTA + had a longer time from symptom onset to admission (7 days vs. 4 days, p = 0.05), higher admission biomarkers, notably D-dimer (6.87 vs. 1.59, p < 0.0001), troponin (0.015 vs. 0.01, p = 0.01), and peak D-dimer (9.26 vs. 3.8, p = 0.0008). Predictors of PE included time from symptom onset to admission (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.20, p = 0.008), and PESI score at the time of CTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, p = 0.008). Predictors of mortality included age (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.22, p = 0.006), chronic anticoagulation (13.81, 95% CI 1.24–154, p = 0.03), and admission ferritin (1.001, 95% CI 1-1.001, p = 0.01). Conclusions In 158 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure evaluated for suspected PE, 40.8% patients had a positive CTA. We identified clinical predictors of PE and mortality from PE, which may help with early identification and reduction of PE-related mortality in patients with COVID-19. Keywords Pulmonary embolism Venous Thromboembolism Coagulopathy D-dimer Coronavirus disease 2019 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023 ==== Body pmcIntroduction Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop coagulopathies associated with elevated D-dimer levels, venous thromboembolism (VTE), disseminated intravascular thrombosis (DIC), and bleeding [1]. Elevated D-dimer levels correlate with an increased risk of mortality [2]. High VTE rates in COVID-19 may be secondary to the prothrombotic and inflammatory state associated with COVID-19 through mechanisms such as cytokine storm, complement activation, and endotheliosis [3, 4]. There is autopsy evidence of both pulmonary macrothrombi and microthrombi, despite the use of prophylactic anticoagulation [5, 6]. VTE risk is the highest in patients admitted to intensive care units where prolonged immobilization, respiratory failure, and use of sedation and paralysis promote venous stasis leading to increased risks of thromboembolic events [7, 8]. VTE rates of 21–69% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 have been described, with rates greater than 20–30% occurring despite prophylactic anticoagulation [9]. Since the development of VTE is associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19, the diagnosis and treatment of thrombotic complications is of great importance [10–12]. An elevated D-dimer is used as a screening tool to rule out a pulmonary embolism (PE) in low or intermediate risk patients [13]. However, D-dimer lacks specificity for the diagnosis of PE in patients with COVID-19 [14]. Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) is recommended when patients with COVID-19 develop increasing hypoxemia, hypotension, tachycardia without radiological evidence of advancing pneumonia [15], or when non-contrast chest CT findings do not provide sufficient explanation for the degree of hypoxia [16]. The aims of our study included defining predictors of PE in hospitalized hypoxic COVID-19 patients evaluated for a suspected PE. We hypothesized that specific demographic, clinical, and biochemical abnormalities may help differentiate hypoxic COVID-19 patients with and without a PE and define a cohort at an increased risk of a PE. In addition, we wanted to determine the predictors of mortality in patients who were diagnosed with a PE. Identifying predictors of PE and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may help instruct clinicians to initiate therapy pending a radiological confirmation of PE, leading an early identification and reduction of PE-related mortality. Methods Study design, setting, and population Our retrospective, observational, case-control study included all consecutive adult (> 18 years) patients hospitalized to one of four Mount Sinai Hospitals in New York City – the Mount Sinai Hospital, Morningside, West, and Beth Israel, between March 1 and May 8, 2020, with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who received a CTA. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal specimens. Patients were defined as having a PE if the CTA was positive (CTA+), and PE negative if the CTA was negative for PE (CTA-). Thromboprophylaxis regimen was defined as subcutaneous low-molecular heparin (enoxaparin) 40 mg daily. The primary outcome was in-hospital PE, and further outcomes included mortality and hospital length of stay. A total of one hundred fifty-eight patients were identified. The institutional review board of Mount Sinai Health System approved this study. As no direct patient contact or intervention from the study group was needed, informed consent was waived. Researchers exclusively utilized de-identified data. Data collection Clinical data was accessed via the electronic medical record system, EPIC, and relevant de-identified data extracted following review of patient medical charts. Patient demographics, co-existing medical conditions, clinical data including medications, vital signs, laboratory data, and imaging studies were collected. Coexisting medical conditions and presenting symptoms were obtained from physician documentation. All laboratory and imaging tests were performed at the discretion of the treating physician. Statistical analysis All analyses were performed with R software (version 4.1.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviations for normally distributed data or as medians and interquartile ranges for nonparametric data. Categorical variables are summarized as frequencies and percentages. Differences in distributions of characteristics of those with and without PE were analyzed using Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. P-values were calculated with the use of two-sided exact tests and p ≤ 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to build the model to predict PE and stepwise selection was used for variable selection. Cox proportional hazard model was implemented to predict mortality in COVID-19 patients with PE and stepwise selection was used for variable selection. Firth penalized maximum likelihood estimation method was used to address rare event in the data and perfect separation. To analyze the diagnostic performance of D-dimer tests for PE, a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated with a multiple-threshold model, a multilevel random-effects model that considers sensitivity and specificity as functions of the thresholds and accounts for heterogeneity across studies, and the correlation of sensitivity with specificity [17]. We used data from patients who underwent CTA, as the presence or absence of PE could not be certain without CTA. The optimal cut offs were estimated by maximizing the Youden index under varying weights for sensitivity. Results Patients A total of 158 patients who had a CTA were included. 