8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Role of endothelial dysfunction in the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 patients

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editor, We note with interest the review of Kunutsor SK. et al. 1 on cardiovascular implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indeed, Sars-Cov-2 infection begins in lungs but moves rapidly to the vascular system with platelet alterations and blood clotting abnormalities, and associates with a high incidence of cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolism (VTE), especially in critically ill patients (10–34%). 2 Based on autopsy findings, endothelial injury has been hypothesized to play a crucial role in the Sars-Cov-2 associated pro-coagulant condition. 3 Very few studies, however, have assessed circulating biomarkers of endothelial damage in COVID-19 patients. Among these particularly interesting are circulating endothelial cells (CECs), circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), endothelial extracellular vesicles (EEVs) and soluble forms of endothelial adhesive proteins (CAM) which are known to be altered in conditions associated with enhanced cardiovascular risk and to be predictive of vascular complications in various conditions, including infectious diseases. 4 For these parameters no data are available, to our knowledge, in Sars-Cov-2 infection. Aim of our study was to assess the role of cellular and soluble circulating endothelial derangement parameters as markers of endothelial damage in COVID-19 patients and to unravel if they may identify patients developing VTE or adverse outcome. Fifty-six COVID-19 patients and 36 healthy, age- and sex-matched controls were enrolled in a multicenter study in the Umbria Region, Italy. Peripheral blood was collected for EEVs, CECs and EPCs by flow cytometry and for sVCAM and sICAM by ELISA. 5 Four of the enrolled patients were reassessed after disease recovery confirmed by 2 negative nasopharyngeal swabs (mean 72.7 days, 95% CI 32.8–112.6, after the second). Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8.4 for Windows software. Data not normally distributed were analyzed with the Mann Whitney test; otherwise with the two-tailed unpaired Student's t-test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committees (CEAS Umbria n. 3656/20, University of Perugia Bioethics Committee n. 2020–36,346). Demographics, clinical and main laboratory features of the study population are summarized in Table 1 . All patients were hospitalized (median hospitalization 26 days) and were studied on average 4.2 ± 0.5 days (95%CI 3.2–5.2) from the last positive nasopharyngeal swab. Sixteen patients (28.5%) were admitted into the intensive care unit (ICU) while the others into non-ICU COVID-19 wards. Five ICU and 3 non-ICU patients died during hospitalization. Of the 56 patients, 19 had a partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspiration oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) lower than 300 and 31 required mechanical ventilation (15 invasive and 16 non invasive). Ten (17.8%) developed 11 thrombotic events (one suffered two thrombotic events) during or immediately after hospitalization (median 9.5 days) confirmed by computed tomography pulmonary angiography or compression ultrasonography (6 pulmonary embolism, 4 deep vein thrombosis, 1 cava vein thrombosis): of these, six were under prophylactic low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (n = 3 standard-dose, n = 3 intermediate-dose) and four under therapeutic-dose LMWH (one for atrial fibrillation and one for a previous pulmonary embolism). Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. Table 1 COVID-19 patients n = 56 Healthy subjects n = 36 p value  Age (years) 72.1 ± 1.8 68.0 ± 3.0 ns  Sex (% M) 57.1% 40.1% ns  Leukocytes (x 103/μL) 7.0 ± 0.7 5.7 ± 0.8 ns  Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) 8.0 ± 0.9 2.0 ± 0.2 <0.005  Platelets (x 103/μL) 211.1 ± 17.0 208 ± 17.2 ns  D-dimer (ng/ml) 1663 ± 299.0 180.6 ± 21.7 <0.0001  Fibrinogen (mg/dL) 403.1 ± 27.0 323.2 ± 26 ns  VWF: Ag (%) 273.8 ± 26.4 104.0 ± 7.0 <0.0001  VWF: RCo (%) 298.0 ± 28.0 90.0 ± 4.9 <0.0001  Procalcitonin (ng/ml) 1.2 ± 0.5 N.A.  CRP (mg/dL) 4.8 ± 1.5 N.A.  LDH (U/L) 247.2 ± 33.3 N.A.  PaO2/FiO2 241.3 ± 27.1 N.A.  