Skip to main content
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
letter
. 2020 May 23;73(8):680–682. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2020.05.010

COVID-19 quarantine and acute pulmonary embolism

Embolia pulmonar aguda durante la cuarentena por COVID-19

Luca Vannini a,, Juan Manuel Llanos Gómez b, Alejandro Quijada-Fumero c, Ana Belén Fernández Pérez d, Julio S Hernández Afonso c
PMCID: PMC7245193  PMID: 32513625

To the Editor,

As the COVID-19 outbreak has increased worldwide, many countries have imposed lockdown restrictions to movement. Since 14 March 2020 in Spain, most people have been confined to home with an absolute ban on outdoor physical activity.

While the number of in-hospital positive COVID-19 patients was growing exponentially, there was a drastic decline in non–COVID-19 emergency patients with a drop of nearly 40% of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients worldwide.1

Although the number of non–COVID-19 emergency patients decreased, there was an increase in the number of pulmonary embolisms (PE) in non–COVID-19 patients. In this scenario, the role of thromboprophylaxis is uncertain.2

From 14 March to 18 April 2020, in our center we diagnosed 17 acute PE with computed tomography pulmonary angiography. The number of PE cases clear increased compared with 2019 (average of 8 PE cases per month in 2019, with 9 cases from 14 March to 18 April, 2019). To examine whether there was a quarantine-related effect in the increased rate of acute PE, we compared the characteristics of acute PE patients by lockdown subgroups (ie, 14 March to 18 April, 2020) vs the no-lockdown period (ie, 14 March to 18 April, 2019) (table 1 ) in a single-center observational case series study.

Table 1.

Characteristics of patients with acute pulmonary embolism lockdown subgroups (14 March to 18 April, 2020) vs the no-lockdown period (14 March to 18 April, 2019)

Lockdown group
N = 17
No-lockdown group
N = 9
P
Female sex, % 52.9 66.7 .500
Age, y 68 [56-81] 83 [75-87] .012
≥ 65 y, % 55.8 88.9 .114
Hypertension, % 52.9 88.9 .067
Diabetes mellitus, % 17.6 55.6 .046
Hypercholesterolemia, % 29.4 100 .001
Current smoker, % 23.5 33.3 .592
BMI, kg/m2 25 [23-29] 29 [28-30] .037
Heart rate, bpm 97 [85-114] 99 [75-125] .403
Hemoptysis, % 0 11 .161
D-dimer 4695 [2310-18 649] 15 059 [6800-19 000] .307
DVT signs or symptoms, % 29.4 55.6 .192
Previous DVT, % 23.5 0 .114
Surgery in previous 4 wk or immobilization at least 4 d, % 11.8 22.2 .161
Active malignant condition, % 17.6 22.2 .778
Mental disorders, % 35.3 44.4 .648
PE risks factors* 3 [0.6-3] 4 [3-4] .011
Geneva score, points 6 [6-9] 11 [6-14] .089
Wells score, points 4.5 [3-6] 7.5 [4.5-7.5] .159
Padua score, points 3 [1-4] 2 [1-4] .216
Padua score for VTE including immobility as a risk factor in COVID–19-related lockdown group, points 5 [4-7] 2 [1-4] .019
Geneva risk for PE .038
 Low (0-3 points), % 12 0
 Moderate (4-10 points), % 70 44
 High ( > 10 points), % 18 56
Wells risk for PE .051
 Low (0-1 points), % 0 0
 Moderate (2-6 points), % 82 44
 High ( > 6 points), % 18 56
Padua score risk for VTE .102
 Low (0-3 points), % 76.5 44.4
 High (≥ 4 points), % 23.5 55.6
Padua score risk for VTE including immobility as a risk factor in the COVID–19-related lockdown group .272
 Low (0-3 points), % 23.5 44.4
 High (≥ 4 points), % 76.5 55.6

BMI, body mass Index; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Data are expressed as No. (%), or median [interquartile range].

PE risks factors*: Strong risk factors: fracture of lower limb, hospitalization for heart failure or atrial fibrillation/flutter (within previous 3 months), hip or knee replacement, major trauma, myocardial infarction (within previous 3 months), previous VTE, spinal cord injury. Moderate risk factors: arthroscopic knee surgery, autoimmune diseases, blood transfusion, central venous lines, intravenous catheters and leads, chemotherapy, congestive heart failure or respiratory failure, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, hormone replacement therapy, in vitro fertilization, oral contraceptive therapy, postpartum period, infection (specifically pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and human immunodeficiency virus, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer (highest risk in metastatic disease), paralytic stroke, superficial vein thrombosis, and thrombophilia. Weak risk factors: bed rest > 3 days, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, immobility due to sitting, increasing age, laparoscopic surgery, obesity, pregnancy, and varicose veins.