66 (41.8%) patients had a positive CTA and 92 (58.2%) had a negative CTA. The median age of CTA + was 59 years, of whom 61% were male. The median age of CTA- was 64.5 years, of whom 52% were male. CTA + comprised more of White/Caucasians (33% vs. 13%), and fewer Asians (0% vs. 10%) compared to CTA- (p = 0.002). CTA + had significantly fewer patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)/asthma (9% vs. 24%, p = 0.03) compared to CTA-. Average LOS for CTA + was 14.6 compared to 13.7 days for CTA- (p = 0.158). There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of parenchymal lung disease between the two groups (p = 0.817 by Chi-Square test). When radiological severity was categorized into mild, moderate, and severe, there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of lung involvement between the two groups (p = 0.394 by Chi-Square test). The baseline characteristics of both groups are summarized in Table 1. Out of CTA+, 44% (n = 29) received therapeutic low-molecular heparin, 24% (n = 16) received unfractionated heparin, and 30% (n = 20) received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. Table 1 Demographic Data of Patients with and without a PE Characteristics Positive chest CTA consistent with a PE Negative chest CTA ruling out a PE Total P-value Demographics Age (yr), median (IQR) Males Females BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR) 59 (49-71) 40 (61) 26 (39) 28.6 (24.6-35.0) 64.5 (52.8-71) 48 (52) 44 (48) 27.6 (23.4-33.2) 62.5 (49.3-71.0) 88 (56) 70 (44) 28 (23.7-33.9) 0.40 0.37 0.32 Race Black or African American Hispanic White Asian Others 18 (27) 15 (23) 22 (33) 0 (0) 11 (17) 24 (26) 22 (24) 12 (13) 9 (10) 25 (27) 42 (27) 37 (23) 34 (22) 9 (6) 36 (23) 0.002 Comorbidities Hypertension Diabetes Hyperlipidemia Active malignancy COPD/asthma Coronary artery disease Congestive heart failure Atrial fibrillation Chronic kidney disease Chronic liver disease Cerebrovascular accident Myocardial infarction Autoimmune disease Previous gastrointestinal bleed Prior DVT/PE Oral contraceptive pill use 25 (38) 17 (26) 19 (29) 6 (9) 6 (9) 8 (12) 2 (3) 3 (5) 4 (6) 1 (2) 5 (8) 1 (2) 7 (11) 0 (0) 7 (11) 0 (0) 50 (54) 24 (26) 31 (34) 16 (17) 22 (24) 17 (19) 9 (10) 8 (9) 10 (11) 4 (4) 9 (10) 6 (7) 8 (9) 4 (4) 12 (13) 1 (1) 75 (48) 41 (26) 50 (32) 22 (14) 28 (18) 25 (16) 11 (7) 11 (7) 14 (9) 5 (3) 14 (9) 7 (6) 15 (10) 4 (3) 19 (12) 1 (1) 0.05 1.00 0.63 0.21 0.03 0.39 0.18 0.36 0.40 0.40 0.84 0.24 0.90 0.14 0.83 1.00 Smoking No 46 (70) 62 (67) 108 (68) 0.89 Active/prior 20 (30) 30 (33) 50 (32) Family history of DVT/PE 2 (3) 0 (0) 2 (1) 0.17 History suggestive of hyper-coagulable state 2 (3) 7 (8) 9 (6) 0.31 Recent surgery / immobilization 8 (12) 4 (4) 12 (8) 0.12 Chronic home anticoagulation None Lovenox/DOAC/coumadin Antiplatelet DAPT 63 (96) 3 (5) 9 (14) 1 (2) 83 (90) 9 (10) 20 (22) 3 (3) 146 (92) 12 (8) 29 (18) 4 (3) 0.36 0.28 0.64 Prophylactic anticoagulation 0.046 Prophylactic LMWH Therapeutic LMWH UFH DOAC 34 (37) 4 (4) 19 (21) 8 (9) 14 (21) 6 (9) 12 (18) 4 (6) 48 (30) 10 (60) 30 (20) 12 (76) Length of stay (mean days) 14.6 13.7 0.158 Severity of parenchymal lung disease None Mild Moderate Severe 10 27 20 9 12 30 30 20 0.817 0.394 Clinical data: laboratory values, vital signs Differences in laboratory values and vital signs at admission, at peak, and at the time of CTA are shown in Table 2. Compared to CTA-, CTA + had a longer time from symptom onset to admission (7 days vs. 4 days, p = 0.05), higher admission D-dimer (6.87 vs. 1.59, p < 0.0001), peak D-dimer (9.26 vs. 3.8, p = 0.0008), admission white blood cells (WBC) (10.2 vs. 7.45, p = 0.005), admission platelets (272.5 vs. 199.5, p = 0.001), admission total bilirubin (0.8 vs. 0.5, p = 0.003), admission direct bilirubin (0.4 vs. 0.3, p = 0.021), and admission troponin (0.015 vs. 0.01, p = 0.01). The median PESI score at the time of CTA was significantly higher for CTA + than CTA- (125.5 vs. 117.5, p = 0.006). No statistically significant difference was seen in lactate, BNP (b-type natriuretic peptide), troponin, blood pressure, oxygen saturations, or heart rate at the time of CTA between the two groups. Table 2 Laboratory values and vital signs at admission, at peak, and at the time of CTA Variables Positive chest CTA consistent with a PE (n = 66) Negative chest CTA ruling out a PE (n = 92) Total P-value Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Time from symptom onset to admission (days) Admission D-dimer (ug/mL) Admission LDH (U/L) Admission CRP Admission WBC Admission Platelets Admission total bilirubin Admission direct bilirubin Admission troponin Admission BNP Peak IL-6 Peak LDH (U/L) Peak CRP (mg/L) Peak D-dimer Troponin at time of CTA Lactate at time of CTA PESI score at time of CTA SBP at time of CTA DBP at time of CTA SpO2 at time of CTA Heart rate at time of CTA 7 (2–14) 6.87 (2.10–20) 476.5 (353.75-6) 105.65 (68.8-199.5) 10.2 (6.5-14.78) 272.5 (195.25–349) 0.8 (0.6–1.2) 0.4 (0.3–0.5) 0.015 (0.01–0.097) 27.08 (10.3-95.48) 74.6 (27.23–130.5) 555 (377.5-696.25) 226.5 (124.7-302.3) 9.26 (2.60–20) 0.02 (0.01–0.1) 1.7 (1.3–2.9) 125.5 (113.3-140.5) 126 (111–141) 75 (66–82) 96 (94–98) 104 (86–114) 4 (2–7) 1.59 (0.79–3.4) 415.5 (308-591.8) 105 (42.01–192.9) 7.45 (5.9–10.4) 199.5 (158.8-261.3) 0.5 (0.4–0.9) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.01(0.00-0.03) 25.8 (10.0-63.8) 61.15 (28.03–218.6) 558 (401.5–813) 196.2 (103.1-272.6) 3.8 (1.47–8.92) 0.01 (0.01–0.04) 1.6(1.2-2.0) 117.5 (100.8-133.5) 126( 114-136.5) 76 (70–83) 95 (93-97.3) 99.5 (86–110) 5 (2–10) 2.32 (1.14–10.7) 440 (319.5-619.5) 105.45 (55.4-198.4) 8.1 (6.1–12.3) 216 (170-316.3) 0.7 (0.4-1) 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.013 (0.01–0.05) 25.9 (10.0-71.2) 72.75 (26.675-174) 558 (386-789.5) 209 (113.04–281.4) 4.7 (1.71–17.5) 0.02 (0.01–0.06) 1.7 (1.2–2.3) 122 (105–136) 126 (112.8–138) 75 (68–83) 95 (93–98) 101 (86–113) 0.05 < 0.0001 0.29 0.22 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.021 0.01 0.34 0.67 1.00 0.17 0.0008 0.26 0.26 0.006 0.76 0.15 0.37 0.45 Note – Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviations for normally distributed data or as medians and interquartile ranges for nonparametric data. Differences in distributions of characteristics of those with and those without pulmonary embolism (PE) were analyzed using Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Bold indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). CTA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography; LDH = lactate dehydrogenase; CRP = c-reactive protein; WBC = white blood cell; BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide; IL-6 = interleukin-6; PESI = pulmonary embolism severity index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure Predictors of PE The PE predictor model for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was developed by initially performing univariate logistic regression analysis on all sixty-nine variables individually, which identified variables that were significantly associated with PE. Nine variables were selected to be included in the final model and are shown in Table 3. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to build the model to predict PE, and stepwise selection was used for variable selection based on AIC. Out of these, two statistically significant variables were identified: time from symptom onset to admission (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.20, p = 0.008), and PESI score at the time of CTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04 (p = 0.008). In contrast, hypertension (OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.13–0.85, p = 0.02) and COPD/asthma (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.68, p = 0.01) significantly predicted the absence of a PE. Table 3 Regression analysis of predictors of PE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with and without a PE Variable Odds ratio [95% CI] P-value Peak D-dimer COPD/bronchial asthma Time from symptom onset to admission (days) PESI score at time of CTA Hypertension Admission total bilirubin Admission platelets Admission troponin Admission AST 1.06 (0.998–1.119) 0.22 (0.06–0.68) 1.11 (1.03–1.20) 1.02 (1.01–1.04) 0.34 (0.13–0.85) 2.27 (0.97–5.85) 1.003 (0.999–1.008) 3.67 (0.91–62.72) 0.99 (0.98-1.00) 0.06 0.01 0.008 0.008 0.02 0.07 0.1 0.24 0.17 Note – Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to build the model to predict pulmonary embolism and stepwise selection was used for variable selection. Bold indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PESI = pulmonary embolism severity index; CTA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography; AST = aspartate transaminase Predictors of mortality in patients with PE 81% of patients were discharged, and overall mortality was 18.9%, including 22.8% (n = 21) in CTA- and 13.6% in CTA+ (n = 9). CTA- was sicker than CTA+. This was demonstrated by 12/21(57.1%) of CTA- requiring ICU admission vs. 4/9 (44.4%) of CTA+, of whom 9/21 (42.9%) of CTA- were intubated vs. 3/9 (33.3%) of CTA+, and 10/21 (47.6%) of CTA- required pressors vs. 1/9 (11.1%) of CTA+. Finally, 3/21 (14.2%) of CTA- underwent renal replacement therapies vs. 0 of CTA+. In addition, 8/21 (38.1%) of CTA- had a diagnosis of active malignancy vs. 1/9 (11.1%) of CTA+. Variables for predictors of mortality in COVID-19 patients with PE were identified performing univariate Cox proportional hazard regression on all sixty-nine variables individually to select the variables that were significantly associated with mortality. Age, chronic home anticoagulation (AC), time from symptom onset to CTA, admission ferritin, C-reactive protein (CRP), blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were selected to be included in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model and stepwise selection was used for variable section based on AIC, as shown in Table 4. Three statistically significant variables were identified: age (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04–1.22, p = 0.006), chronic home AC (13.81, 95% CI 1.24–154, p = 0.03), and admission ferritin (1.001, 95% CI 1-1.001, p = 0.01). Table 4 Predictors of mortality among COVID-19 patients (univariate regression) Variable Hazard ratio [95% CI] P-value Age Chronic home AC Time from symptom onset to CTA (days) Admission ferritin Admission CRP Admission BUN 1.13 (1.04, 1.22) 13.81 (1.24, 154) 0.94 (0.88, 1.01) 1.001 (1, 1.001) 1.01 (0.99, 1.01) 1.03 (0.97, 107) 0.006 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.07 Note – Cox proportional hazard model was implemented to predict mortality in COVID-19 patients with PE and stepwise selection was used for variable selection. Bold indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). AC = anticoagulation; CTA = computed tomography pulmonary angiography; CRP = c-reactive protein; BUN = blood urea nitrogen Diagnostic performance of D-dimer for PE in patients with COVID-19 With respect to the admission D-dimer and the traditional cut-off level of 0.5, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 98.46%, 11.11%, 44.44% and 90.91%, respectively. For a cut-off level of 1.0, they were 90.77%, 30.0%, 48.36% and 81.82%, respectively.With respect to the Peak D-dimer cut-off level of 0.5, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 98.46%, 4.44%, 42.67%, 80%. For a D-dimer cut-off of 1.0, they were 96.92%, 15.56%, 45.32% and 87.5%, respectively. These are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 Diagnostic performance of different cut-offs for admission D-dimer values for detecting pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 (n = 155) D-dimer cut-off (ng/ml) Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV 0.50 98.46% 11.11% 44.44% 90.91% 1.00 90.77% 30% 48.36% 81.82% 1.25 86.15% 38.89% 50.45% 79.55% 2.50 61.54% 65.56% 56.34% 70.24% 5.00 50.77% 84.44% 70.21% 70.37% 7.50 49.23% 86.67% 72.73% 70.27% 10.00 46.15% 88.89% 75% 69.57% 15.00 35.39% 92.22% 76.67% 66.40% 20.00 30.77% 93.33% 76.92% 65.11% The summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves yielded an area of 0.729 (Fig. 1) for admission D-dimer, and 0.662 for peak D-dimer (Fig. 2), suggesting cut-offs of D-dimer levels for PE diagnosis from 0 to maximum admission D-dimer in small incremental steps for PE diagnosis. For each single cut-off, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV were calculated. Cut-off values that provided the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity were selected. For instance, using an admission D-dimer cut-off of 1.710, the sensitivity was 83.1% and specificity was 53.5%, whereas for an admission cut-off value of 4.370, the sensitivity of D-dimer tests for PE decreased (56.9%), but the specificity increased (84.4%). When admission D-dimer cut-off was raised, there was a reduction in sensitivity but an increase in specificity and PPV, as demonstrated in Table 5; Fig. 1. Using a peak D-dimer cut-off of 3.44 (Fig. 2), the sensitivity was 64.6%, specificity was 46.7%, and PPV was 46.7%. Raised cut-off value to 11.1 was associated with decreased sensitivity (49.2%), but an increased specificity (78.9%) and PPV (61.5%), as demonstrated in Table 6; Fig. 2. PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = Negative predictive value. Fig. 1 The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for Admission D-dimer Cut-off Levels Table 6 Diagnostic performance of different cut-offs for peak D-dimer values for detecting pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 (n = 155) D-dimer cut-off (ng/ml) Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV 0.50 98.46% 4.44% 42.67% 80% 1.00 96.92% 15.56% 45.32% 87.5% 1.25 93.85% 18.89% 45.52% 80.95% 2.50 76.92% 42.22% 49.02% 71.69% 5.00 56.92% 56.67% 48.68% 64.56% 7.50 55.39% 68.89% 56.25% 68.13% 10.00 49.23% 76.67% 60.38% 67.65% 15.00 44.62% 83.33% 65.91% 67.57% 20.00 35.39% 86.67% 65.71% 65% PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = Negative predictive value Fig. 2 The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for Peak D-dimer Cut-off Levels Discussion VTE is one of the most common complications in COVID-19 patients [18, 19]. In this retrospective study of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 who were evaluated for a possible acute PE, we describe demographics, clinical parameters, and laboratory abnormalities that were associated with patients diagnosed with a PE and were predictive of PE and mortality during hospitalization. Previous studies have described clinical and biochemical predictors of PE in patients with COVID-19 including D-dimer, inflammatory markers, and laboratory abnormalities including abnormal complete blood count, and changes in renal and hepatic function [20]. In common with some of these studies we determined that patients with PE, when compared to patients without PE, had a statistically significantly longer time from admission to PE symptom onset [20, 21], higher admission D-dimer and peak D-dimer [22–25], higher admission white blood cell count [26], and higher admission platelet count [26–28]. Of note, severe COVID-19 infection is associated with thrombocytopenia [27]. Additionally, we identified statistically significant higher admission total bilirubin, direct bilirubin [20], and admission troponin [25, 29, 30] in COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE compared to those without PE. Moreover, median PESI score at the time of CTA was significantly higher for patients with a PE than for patients without a PE [26]. We did not see an increase in prevalence of more traditional risk factors for PE including concurrent cancer and a prior history of thromboembolism. This has been previously described [26, 31]. Increases in biomarkers including elevated WBC, platelet count [26, 27], elevated troponin [25, 29], and elevated prothrombotic biological markers including elevated D-dimer levels are associated with more severe COVID-19[32] and increased risk of PE [22, 25, 33, 34]. This emphasizes that inflammation contributes to the development of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients [35–[37]]. Although CRP levels have been used to predict progression and severity of COVID-19 [32], our study population CRP levels were not significantly different in COVID-19 patients with and without a PE, as has been previously described [20]. Predictors of PE Through univariate logistic regression analysis on sixty-nine variables individually, we were able to identify variables that were significantly associated with PE. We determined that predictors of PE included time from symptom onset to admission (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.03–1.20, p = 0.008), and PESI score at the time of CTA (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04 (p = 0.008), whereas the presence of COPD/asthma (OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.68, p = 0.01) and hypertension were inversely associated with predicting PE. Halpin described the prevalence of both asthma and COPD as being lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the overall population prevalence of the diseases [38]. Moreover, it is also possible that a significant number of study patients in the COPD/asthma cohort had asthma, which is known to be protective against poor outcomes of COVID-19. Low rates of asthma have also been reported in a case series of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 [39], and asthma has been associated with lower mortality, specifically in patients with an eosinophilic asthma endotype [40]. A longer duration of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients with admission diagnosis of a PE compared to a shorter duration of stay in those who had a negative CTA has been previously described [20, 21]. The longer period of limited mobility of acute COVID-19 patients with more severe illness and increased length of stay, particularly in patients admitted to the ICU, may increase the risk of VTE [8]. Comorbidities have been previously described as risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease [41]. Increased PESI score at the time of CTA was associated with incidence of PE. PESI and simplified PESI score (sPESI) is a validated risk stratification tool to determine the 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with an acute PE that uses eleven clinical and demographic criteria [42]. PESI and sPESI scores incorporate both vital signs and change in mental state, as well as history of cancer, heart failure (CHF), and chronic lung disease. More severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients is associated with increased inflammation with higher IL-6, D-dimer, Ferritin and LDH (20) with greater risk of VTE, admission to the ICU, and a higher mortality rate compared to hospitalized patients with less severe COVID-19 [6, 43]. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who suffered barotrauma had higher inflammatory biomarkers including IL-6, LDH and D-dimer than admitted COVID-19 patients without barotrauma [44]. However, when we performed an analysis to determine whether more severe COVID-19, as manifest by a greater degree of infiltrates on Chest CT, was associated with a significant increased risk of PE, where radiological severity was categorized into mild, moderate, and severe, there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of lung involvement between the two groups (p = 0.394 by Chi-Square test). D-dimer Traditionally, when evaluating a patient with a possible PE and the need for a diagnostic CTA, clinicians integrate pretest probability scores using Wells or Geneva criteria combined with D-dimer levels [30]. In patients with COVID-19, studies have not demonstrated any difference in Wells scores in patients suspected of PE with and without a diagnosed PE [45, 46]. Elevated D-dimer levels are common in patients admitted with COVID-19 [47] and increasing levels are associated with increased odds of mortality [48]. The elevated level is thought to be secondary to the proinflammatory milieu [49] induced by the COVID-19 viremia causing endothelial dysfunction, hyperviscosity, and hypoxia [50]. An elevation in D-dimer in severe COVID-19 may represent both the prothrombotic as well as the non-thrombotic inflammatory sequela of severe COVID-19. COVID-19 causes endothelitis, and activation of coagulation pathways resulting in a pro-coagulation state, and an influx of inflammatory cells. Endothelial injury reveals the thrombogenic basement membrane activating clotting. Proinflammatory cytokines including IL1-B, and TNF further activate endothelial cells promoting coagulation by expressing von Willebrand factor and fibrinogen, the binding of platelets, and increasing the expression of tissue factor via release of VEGF. High D-dimer levels, a fibrin degradation product, is an indirect marker of thrombotic activity and is part of the hosts response to coagulation that is promoted by COVID-19 related inflammation. In severe COVID-19 high levels of cytokines cause further endothelial cell dysfunction, inflammation, DIC and dilatation of the pulmonary capillary bed resulting in ARDS, and respiratory failure. Thus an elevated D-dimer in severe COVID-19 can represent significant inflammation promoting both coagulation and lung injury [50]. In a retrospective study of consecutive patients with acute PE that included COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients, although inflammatory (CRP) and prothrombotic markers ( APTT, Fibrinogen) were significantly elevated in the COVID-19 PE positive cohort, the D-dimer level was lower in the COVID-19 positive cohort compared to the negative cohort suggesting non-thrombotic mechanisms for D-dimer elevation [26]. A systematic analysis observed that COVID-19 patients with high D-dimer levels were at increased risks of severe disease, ARDS, and mortality [51]. Studies have been performed to identify an optimal threshold of D-dimer values to predict occurrence of PE and help guide the decision to further evaluate for the presence of PE. Study D-dimer levels were higher in patients with PE than those without PE as per previous studies [52, 53]. Using traditional cut-off D-dimer values of 0.5 and 1.0 for both admission D-dimer and peak D-dimer, both cut-offs were associated with a high sensitivity but unacceptably low specificity. The admission D-dimer threshold that was associated with a high sensitivity for diagnosing PE was 1.71 (sensitivity 83.1%, specificity 53.3%, PPV 56.2%, NPV 81.3%). The admission D-dimer cut-off level of 4.37 was associated with a lower sensitivity though with higher specificity and PPV. Peak admission D-dimer levels using a cut-off of 2.29, 3.44 and 11.1 were associated with increased specificity for diagnosing PE (42.2%, 46.7%, 78.9% respectively). Based on this, a peak D-dimer of 11.1 in a patient with possible PE should warrant an evaluation for PE. Predictors of Mortality 81% of patients were discharged, and overall mortality was 18.9%, including 22.8% in CTA- and 13.6% in CTA+. Age, elevated ferritin, and outpatient use of anticoagulation were predictors of mortality in patients with PE. Age as a predictor of worse outcome in COVID-19 is well-documented [54] and the incidence of PE increases with advancing age. The incidence of VTE is almost eight-times higher in individuals aged over 80 years than in the fifth decade of life [55]. PE-related mortality is the highest in 65–79 years age group [56]. The systemic inflammatory response secondary to COVID-19 results in an increase in inflammatory markers including ferritin leading to a hypercoaguable state [57]. Elevated ferritin has been reported to be associated with COVID-19 related thrombosis compared to thrombosis without COVID-19 [58]. Higher levels of ferritin are independent predictors of severe COVID-19 [59] and in-hospital mortality [60, 61]. Older patients with COVID-19 with elevated ferritin level demonstrate higher mortality than in patients with lower ferritin level [62]. An elevated ferritin level could be used as a biomarker to predict worse outcome in patients with COVID-19 and PE. Preadmission anticoagulation use was a predictor of mortality. Anticoagulation use was for a premorbid history of VTE and atrial fibrillation. Cardiovascular disease and atrial fibrillation are associated with an increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 [63]. It is proposed that SARS-CoV-2 infection alters cardiac cell-endothelial interaction, resulting in microvascular leakage, leading to release of inflammatory cytokines that effect atrial cellular electrophysiological stability [64]. Similarly, the higher mortality in CTA- compared to CTA+ (22.8% versus 13.6% respectively) is explained by the sicker cohort of CTA- who had a greater need for ICU admission, intubation, pressors, and renal replacement therapy (see Results). Anticoagulation A greater number of PE positive patients (45.4%) did not receive any prophylaxis compared to PE negative patients (29%). Furthermore, 21% of PE positive patients received prophylactic LMWH versus 37% PE negative patients. However, a similar number of PE positive and PE negative patients received therapeutic anticoagulation (including therapeutic LMWH, full dose UFH, or a DOAC) before the diagnosis of PE (33.3% vs. 33.7%). The prophylactic regimens described in our patients reflect the lack of available hospital based standardized guidelines during the study period early during the COVID-19 pandemic. Present guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) suggest using prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19 related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE [62]. Although VTE risk is higher in the critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in patients admitted to the ICU, standard prophylaxis is recommended, although there is evidence for the benefits of full dose anticoagulation in non-critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients [65, 66]. Our findings are of relevance for clinicians. There is a high prevalence of VTE in patients with COVID-19, and clinicians should consider patients with COVID-19 to be at an increased risk of VTE if they had prolonged hospital stay, and elevated biomarkers including an elevated D-dimer. Identifying these risk factors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may prompt the early initiation of empirical full dose anticoagulation pending results of a CTA. Limitations Our study was an observational, retrospective study of a relatively small-sized cohort, exposing the study to possible selective and confounding bias. However, our data included consecutive patients evaluated for COVID-19 and a possible PE from four different institutions that serve a racially and socioeconomically diverse population in New York City. This study was performed during the first peak of the pandemic, where the prevalent strains of COVID-19 differ from present COVID-19 strains, the study population was unvaccinated, and the present standards of care for managing acute COVID-19 in hospitalized patients are different from the treatment protocols used during the study period. Further studies need to be performed to determine the applicability of our findings to patients infected with the newer strains of COVID-19. Conclusion Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at increased risk of PE. We identified significant clinical predictors of PE and mortality from PE that can be used by physicians when empirically initiating full dose of anticoagulation for a possible PE pending radiological confirmation of a PE. Early initiation of anticoagulation in patients identified as at increased risk of developing PE may help reduce the risk of PE-related mortality in patients with COVID-19. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions J. Bahk: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing. A. Rehman: formal analysis, validation, writing – review & editing. K. Ho: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resourcesB. Narasimhan: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resourcesH.N. Ul Ain Baloch: formal analysis, validation, writing – review & editing. J. Zhang: formal analysis, validationR. Yip: formal analysis, validationR. Lookstein: resourcesD. Steiger: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Data Availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The institutional review board of Mount Sinai Health System initially approved this study. As no direct patient contact or intervention from the study group was needed, informed consent was waived. Researchers exclusively utilized de-identified data. The procedures were followed in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975. Consent for publication N/A. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. The original version of this article was revised: ,Author name correction-. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Change history 8/23/2023 A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1186/s12959-023-00531-1 ==== Refs References 1. Iba T Levy JH Levi M Thachil J Coagulopathy in COVID-19 J Thromb Haemost 2020 18 2103 10.1111/JTH.14975 32558075 2. Tang N Li D Wang X Sun Z Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia J Thromb Haemost 2020 18 844 10.1111/JTH.14768 32073213 3. Kollias A Kyriakoulis KG Lagou S Kontopantelis E Stergiou GS Syrigos K Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Vascular Med (United Kingdom) 2021 26 415 25 10.1177/1358863X21995566/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1358863X21995566-FIG2.JPEG 4. Loo J Spittle DA Newnham M COVID-19, immunothrombosis and venous thromboembolism: biological mechanisms Thorax 2021 76 412 20 10.1136/THORAXJNL-2020-216243 33408195 5. Lax SF, Skok K, Zechner P, Kessler HH, Kaufmann N, Koelblinger C et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome. Https://DoiOrg/107326/M20-2566 2020;173:350–61. 10.7326/M20-2566. 6. Ackermann M Verleden SE Kuehnel M Haverich A Welte T Laenger F Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and Angiogenesis in Covid-19 N Engl J Med 2020 383 120 8 10.1056/NEJMOA2015432/SUPPL_FILE/NEJMOA2015432_DISCLOSURES.PDF 32437596 7. Bifulco M Gazzerro P Statin therapy in COVID-19 infection: much more than a single pathway Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2020 6 410 1 10.1093/EHJCVP/PVAA055 32529218 8. Avruscio G Camporese G Campello E Bernardi E Persona P Passarella C COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism in Intensive Care or Medical Ward Clin Transl Sci 2020 13 1108 14 10.1111/CTS.12907 32989908 9. Llitjos JF Leclerc M Chochois C Monsallier JM Ramakers M Auvray M High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients J Thromb Haemost 2020 18 1743 6 10.1111/JTH.14869 32320517 10. Middeldorp S Coppens M van Haaps TF Foppen M Vlaar AP Müller MCA Incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 J Thromb