SOFA score (total) 6.0 ± 0.4 N.A.  Days from positive swab 4.2 ± 0.5 N.A.  Thrombotic events (n) 11 N.A. Comorbidities  Hypertension (n) 32 3 <0.01  Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (n) 11 1 <0.05  Obesity (n) 12 1 <0.05  Smoker (n) 6 3 ns  Atrial Fibrillation (n) 7 0 ns  Cirrhosis (n) 1 0 ns  Kidney failure (n) 7 0 ns  Stroke (n) 4 0 ns  Peripheral artery disease (n) 7 0 ns  COPD (n) 4 0 ns Drugs Antihypertensive agents (n) 11 1 <0.05 Statins (n) 11 0 <0.05 Antiplatelet treatments:  Aspirin (n) 9 0 <0.05  Anti P2Y12 (n) 3 0 ns Anticoagulant treatments:  LMWH (n) 45 0 <0.0001    -standard 32    -incremented 8    -therapeutic 5 Apixaban (n) 6 0 ns COVID-19 Treatments Hydroxycloroquine (n) 5 N.A. Darunavir/Cobicistat (n) 2 N.A. Tolicizumab (n) 1 N.A. Results are reported as mean±SEM if not differently indicated. N.A. not applicable; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment. COVID-19 patients had significantly higher CECs and EEVs in comparison with healthy subjects (21.5 ± 2.2 vs 8.1 ± 1.4/μl, p<0.01 and 286.5 ± 38 vs 127.6 ± 21/μl, p<0.05 respectively). CECs correlated with C-reactive protein levels (r = 0.49, p<0.05), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (r = 0.40, p<0.01) and d-Dimer (r = 0.45, p<0.05), biomarkers of inflammation and hypercoagulability, but did not differ between patients who developed a thrombotic event and those who did not. Three distinct populations of circulating EPCs (CD34+ and CD309+) were detected based on their CD45 expression. CD45 negative (CD45neg), which express the regenerative potential of EPCs against vascular damage, were significantly lower in COVID-19 patients compared to controls (Fig. 1 A), while a significant increase of CD45 positive intermediate (CD45+int) (Fig. 1B) and CD45 positive high (CD45+high) was observed, suggesting that these EPCs with high phagocytic capability may represent a reactive mechanism to limit viral proliferation. 6 Fig. 1 Cellular and soluble markers of endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19 samples. Subpopulations of circulating EPCs based on CD45 expression: angioblast EPCs CD45neg (A) and hematopoietic EPCs CD45+int (B) in COVID-19 patients and in healthy controls. Results are expressed as absolute number/μl. *=p<0.05 vs healthy controls. sICAM-1 (C) levels are increased in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy controls (p<0.05) and in plasma of COVID-19 patients admitted into intensive care unit (ICU) or in non-ICU COVID-19 wards (p<0.05) (D), with normal or abnormal PaO2/FIO2 ratio (p<0.05) (E) and patients with or without thromboembolic event (p<0.05) (F). (*=p<0.05). Fig 1 COVID-19 patients also had higher plasma levels of soluble markers of EC disturbance, sVCAM-1 (3122 ± 324 vs 1135 ± 82 ng/ml, p<0.001) and sICAM-1 (Fig. 1C) and VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo (Table 1), as compared with controls. Notably, sICAM-1 was significantly more elevated in COVID-19 patients admitted into ICU compared to those not in ICU (Fig. 1D) and in patients with reduced PaO2/FiO2 ratio compared to those with normal PaO2/FiO2 (Fig. 1E), suggesting that severe respiratory syndrome and hypoxemia are associated with endothelial damage. A significant correlation was also found between sICAM-1 and the SOFA score (r = 0.65, p<0.01), suggesting that elevated sICAM-1 may represent a marker of severe disease evolution in Sars-Cov-2 infection. D-dimer, VWF:Ag (not shown) and sICAM-1 (Fig. 1F) were significantly higher in patients who developed VTE than in patients who did not. ROC curve analysis showed that sICAM-1 >519.06 ng/ml discriminates COVID-19 patients with VTE from those without with moderate accuracy (AUC= 0.83, p<0.01) (Suppl. Fig. 1). Most patients were under standard- (n = 32) or incremented-dose (n = 8) prophylactic LMWH (40/56, 71%) but no differences between treated and untreated patients were found for any of the circulating endothelial dysfunction markers assessed. In patients who had recovered from COVID-19, CECs, EMPs, EPCs, VWF:Ag, VWF:RCo, sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 returned to levels close to those of healthy controls, suggesting that endothelial damage is strictly dependent on active COVID-19 infection (Suppl. Fig. 2). Our results show that COVID-19 patients have increased circulating CECs, EMPs and phagocytic EPCs and increased plasma levels of sICAM-1, sVCAM-1, VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo, with concomitant decrease of angiogenic EPCs, proving that circulating parameters of endothelial derangement are strongly altered in COVID-19 patients. In particular, plasma levels of sICAM-1 and of sVCAM-1 were more than threefold increased probably reflecting the enhanced adhesiveness of microvascular endothelium mediating the strong leukocyte extravasation in tissue, in particular in lungs. Moreover, the endothelial activation triggered by SARS-CoV-2 probably contributes to the strong in vivo platelet activation found in COVID-19 patients and to platelet adhesion to lung endothelium leading to lung injury. Elevated sICAM-1 predicts cardiovascular events in apparently healthy men and in patients with cardiovascular disease and is associated with recurrent VTE, 7 and in our study strongly associated with VTE incidence and disease severity, therefore this marker warrants more extensive investigation for prognostic prediction in COVID-19 patients. In our study prophylactic-dose LMWH did not affect biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction, in agreement with low clinical efficacy in preventing VTE in COVID-19 patients. 8 A recent study evaluated the impact of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation given to COVID-19 patients prior to hospitalization on endothelial damage, measured by CECs, suggesting that early treatment may prevent COVID-19-associated endothelial lesion. 9 Thus sICAM-1 might be used as an indicator to switch to therapeutic dose heparin in high-risk patients. Finally, our data, strongly confirming that COVID-19 is an endothelial disease, provide the rationale for the search of novel therapeutic strategies targeting inflammatory mediators and/or promoting endothelial protection/repair to prevent the thrombotic and systemic complications of COVID-19. COVIR study investigators: Laura Francoa, Luca Saccarellib, Maria Lapennac, Marco D’Abbondanzad, Stefano Cristallinif. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

          Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is frequently observed in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, reported VTE‐rates differ substantially. Objectives We aimed at evaluating available data and estimating the prevalence of VTE in COVID‐19 patients. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, WHO COVID‐19 database) to identify studies reporting VTE‐rates in COVID‐19 patients. Studies with suspected high risk of bias were excluded from quantitative synthesis. Pooled outcome rates were obtained within a random effects meta‐analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for different settings (intensive care unit (ICU) vs. non‐ICU hospitalization and screening vs. no screening) and the association of D‐dimer levels and VTE‐risk was explored. Results Eighty‐six studies (33,970 patients) were identified and 66 (28,173 patients, mean age: 62.6 years, 60% men, 20% ICU‐patients) were included in quantitative analysis. The overall VTE‐prevalence estimate was 14.1% (95%CI 11.6‐16.9), 40.3% (95%CI 27.0‐54.3) with ultrasound‐screening and 9.5% (95%CI 7.5‐11.7) without screening. Subgroup analysis revealed high heterogeneity, with a VTE‐prevalence of 7.9% (95%CI 5.1‐11.2) in non‐ICU and 22.7% (95%CI 18.1‐27.6) in ICU patients. Prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) in non‐ICU and ICU patients was 3.5% (95%CI 2.2‐5.1) and 13.7% (95%CI 10.0‐17.9). Patients developing VTE had higher D‐dimer levels (weighted mean difference 3.26 µg/ml (95%CI 2.76‐3.77) than non‐VTE patients. Conclusion VTE occurs in 22.7% of patients with COVID‐19 in the ICU, but VTE risk is also increased in non‐ICU hospitalized patients. Patients developing VTE had higher D‐dimer levels. Studies evaluating thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID‐19 are needed to improve prevention of VTE.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Thrombosis risk associated with COVID-19 infection. A scoping review

