Hospitalizations, resource use and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in Germany during the Covid-19 pandemic Emergence of different phenotypes of thrombotic disease?

This article has 1 evaluations Published on
Read the full article Related papers
This article on Sciety

Abstract

Background

There is discussion evolving around the emergence of different phenotypes of Covid-19-associated thromboembolic disease, i.e. acute pulmonary embolism vs pulmonary thrombosis and different phenotypes of in situ thrombosis. With this study, we wish to provide hospitalization, treatment and in-hospital outcome data for pulmonary embolism during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic and a corresponding 2016 – 2019 control period.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of claims data of Helios hospitals in Germany. Consecutive cases with a hospital admission between January 1 and December 15, 2020 and pulmonary embolism as primary discharge diagnosis were analyzed and compared to a corresponding period covering the same weeks in 2016 – 2019.

Results

As previously reported for other emergent medical conditions, there was a hospitalization deficit coinciding with the 1st pandemic wave. Beginning with the 12-week interval May 6 – July 28, there was a stable surplus of hospital admissions in 2020. During this surplus period (May 6 – December 15, 2020), there were 2,449 hospitalizations including 45 PCR-confirmed Covid-19 cases (1.8%) as opposed to 8,717 in 2016 – 2019 (IRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07 – 1.18, P<0.01). When excluding Covid-19 cases IRR was 1.10 (95% CI 1.05 – 1.15, P<0.01). While overall comorbidities expressed as weighted AHRQ Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (14.1 ± 10.1 vs. 13.9 ±10.3, P=0.28), the presence of thrombosis (46.1 vs 45.4%, P=0.55) and surgery (3.8 vs. 4.3%, P=0.33) were comparable, coagulopathy (3.3 vs 4.5%, P=0.01) and metastatic cancer (3.0 vs 4.0%, P=0.03) as contributing factors were less frequently observed during the 2020 surplus. Interventional treatments (thrombolytic therapy, thrombectomy or inferior vena cava filter placement) were less frequently used (4.7 vs 6.6%, OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 − 0.89, P< 0.01). Similarly, intensive care (35.1 vs 38.8%, OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 − 0.92, P< 0.01) and mechanical ventilation utilization (7.2 vs 8.1%, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 – 1.04, P=0.14) as well as in-hospital-mortality rates (7.8 vs 9.8%, OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 − 0.90, P< 0.01) were lower in 2020 compared with 2016 – 2019. This was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.4 ±5.4 vs. 7.2 ±5.7 days, P< 0.01) during the 2020 surplus period.

Conclusions

Only a minority of cases were associated with PCR-confirmed Covid-19 but this does not rule out preceding or undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although there is a shift towards milder disease course, the increased incidence of hospitalizations for pulmonary embolism requires immediate attention, close surveillance and further studies.

Related articles

Related articles are currently not available for this article.