Haemost 2020 18 1995 2002 10.1111/JTH.14888 32369666 11. Tang N Bai H Chen X Gong J Li D Sun Z Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy J Thromb Haemost 2020 18 1094 10.1111/JTH.14817 32220112 12. Trimaille A Curtiaud A Marchandot B Matsushita K Sato C Leonard-Lorant I Venous thromboembolism in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection Thromb Res 2020 193 166 9 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.07.033 32707275 13. Perrier A Desmarais S Goehring C De Moerloose P Morabia A Unger PF D-dimer testing for suspected pulmonary embolism in outpatients Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997 156 492 6 10.1164/AJRCCM.156.2.9702032 9279229 14. Suh YJ Hong H Ohana M Bompard F Revel MP Valle C Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19: a systematic review and Meta-analysis Radiology 2021 298 E70 80 10.1148/RADIOL.2020203557/ASSET 33320063 15. Revel MP Parkar AP Prosch H Silva M Sverzellati N Gleeson F COVID-19 patients and the radiology department – advice from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the european society of thoracic imaging (ESTI) Eur Radiol 2020 30 4903 9 10.1007/S00330-020-06865-Y/FIGURES/5 32314058 16. Baigent C Windecker S Andreini D Arbelo E Barbato E Bartorelli AL ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: part 2—care pathways, treatment, and follow-up Eur Heart J 2022 43 1059 103 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAB697 34791154 17. Steinhauser S Schumacher M Rücker G Modelling multiple thresholds in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies BMC Med Res Methodol 2016 16 1 15 10.1186/S12874-016-0196-1/FIGURES/6 26728979 18. Klok FA Kruip MJHA van der Meer NJM Arbous MS Gommers DAMPJ Kant KM Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19 Thromb Res 2020 191 145 7 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.04.013 32291094 19. Klok FA Kruip MJHA van der Meer NJM Arbous MS Gommers D Kant KM Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: an updated analysis Thromb Res 2020 191 148 50 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.04.041 32381264 20. Lee Y Jehangir Q Li P Gudimella D Mahale P Lin CH Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients and prediction model: a multicenter cohort study BMC Infect Dis 2022 22 1 14 10.1186/S12879-022-07421-3/TABLES/5 34983406 21. Scudiero F Silverio A Di Maio M Russo V Citro R Personeni D Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients: prevalence, predictors and clinical outcome Thromb Res 2021 198 34 9 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.11.017 33271421 22. Kollias A Kyriakoulis KG Lagou S Kontopantelis E Stergiou GS Syrigos K Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Vascular Med (United Kingdom) 2021 26 415 25 10.1177/1358863X21995566/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1358863X21995566-FIG2.JPEG 23. Silva BV Jorge C Plácido R Mendonça C Urbano ML Rodrigues T Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance Am J Emerg Med 2021 50 526 31 10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004 34547695 24. Badr OI, Alwafi H, Elrefaey WA, Naser AY, Shabrawishi M, Alsairafi Z, et al. Incidence and outcomes of pulmonary embolism among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021. Page 7645 2021;18:18:7645. 10.3390/IJERPH18147645. 25. Dujardin RWG Hilderink BN Haksteen WE Middeldorp S Vlaar APJ Thachil J Biomarkers for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients Thromb Res 2020 196 308 12 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.09.017 32977128 26. Trimaille A, Curtiaud A, Matsushita K, Marchandot B, Von Hunolstein JJ, Sato C et al. Acute Pulmonary Embolism in patients with and without COVID-19. J Clin Med 2021, Vol 10, Page 2045 2021;10:2045. 10.3390/JCM10102045. 27. Thachil J Cushman M Srivastava A A proposal for staging COVID-19 coagulopathy Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2020 4 731 6 10.1002/RTH2.12372 32685880 28. Go AS Reynolds K Tabada GH Prasad PA Sung SH Garcia E COVID-19 and risk of VTE in ethnically diverse populations Chest 2021 160 1459 70 10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.025 34293316 29. Satoskar MA, Metkus T, Soleimanifard A, Shade JK, Trayanova NA, Michos ED, et al. Improving risk prediction for pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients using echocardiography. Pulm Circ. 2022;12. 10.1002/PUL2.12036. 30. Konstantinides SV Meyer G Bueno H Galié N Gibbs JSR Ageno W 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the european respiratory society (ERS)the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J 2020 41 543 603 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHZ405 31504429 31. Fauvel C Weizman O Trimaille A Mika D Pommier T Pace N Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients: a french multicentre cohort study Eur Heart J 2020 41 3058 68 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAA500 32656565 32. Kermali M Khalsa RK Pillai K Ismail Z Harky A The role of biomarkers in diagnosis of COVID-19 – a systematic review Life Sci 2020 254 117788 10.1016/J.LFS.2020.117788 32475810 33. Silva BV Jorge C Plácido R Mendonça C Urbano ML Rodrigues T Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance Am J Emerg Med 2021 50 526 31 10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004 34547695 34. Badr OI, Alwafi H, Elrefaey WA, Naser AY, Shabrawishi M, Alsairafi Z, et al. Incidence and outcomes of pulmonary embolism among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021. Page 7645 2021;18:18:7645. 10.3390/IJERPH18147645. 35. Levi M Thachil J Iba T Levy JH Coagulation abnormalities and thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 Lancet Haematol 2020 7 e438 40 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30145-9 32407672 36. McGonagle D O’Donnell JS Sharif K Emery P Bridgewood C Immune mechanisms of pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy in COVID-19 pneumonia Lancet Rheumatol 2020 2 e437 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30121-1 32835247 37. Bikdeli B Madhavan MV Jimenez D Chuich T Dreyfus I Driggin E COVID-19 and thrombotic or thromboembolic disease: implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-Up: JACC State-of-the-art review J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 75 2950 73 10.1016/J.JACC.2020.04.031 32311448 38. Halpin DMG, Faner R, Sibila O, Badia JR, Agusti A. Do chronic respiratory diseases or their treatment affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? Lancet Respir Med 2020:436–8. 