            Background Infection by the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been reportedly associated with a high risk of thrombotic complications. So far information is scarce and rapidly emerging. Methods We conducted a scoping review using a single engine search for studies assessing thrombosis and coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies were identified by secondary review and alert services. Results Studies reported the occurrence of venous thromboembolism and stroke in approximately 20% and 3% of patients, respectively. A higher frequency seems to be present in severely ill patients, in particular those admitted to intensive care units. The thrombotic risk is elevated despite the use of anticoagulant prophylaxis but optimal doses of anticoagulation are not yet defined. Although and increase of biomarkers such as D-dimer has been consistently reported in severely ill COVID-19, the optimal cut-off level and prognostic value are not known. Discussion A number of pressing issues were identified by this review, including defining the true incidence of VTE in COVID patients, developing algorithms to identify those susceptible to develop thrombotic complications and severe disease, determining the role of biomarkers and/or scoring systems to stratify patients' risk, designing adequate and feasible diagnostic protocols for PE, establishing the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy, and developing uniform diagnostic and reporting criteria.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Biomarkers of endothelial activation/dysfunction in infectious diseases

              Endothelial dysfunction contributes to the pathogenesis of a variety of potentially serious infectious diseases and syndromes, including sepsis and septic shock, hemolytic-uremic syndrome, severe malaria, and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Because endothelial activation often precedes overt endothelial dysfunction, biomarkers of the activated endothelium in serum and/or plasma may be detectable before classically recognized markers of disease, and therefore, may be clinically useful as biomarkers of disease severity or prognosis in systemic infectious diseases. In this review, the current status of mediators of endothelial cell function (angiopoietins-1 and -2), components of the coagulation pathway (von Willebrand Factor, ADAMTS13, and thrombomodulin), soluble cell-surface adhesion molecules (soluble E-selectin, sICAM-1, and sVCAM-1), and regulators of vascular tone and permeability (VEGF and sFlt-1) as biomarkers in severe infectious diseases is discussed in the context of sepsis, E. coli O157:H7 infection, malaria, and dengue virus infection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Infect
                J Infect
                The Journal of Infection
                The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0163-4453
                1532-2742
                2 December 2020
                2 December 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Medicine and Surgery, Section of Internal and Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
                [b ]Department of Medicine and Surgery, Division of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, and Intensive Care, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
                [c ]Division of Internal Medicine, ASL 1 Umbria, Città di Castello
                [d ]Unit of Internal Medicine, Terni University Hospital, Italy
                [e ]Section of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Department of Emergency and Urgency, Città di Castello Hospital, Città di Castello
                [f ]Section of Anesthesia, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Santa Maria della Misericordia, Perugia, Italy
                [g ]Section of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Presidio Alto Chiascio, USL Umbria 1, Gubbio, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Medicine and Surgery, Section of Internal and Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Perugia, Centro Didattico, Edificio B piano 1, 06132 Perugia, Italy.
                [1]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                S0163-4453(20)30760-X
                10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.041
                7708798
                33275957
                08624ad9-f964-4649-9ee1-3b3268088074
                © 2020 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 28 November 2020
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article