Comparison between categorical data was performed using the chi-square test or the McNemar test for paired data and the Mann-Whitney U-test for ordinal and continuous variables. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 21 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) and a value of P < .05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.

Patients in the PE lockdown period were younger (median age, 68 years; interquartile range [IQR][56-81] versus 83 [75-87] years; P  = .012), with a lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus (17.6% vs 55.6%; P  = .046), hypercholesterolemia (29.4% vs 100%; P  = .001), and lower body mass index) (median body mass index = 25 [23-29] vs 29 [28-30]; P  = .037).

There were numerous environmental and patient-related predisposing venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk factors that we summarize in table 1, as described in the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for acute PE.3

Patients in the COVID–19-related lockdown period had a lower number of PE risk factors (median PE risk factors, 3 [0.6-3] vs 4 [3-4]; P  = .011) (table 1). COVID–19-related lockdown patients also had a significantly lower PE risk when assessed with the Wells and Geneva risk scores as categorical (low, moderate, and high risk) variables.

Sixteen patients had VTE risk factors added to prolonged immobility due to quarantine; 11 patients had moderate or strong risk factors for PE (table 2 ). Only 1 patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia had a positive nasal-pharyngeal swab sample polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID-19 at diagnosis. One patient, who had previous COVID-19 severe pneumonia and negative nasal-pharyngeal swab sample at discharge, developed acute PE 1 week later.

Table 2.

Patients with acute pulmonary embolism during the COVID–19-related lockdown period (14 March to 18 Abril, 2020) and during the no-lockdown period (14 March to 18 Abril, 2019)

Year Sex Age BMI Smoker HTA Hypercholesterolemia Diabetes Mental disorder PE risk factors COVID-19 d-dimer RV dysfunction DVT
Doppler US
DVT
Signs/symptoms
Death
2019 Female 73 34 Yes Yes No No No -Active lung cancer
-Obesity
- - Yes - Yes Yes
2019 Female 87 29 No Yes Yes Yes Anxiety -Reduced mobility
-Overweight
- 17 051 No Yes Yes No
2019 Male 44 28 No Yes Yes Yes No -Rheumatoid arthritis under treatment
-Overweight
- 7485 No Yes Yes No
2019 Female 86 29 No Yes Yes No No -Overweight
-Advanced age
- 15 059 No Yes Yes No
2019 Male 87 30 Former smoker Yes Yes No No -Vertebral fracture
-Obesity
- 1474 No - No Yes
2019 Female 84 31 Yes Yes Yes Yes No -Hip fracture
-Obesity
- - Yes - No
2019 Female 75 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Parkinson
Anxiety
- Obesity - 6800 No No No No
2019 Male 76 30 No No Yes Yes Bipolar disorder -No active colorectal cancer
-Obesity
- 19 000 Yes Yes No No
2019 Female 83 25 No Yes Yes No Psychotic disorder
Dementia
- Active colorectal cancer - 71 649 No - Yes No
2020 Male 56 32 No Yes Yes No Anxiety -DVT under LMWH treatment
-Obesity
No 1117 No Yes Yes No
2020 Female 69 24 Yes No No No No -Previous PE with DVT No 2800 No Yes Yes No
2020 Female 43 23 No No No No No -Oral contraceptive No 4695 No No No No
2020 Female 34 25 No No No No Psychotic disorders -Psychotic attack
-Bedridden
-Obesity
No 63 409 Yes No No No
2020 Male 56 33 No No No No No -Previous DVT
-Obesity
No 2639 No Yes Yes No
2020 Male 62 17 Yes No No No No -Orchiepididymitis
-Bedridden
No - Yes No No No
2020 Male 83 21 Former smoker No No No No -Advanced age No 18 649 Yes - No No
2020 Female 56 23 Yes No Yes No Psychotic disorders No No 27 361 No Yes No No
2020 Male 81 28 No No Yes No -Chronic lymphocytic leukemia Positive 6057 No - No No
2020 Female 70 29 No Yes No No Depression -Overweight No 3685 No No No No
2020 Female 68 30 No Yes No Yes No -Active breast cancer
-Obesity
No 2006 No - No No
2020 Male 67 28 No Yes No No No -Previous PE with DVT No 15 252 Yes No No No
2020 Male 85 29 No Yes No No No -Advanced age
-Overweight
No 2310 Yes No No Yes
2020 Female 70 17 No Yes Yes No No -Ventricular dysfunction with heart failure No 800 Yes No No No
2020 Female 83 23 No Yes Yes Yes Dementia -COVID-19 infection discharged with negative PCR
-Advanced age
Discharged for COVID-19 infection 1 week before 13 340 No - No No
2020 Female 71 32 No No Yes No Parkinson's - Dementia -Parkinson's Dementia disease
-Obesity
No - Yes - No No
2020 Male 65 25 Yes Yes No No No Active pancreatic cancer under LMWH treatment No 137 741 No - No No

