Skip to main content
Download PDF

Predictors of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Thrombosis Journal volume 21, Article number: 73 (2023) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 23 August 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

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.

Introduction

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 [10,11,12].

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
Full size table

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
Full size table

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
Full size table

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)
Full size table

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)
Full size table

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
figure 1

The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for Admission D-dimer Cut-off Levels

Full size image
Table 6 Diagnostic performance of different cut-offs for peak D-dimer values for detecting pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 (n = 155)
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for Peak D-dimer Cut-off Levels

Full size image

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 [22,23,24,25], higher admission white blood cell count [26], and higher admission platelet count [26,27,28]. 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.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

References

  1. Iba T, Levy JH, Levi M, Thachil J. Coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:2103. https://doi.org/10.1111/JTH.14975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/JTH.14768.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X21995566/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1358863X21995566-FIG2.JPEG".

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Loo J, Spittle DA, Newnham M. COVID-19, immunothrombosis and venous thromboembolism: biological mechanisms. Thorax. 2021;76:412–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/THORAXJNL-2020-216243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2566.

  6. Ackermann M, Verleden SE, Kuehnel M, Haverich A, Welte T, Laenger F, et al. Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and Angiogenesis in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:120–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2015432/SUPPL_FILE/NEJMOA2015432_DISCLOSURES.PDF.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1093/EHJCVP/PVAA055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Avruscio G, Camporese G, Campello E, Bernardi E, Persona P, Passarella C, et al. COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism in Intensive Care or Medical Ward. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:1108–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/CTS.12907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Llitjos JF, Leclerc M, Chochois C, Monsallier JM, Ramakers M, Auvray M, et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:1743–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/JTH.14869.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Middeldorp S, Coppens M, van Haaps TF, Foppen M, Vlaar AP, Müller MCA, et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:1995–2002. https://doi.org/10.1111/JTH.14888.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/JTH.14817.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Trimaille A, Curtiaud A, Marchandot B, Matsushita K, Sato C, Leonard-Lorant I, et al. Venous thromboembolism in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection. Thromb Res. 2020;193:166–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.07.033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Perrier A, Desmarais S, Goehring C, De Moerloose P, Morabia A, Unger PF, et al. D-dimer testing for suspected pulmonary embolism in outpatients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:492–6. https://doi.org/10.1164/AJRCCM.156.2.9702032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Suh YJ, Hong H, Ohana M, Bompard F, Revel MP, Valle C, et al. Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis in COVID-19: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Radiology. 2021;298:E70–80. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020203557/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/RADIOL.2020203557.Figure4B.JPEG

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Revel MP, Parkar AP, Prosch H, Silva M, Sverzellati N, Gleeson F, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-020-06865-Y/FIGURES/5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Baigent C, Windecker S, Andreini D, Arbelo E, Barbato E, Bartorelli AL, et 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAB697.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12874-016-0196-1/FIGURES/6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, Arbous MS, Gommers DAMPJ, Kant KM, et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb Res. 2020;191:145–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.04.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Klok FA, Kruip MJHA, van der Meer NJM, Arbous MS, Gommers D, Kant KM, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.04.041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee Y, Jehangir Q, Li P, Gudimella D, Mahale P, Lin CH, et al. Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients and prediction model: a multicenter cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12879-022-07421-3/TABLES/5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scudiero F, Silverio A, Di Maio M, Russo V, Citro R, Personeni D, et al. Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients: prevalence, predictors and clinical outcome. Thromb Res. 2021;198:34–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.11.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X21995566/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1358863X21995566-FIG2.JPEG.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silva BV, Jorge C, Plácido R, Mendonça C, Urbano ML, Rodrigues T, et al. Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;50:526–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18147645.

  25. Dujardin RWG, Hilderink BN, Haksteen WE, Middeldorp S, Vlaar APJ, Thachil J, et al. Biomarkers for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Thromb Res. 2020;196:308–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.09.017.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1002/RTH2.12372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Go AS, Reynolds K, Tabada GH, Prasad PA, Sung SH, Garcia E, et al. COVID-19 and risk of VTE in ethnically diverse populations. Chest. 2021;160:1459–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/PUL2.12036.

  30. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Bueno H, Galié N, Gibbs JSR, Ageno W, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHZ405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fauvel C, Weizman O, Trimaille A, Mika D, Pommier T, Pace N, et al. Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients: a french multicentre cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:3058–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAA500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LFS.2020.117788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Silva BV, Jorge C, Plácido R, Mendonça C, Urbano ML, Rodrigues T, et al. Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;50:526–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30145-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30121-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bikdeli B, Madhavan MV, Jimenez D, Chuich T, Dreyfus I, Driggin E, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACC.2020.04.031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/RTH2.12391.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHY873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.THROMRES.2020.07.025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Silva BV, Jorge C, Plácido R, Mendonça C, Urbano ML, Rodrigues T, et al. Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: a comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;50:526–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJEM.2021.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y, Liang W, Ou C, He J, et al. Clinical characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1708–20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2002032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Teuwen LA, Geldhof V, Pasut A, Carmeliet P. COVID-19: the vasculature unleashed. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20:389–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41577-020-0343-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Bansal A, Singh AD, Jain V, Aggarwal M, Gupta S, Padappayil RP, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRTLNG.2020.08.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Léonard-Lorant I, Delabranche X, Séverac F, Helms J, Pauzet C, Collange O, et al. Acute pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 at CT angiography and relationship to d-dimer levels. Radiology. 2020;296:E189–91. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2020201561/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/RADIOL.2020201561.TBL1.JPEG

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJRAD.2020.109336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003402.

  55. Wendelboe AM, Raskob GE. Global burden of thrombosis. Circ Res. 2016;118:1340–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306841.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Barco S, Valerio L, Ageno W, Cohen AT, Goldhaber SZ, Hunt BJ, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30417-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Connors JM, Levy JH. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood. 2020;135:2033–40. https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOOD.2020006000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brosnahan SB, Smilowitz NR, Amoroso NE, Barfield M, Berger JS, Goldenberg R, et al. Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021;9:845–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVSV.2020.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.14814/PHY2.14876.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Alroomi M, Rajan R, Omar AA, Alsaber A, Pan J, Fatemi M, et al. Ferritin level: a predictor of severity and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Immun Inflamm Dis. 2021;9:1648–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/IID3.517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30628-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Cuker A, Tseng EK, Nieuwlaat R, Angchaisuksiri P, Blair C, Dane K, et al. American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19. Blood Adv. 2021;5:872–88. https://doi.org/10.1182/BLOODADVANCES.2020003763.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10840-021-00992-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2103417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. PR L, EC G, JS B, MD N, BJ M, JC N, et al. Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in noncritically ill patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:790–802. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2105911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Jeeyune Bahk, Kam Sing Ho & Bharat Narasimhan

  2. Department of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, ISA, USA

    Abdul Rehman

  3. 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

    Hafiza Noor Ul Ain Baloch & David J Steiger

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Jiafang Zhang & Rowena Yip

  5. Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Robert Lookstein

Authors
  1. Jeeyune Bahk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Rehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kam Sing Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bharat Narasimhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hafiza Noor Ul Ain Baloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jiafang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rowena Yip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert Lookstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David J Steiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J Steiger.

Ethics 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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: ,Author name correction-.

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bahk, J., Rehman, A., Ho, K.S. et al. Predictors of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Thrombosis J 21, 73 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-023-00518-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-023-00518-y

Keywords

  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Venous Thromboembolism
  • Coagulopathy
  • D-dimer
  • Coronavirus disease 2019

Thrombosis Journal

ISSN: 1477-9560

Contact us