39. Farne H, Singanayagam A. Why asthma might surprisingly protect against poor outcomes in COVID-19. Eur Respir J 2020:2003045-. 40. Ho K, Howell D, Rogers L, ? BN-A of A, 2021 undefined. The relationship between asthma, eosinophilia, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Elsevier n.d. 41. Nopp S Janata-Schwatczek K Prosch H Shulym I Königsbrügge O Pabinger I Pulmonary embolism during the COVID-19 pandemic: decline in diagnostic procedures and incidence at a university hospital Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2020 4 835 41 10.1002/RTH2.12391 32685892 42. Barco S Mahmoudpour SH Planquette B Sanchez O Konstantinides SV Meyer G Prognostic value of right ventricular dysfunction or elevated cardiac biomarkers in patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Heart J 2019 40 902 10 10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHY873 30590531 43. Gong X, Yuan B, Yuan Y. Incidence and prognostic value of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2022;17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0263580. 44. Vetrugno L, Castaldo N, Fantin A, Deana C, Cortegiani A, Longhini F et al. Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study). Pulmonology 2022. 10.1016/J.PULMOE.2022.11.002. 45. Whyte MB Kelly PA Gonzalez E Arya R Roberts LN Pulmonary embolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 Thromb Res 2020 195 95 9 10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.07.025 32682004 46. Silva BV Jorge C Plácido R Mendonça C Urbano ML Rodrigues T Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance Am J Emerg Med 2021 50 526 31 10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004 34547695 47. Guan W Ni Z Hu Y Liang W Ou C He J Clinical characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China N Engl J Med 2020 382 1708 20 10.1056/NEJMOA2002032 32109013 48. Yao Y, Cao J, Wang Q, Shi Q, Liu K, Luo Z, et al. D-dimer as a biomarker for disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a case control study. J Intensive Care. 2020;8. 10.1186/S40560-020-00466-Z. 49. Wool GD Miller JL The impact of COVID-19 disease on platelets and Coagulation Pathobiology 2021 88 15 27 10.1159/000512007 33049751 50. Teuwen LA Geldhof V Pasut A Carmeliet P COVID-19: the vasculature unleashed Nat Rev Immunol 2020 20 389 91 10.1038/S41577-020-0343-0 32439870 51. Bansal A Singh AD Jain V Aggarwal M Gupta S Padappayil RP The association of D-dimers with mortality, intensive care unit admission or acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis Heart Lung 2021 50 9 12 10.1016/J.HRTLNG.2020.08.024 33041057 52. Léonard-Lorant I Delabranche X Séverac F Helms J Pauzet C Collange O Acute pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 at CT angiography and relationship to d-dimer levels Radiology 2020 296 E189 91 10.1148/RADIOL.2020201561/ASSET 32324102 53. Ooi MWX Rajai A Patel R Gerova N Godhamgaonkar V Liong SY Pulmonary thromboembolic disease in COVID-19 patients on CT pulmonary angiography – prevalence, pattern of disease and relationship to D-dimer Eur J Radiol 2020 132 109336 10.1016/J.EJRAD.2020.109336 33069986 54. Bassett MT, Chen JT, Krieger N. Variation in racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age in the United States: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2020;17. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003402. 55. Wendelboe AM Raskob GE Global burden of thrombosis Circ Res 2016 118 1340 7 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306841 27126645 56. Barco S Valerio L Ageno W Cohen AT Goldhaber SZ Hunt BJ Age-sex specific pulmonary embolism-related mortality in the USA and Canada, 2000–18: an analysis of the WHO Mortality Database and of the CDC multiple cause of death database Lancet Respir Med 2021 9 33 42 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30417-3 33058771 57. Connors JM Levy JH COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation Blood 2020 135 2033 40 10.1182/BLOOD.2020006000 32339221 58. Brosnahan SB Smilowitz NR Amoroso NE Barfield M Berger JS Goldenberg R Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2021 9 845 52 10.1016/J.JVSV.2020.11.004 33186750 59. Rasyid H Sangkereng A Harjianti T Soetjipto AS Impact of age to ferritin and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as biomarkers for intensive care requirement and mortality risk in COVID-19 patients in Makassar, Indonesia Physiol Rep 2021 9 e14876 10.14814/PHY2.14876 34042296 60. Alroomi M Rajan R Omar AA Alsaber A Pan J Fatemi M Ferritin level: a predictor of severity and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients Immun Inflamm Dis 2021 9 1648 55 10.1002/IID3.517 34438471 61. Mehta P McAuley DF Brown M Sanchez E Tattersall RS Manson JJ COVID-19: consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression The Lancet 2020 395 1033 4 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30628-0 62. Cuker A Tseng EK Nieuwlaat R Angchaisuksiri P Blair C Dane K American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 Blood Adv 2021 5 872 88 10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2020003763 33560401 63. Zuin M, Rigatelli G, Zuliani G, ? CB-J of, 2020 undefined. Incidence and mortality risk in coronavirus disease 2019 patients complicated by acute cardiac injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. JournalsLwwCom n.d. 64. Zuin M Rigatelli G Bilato C Zanon F Zuliani G Roncon L Pre-existing atrial fibrillation is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients J Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiol 2021 62 231 8 10.1007/S10840-021-00992-2 65. EC G CA B BJ M JS PRL Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in critically ill patients with Covid-19 N Engl J Med 2021 385 777 89 10.1056/NEJMOA2103417 34351722 66. PR L EC G JS B MD N BJ M JC N Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in noncritically ill patients with Covid-19 N Engl J Med 2021 385 790 802 10.1056/NEJMOA2105911 34351721