BMI, body mass index; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; PE, pulmonary embolism; PHT, pulmonary hypertension; RV dysfunction, right ventricular dysfunction.

When asked about previous daily activity, most patients reported a previously active lifestyle followed by a sedentary lifestyle during the quarantine with prolonged immobility.

Six patients had mental disorders that could worsen immobility during the quarantine and predispose them to PE,4 but we found no significant difference between the groups corresponding to the COVID-19-related lockdown period and the non–COVID-19 period in the prevalence of mental disorders (35.3% vs 44.4%; P  = .648).

In an attempt to explain that immobility due to the hard lockdown could be one of the triggers for PE, we calculated the Padua score, which stratifies patients as being at high (≥ 4 points) or low (< 4 points) risk for VTE. We considered the hard lockdown quarantine as a “reduced mobility” risk factor; immobility in this score is penalized with 3 points. There was no significant difference in the baseline Padua prediction score for VTE (median Padua score, 3 [1-4] vs 2 [1-4]; P  = .216). The COVID–19-related lockdown group had a significantly higher score in the subanalysis including immobility as a risk factor during the lockdown (median Padua score, 5 [4-7] vs 2 [1-4]; P  = .019). We found a significant increase in high-risk patients in the lockdown subgroup considering lockdown as immobility (Padua score without immobility: 23.5% patients at high risk, Padua score with immobility: 76.5% patients at high risk; P  = .004). When we compared the Padua score as a categorical risk variable, we found no significant difference between the lockdown period group and the no-lockdown group.

We hypothesized that a rigorous quarantine in patients with strong risk factors could predispose them to acute PE. Immobility causes an 6-fold increase in the risk of deep vein thrombosis (or PE in patients with previous events compared with patients without deep vein thrombosis or PE history).5

The increasing number of COVID–19-related acute PE cases described recently suggests that COVID-19 infection could be an added risk factor for acute PE during quarantine. In our series, the low prevalence of COVID-19 infection on nasal smear PCR tests does not suggest a causative relationship. A single effect, either of quarantine immobility or undiagnosed COVID-19 infection, cannot be excluded and would require a large study including COVID-19 serology-based testing with high sensitivity and specificity.

In the emergency department, elevated D-dimer with dyspnea in COVID-19 quarantine patients might be misleading. Clinicians should pay attention to a possible PE in the setting of a COVID-19 infection.

In nations imposing a hard lockdown, all patients with VTE risk factors might be counseled for mechanical prophylaxis and to stay active at home. Pharmacological prophylaxis could be advised in patients at high risk, especially previous VTE and active malignancy, which must be weighed against the risk of bleeding.

.

References

  • 1.Rodríguez-Leor O., Cid-Álvarez B., Ojeda S. Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la actividad asistencial en cardiología intervencionista en España. REC Interv Cardiol. 2020;2:82–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up | JACC: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Available at: http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/04/15/j.jacc.2020.04.031?_ga=2.84405337.1380747230.1587329638-1120860459.1559245908. Accessed 19 Apr 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 3.Konstantinides S.V., Meyer G., Becattini C., ESC Scientific Document Group.2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543–603. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Parkin L., Balkwill A., Sweetland S. Antidepressants, Depression, and Venous Thromboembolism Risk: Large Prospective Study of UK Women. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Samama M.-M. An Epidemiologic Study of Risk Factors for Deep Vein Thrombosis in Medical Outpatients: The Sirius Study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3415–3420. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.22.3415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Revista Espanola De Cardiologia (English Ed.) are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES