Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis In Patients Research Articles

Comparison of the Effects of Injectable Enoxaparin With Oral Rivaroxaban in Deep Vein Thrombotic Prophylaxis in Patients With Femoral Peritrochanteric Fracture: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: The prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopedic major surgery, such as peritrochanteric femoral fracture, is high. Also, there is a lack of accurate information about the results of using rivaroxaban in Iran. This study aimed to compare the effects of injectable enoxaparin with oral rivaroxaban in DVT prophylaxis in patients with femoral peritrochanteric fracture. Materials and Methods: This randomized single-blind clinical trial included 88 patients with femoral peritrochanteric fracture in Shohada Hospital of Tabriz, Iran from January 2019 to December 2019. The participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups (n=44 each) receiving enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneously once daily for 28 days) and rivaroxaban (10 mg orally once daily for 28 days). Using independent t test in SPSS version 20, the results of clinical examinations and ultrasonography for the diagnosis of DVT at the end of intervention were compared between the two groups. A P value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: No significant differences were observed in laboratory results and DVT-related symptoms between the two groups, as well as before and after the intervention (intragroup). Also, the prevalence of DVT at the end of the study was zero. Conclusions: According to our results, there was no difference in the prevalence of DVT and short-term (one-month) complications between the two groups receiving rivaroxaban and enoxaparin after the peritrochanteric femur fracture.

Risks, Benefits, and the Optimal Time to Resume Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Patients with Intracranial Hemorrhage.

IntroductionIt is common to start all patients on chemical prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in order to decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the associated adverse effects, including the potential for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE). There is no consensus in the literature on the optimal time to resume chemical DVT prophylaxis in patients who present with intracranial hemorrhage requiring neurosurgical intervention. The practice is variable and practitioner dependent. There can be difficulty in balancing the increased risk of further intracranial hemorrhage versus the benefit of starting DVT prophylaxis to prevent VTE.MethodA retrospective review of patients that had diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) defined as epidural hematoma (EDH), subdural hematoma (SDH), or intra-parenchymal hematoma (IPH), was performed using the neurosurgical census at our institution. The review consisted of adult patients greater than 18 years old with a diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage. Type of intracranial hemorrhage, method of neurosurgical intervention (whether surgical, bedside procedure, or both), day post-procedure prophylaxis was resumed, and the type of chemical prophylaxis used (subcutaneous heparin (SQH) versus enoxaparin) were recorded. The patient’s sex, Glasgow Coma Scale on presentation and discharge, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also recorded. Patients with previously diagnosed bleeding dyscrasia, previously diagnosed DVT or PE, patients without post-procedure cranial imaging (CT or MRI), and patients without post-procedure duplex ultrasound for DVT screening were excluded. Patients were monitored with head CT for possible expansion of ICH after resumption of therapy. Furthermore, we investigated whether the patient developed an adverse effect such as venous thromboembolism including deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism during the post-procedure period when they were not on chemical prophylaxis.ResultsA total of 94 patients were analyzed in our study. Nine (9.6%) had an EDH, seventeen (18.1%) had an IPH, and sixty-eight (72.3%) had a SDH. The three most common procedures were craniectomy (28.7%), craniotomy (34%), and subdural drain placement (28.7%). The most common agent for chemical DVT prophylaxis was SQH in 78% of patients. There was no statistically significant association between type of chemical DVT prophylaxis used with respect to either ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Change in GCS (the difference of GCS on presentation versus on discharge) was found to have statistically significant relationship with the use of chemical DVT prophylaxis. Furthermore, patients were found to have no statistically significant association with re-bleed or new hemorrhage upon starting chemical DVT prophylaxis, regardless of the type of ICH.ConclusionThe rates of DVT diagnosis did not seem to be significantly affected by the specific type of chemical prophylaxis that was used. ICU and hospital length of stay were not adversely affected by starting prophylaxis for VTE in patients with ICH. On the contrary, an improvement in GCS (on presentation versus discharge) was associated with starting chemical DVT prophylaxis in ICH patients within 24 hours post-procedure.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Internal Medicine Residents Towards Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in a University Hospital in Tehran

Background: Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is a major problem in hospitalized patients. There is discrepancy between healthcare providers’ knowledge and their clinical practice regarding DVT prophylaxis. In this study we aimed to evaluate knowledge, attitude and practices of internal medicine residents at an educational hospital in Tehran. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted during December 2015 at Shariati hospital of Tehran, IRAN. A questionnaire covering five domains of clinical scenarios, adherence to guidelines, personal beliefs, practice, preferences and personal beliefs, was distributed between internal medicine residents. Medical records of patients at the internal ward were reviewed to assess the status of DVT prophylaxis in patients, who needed DVT prophylaxis based on American college of chest physicians’ (ACCP) guidelines. Results: Overall, 71 residents out of 88 residents returned the questionnaire, and 43.7% were aware of the guidelines. Furthermore, 97.2% thought DVT prophylaxis is clinically important but only 66.90% of the patients, who needed DVT prophylaxis, were receiving DVT prophylaxis. More than 50% of the residents underestimated the incidence of DVT and mortality rate due to pulmonary embolism. The most common reason for not prescribing DVT prophylaxis was concern about bleeding in 53.5% of the participants. Further analysis of different components of the questionnaire showed that there is a significant association between “awareness” and “adherence” scores (P = 0.041) and correct answers to “clinical scenarios” and “practice” (P = 0.012). Conclusions: Although the level of knowledge on these clinical situations is good, underestimation of the risk of DVT development in hospitalized patients needs more attention. This might be due to low levels of awareness of presence and content of DVT prophylaxis guidelines. Programs should be designed to uphold the levels of information of DVT prophylaxis guidelines among internal medicine residents.

Bleeding Risk Secondary to Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Patients With Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) continue to pose a major burden on the health care system in the United States. The precise timing of anticoagulation initiation in critically ill patients with recent or active lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is not well defined. We set out to study the safety and efficacy of early heparin administration for DVT prophylaxis in these patients. A review of all patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of LGIB over a 13-year period was performed. A total of 60 patients received subcutaneous heparin along with mechanical prophylaxis, whereas 59 patients had intermittent pneumatic compression devices alone. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the groups who received heparin and the nonheparin cohort. Neither of the groups developed a DVT or PE during the study period. Patients who received heparin had a median ICU LOS of 3 days, when compared with 2 days for patients who did not receive heparin (P < .0118). There was a significant association between units of blood received during the first 24 hours in the ICU and heparin usage (P < .0229). Those administered heparin received more units (median 3) than those who did not receive heparin (median 2). Administration of subcutaneous heparin increases the transfusion requirements and LOS in ICU patients with LGIB. After 24 hours, however, the blood transfusion requirements are equivalent. DVT prophylaxis in patients with a diagnosis of LGIB should be initiated after 24 hours of ICU admission.

Is DVT prophylaxis necessary for thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy?

Recent guidelines suggest pharmacologic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in all patients undergoing major surgical procedures to minimize the risk of postoperative DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pharmacologic DVT prophylaxis perioperatively might increase the risk of bleeding complications. Our goal was to study the risk/benefit ratio of DVT prophylaxis in patients who undergo thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy. A review of the ACS NSQIP Database from 2005 to 2007 was performed. The incidence of DVT/PE complications in a cohort of 347,862 patients was compared with the 16,022 patients who underwent a thyroidectomy or parathyroidectomy. We identified risk factors for DVT/PE and developed a surrogate variable to determine the risk for postoperative bleeding. The risk of DVT/PE complication in the thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy patients (0.16) was 6 fold less than the entire cohort (0.96) (P < .001). The estimated risk of bleeding requiring a return to the operating room was 1.58%, which is 10-fold greater than the risk of developing a DVT/PE (P < .001). Patients who underwent thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy have a low incidence of developing DVT/PE complications and have a significantly greater risk of developing bleeding complications. Hence, we believe that DVT prophylaxis should be done at the discretion of the surgeon in select high-risk patients only.

Superficial venous interventions: assessing the risk of DVT

Understand the potential consequences of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing superficial venous interventions, the proper way to assess DVT risk in patients with superficial venous disease and the appropriate management of patients stratified by risk level. Review of published literature Because DVT can have major long-term consequences, DVT risk should be assessed as a routine part of the preprocedure evaluation of venous disease. Chronic venous disease may have multiple contributing factors amenable to treatment in both the superficial and deep venous systems. Superficial venous interventions should be deferred in patients at particularly high risk for DVT, but may be performed with appropriate countermeasures for DVT prophylaxis in patients at moderate risk.

Interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism following abdominal aortic surgery

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is one of the most common, preventable complications of surgery. Although the relationship between surgery and DVT is well established in general surgical operations and most other subspecialties, the same cannot be said about arterial surgery. Deep vein thrombosis is believed to be less common in aortic surgery where its management is rather controversial with a reported incidence of DVT from 2% to 18%.Intra-operative heparin is believed to provide protection during the period when DVT is most likely to develop. However, the practice of using intra-operative heparin could increase the risk of haemorrhagic complications if further heparin is used during the recovery period. This can significantly limit the use of such prophylactic measures especially with the low perceived risk of venous thromboembolism (DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE)) following abdominal aortic surgery. However, vascular patients are usually older, with more co-morbidity and are subject to prolonged immobility, all of which increase the likelihood of developing venous thromboembolism. To determine the efficacy of anticoagulant prophylaxis (with or without mechanical devices) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm. The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their trials register (last searched 8 August 2007) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, (last searched Issue 3, 2007). The authors searched for additional trials through reference lists of retrieved studies and conference proceedings. Randomised controlled trials comparing the use of anticoagulants (with or without mechanical devices) with control or no intervention in preventing DVT or PE after abdominal aortic operations. Three authors independently selected potential trials and assessed trial quality. Two studies (n=147) were included. Both studies had methodological limitations. There were no data to indicate that post operative anticoagulation, with or without the use of mechanical devices, can safely reduce the incidence of DVT after aortic surgery. Neither study reported a significant effect of anticoagulants on the incidence of PE or related mortality. One study was terminated before recruiting sufficient participants due to a higher incidence of bleeding with the use of anticoagulants. The incidence of minor bleeding events was also slightly higher with anticoagulants. There is not enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion about the use of anticoagulant drugs (with or without mechanical devices) for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery.

Varicose vein surgery and deep vein thrombosis.

A questionnaire was sent to 363 members of the Vascular Surgical Society of Great Britain and Ireland about their use of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis at the time of varicose vein surgery. Replies were received from 289 surgeons (80 percent), of whom only 29 percent regarded varicose veins as an important risk factor for DVT. Only 12 percent used subcutaneous heparin prophylaxis routinely, while 71 percent did so selectively, being influenced by a history of thromboembolism (95 percent), obesity (47 percent), age (35 percent), recurrent varicose veins (22 percent) and inpatient status (16 percent). At the end of the operation 52 percent applied crepe bandages, 25 percent other bandages, 13 percent stockings and 10 percent Tubigrip. Subsequently, antiembolism stockings were prescribed by 55 percent. There is a wide variation in opinion regarding DVT prophylaxis for patients having varicose vein surgery, which has both clinical and medicolegal implications.

Fondaparinux for prevention of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery.

To review clinical information related to fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide recently approved for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgeries and for extended DVT prophylaxis after hip fracture surgery. Primary and review articles were identified by MEDLINE (1983-June 2003) using the key words pentasaccharide, Org31540, SR90107A, DVT prophylaxis, and fondaparinux. Additional sources were found listed in articles, abstracts, and unpublished data on file from the manufacturer. Articles selected were based on their coverage of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of fondaparinux. All of the articles identified were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included. Fondaparinux is a selective antithrombin-dependent, indirect inhibitor of activated factor Xa. It has a favorable and predictable pharmacokinetic profile when administered subcutaneously, and has a long half-life, allowing once-daily dosing. Fondaparinux lacks in vitro cross-reactivity with heparin-induced antibodies. Major Phase III studies have demonstrated that subcutaneous fondaparinux sodium 2.5 mg given at least 6 hours postoperatively resulted in a 55% reduction in the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, total hip replacement surgery, or knee replacement surgery compared with standard enoxaparin therapy. It has a safety profile similar to that of enoxaparin with respect to clinically relevant major bleeding, including fatal bleeding, nonfatal bleeding, and bleeding requiring repeat surgery. The use of fondaparinux for prolonged prophylaxis after hip fracture has demonstrated further reduction in VTE events without increasing the risk of bleeding. Fondaparinux is the first of a new class of synthetic factor Xa inhibitors that demonstrated greater efficacy compared with enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in major orthopedic surgery without an increase in clinically relevant bleeding. Given the favorable cost-effectiveness analysis and improved efficacy profile, fondaparinux should be considered for formulary addition for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip and knee replacement surgery. In patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, fondaparinux should be considered the DVT prophylaxis of choice. Extended thromboprophylaxis up to 28 days resulted in additional reduction in VTE (both symptomatic and venography-proven DVT) in patients with hip fracture surgery.

Anesthetic Considerations for Bariatric Surgery

According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity is a major health problem with clearly established health implications, including an increased risk for coronary artery disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease, degenerative joint disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic and psychosocial impairment (1). The risk of developing one or more of these obesityrelated conditions is based on body mass index (BMI), with 25–30 kg/m 2 being low risk and 40 kg/m 2 being very high risk (2). The prevalence of obesity in the 18- to 29-yr-old group increased from 12% in 1991 to 18.9% in 1999 (3). Bariatric surgery encompasses a variety of surgical weight loss procedures used to treat morbid obesity. Obesity is clinically expressed in terms of BMI or Quetelet’s index (4), which is derived by dividing weight by the square of height to estimate the degree of obesity. Thus, BMI body weight (kg)/height 2 (m 2 ). Morbid obesity is a BMI more than 35 kg/m 2 , and super morbid obesity is BMI more than 55 kg/m 2 . The indications for surgical treatment of severe obesity, as outlined in the 1991 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel, include an absolute BMI more than 40 kg/m 2 or BMI more than 35 kg/m 2 in combination with lifethreatening cardiopulmonary problems or severe diabetes mellitus (1). Patients seeking surgical weight loss must have proven attempts at medically supervised weight loss. Documentation of loss of 5% to 10% excess body weight or weight gain after at least 6 mo of diet modification, exercise, and medical therapy or nonimprovement in comorbid conditions during this period indicates failure. Studies have shown that weight loss of 5%–10% of initial body weight improves glucose intolerance and Type II diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia (5–7). The average expenditure is approximately $7000 per year per patient on weight loss programs and equipment. Unfortunately, long-term weight loss is the exception, and most patients regain weight, sometimes more than they initially lost.

Danaparoid: a review of its use in thromboembolic and coagulation disorders.

Danaparoid (danaparoid sodium) is a low molecular weight heparinoid which has undergone clinical study for use as continued anticoagulant therapy in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), for the prophylaxis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). A nonblind study in patients with HIT has reported that complete clinical resolution is significantly more likely in patients receiving danaparoid than in patients receiving dextran 70. In addition, retrospective analyses and noncomparative data support the use of danaparoid for continued anticoagulant therapy in patients with HIT. Studies in patients undergoing hip surgery have shown that danaparoid significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative DVT compared with aspirin, warfarin, dextran 70 and heparin-dihydroergotamine, while additional data suggest no difference between danaparoid, enoxaparin and dalteparin. In patients undergoing abdominal or thoracic surgery for removal of a malignancy, danaparoid reduced the incidence of postoperative DVT compared with placebo, but showed no significant difference when compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Two studies have compared danaparoid with UFH in the prophylaxis of DVT following acute ischaemic stroke; twice daily danaparoid was significantly superior to UFH whereas there was no significant difference between a once-daily dosage and UFH. Danaparoid did not differ from UFH in terms of efficacy in the treatment of existing DVT. In all comparative studies examining the efficacy of danaparoid in the prophylaxis or treatment of DVT (versus warfarin, dextran 70, enoxaparin, dalteparin, aspirin, heparin-dihydroergotamine, UFH and placebo), the incidence of haemorrhagic complications did not differ between treatment groups. In patients with DIC, 61.9% of those patients receiving danaparoid experienced either disappearance or reduction of symptoms of DIC whereas 62% of those receiving UFH showed either no change or aggravation of their symptoms. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in tolerability or overall improvement of DIC. Danaparoid is an effective anticoagulant agent which has undergone clinical evaluation in a wide range of disease indications. Current guidelines support the use of danaparoid in prophylaxis of DVT following ischaemic stroke, and in patients who develop HIT. Danaparoid has shown efficacy in DIC, and for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip surgery although further data are required to establish the role of danaparoid in these indications. In particular, double-blind trials comparing danaparoid with such recommended therapies as the low molecular weight heparins will provide more definitive data on the place of danaparoid in the clinical management of these conditions and ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Preoperative vs postoperative initiation of low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip replacement.

Although preoperative and postoperative initiation of prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are effective, the relative effectiveness and safety of these approaches is unknown. In the absence of a published definitive level 1 trial addressing this question, a meta-analysis is appropriate. To report a meta-analysis comparing preoperative with postoperative initiation of prophylaxis of DVT in patients undergoing elective hip replacement. Relevant trials were identified, and potential biases in the meta-analysis were minimized by analyzing all rigorously performed randomized trials that met all of the following criteria for conduct of the trial: (1) double-blind design, (2) objective documentation of the frequencies of DVT by ascending contrast venography, (3) venography performed before or at the time of discharge from the hospital, (4) initiation of the same LMWH preoperatively or postoperatively in dosages shown to be effective, (5) compliance with the criteria for a level 1 trial, and (6) objective documentation of major and minor bleeding according to strict criteria. Treatment with LMWH initiated preoperatively was associated with a DVT frequency of 10.0% compared with a frequency of 15.3% when the LMWH was initiated postoperatively (P = .02, Fisher exact test). Major bleeding was less frequent in patients receiving preoperatively initiated LMWH than in patients receiving postoperatively initiated LMWH (0.9%, vs. 3.5%; P = .01, Fisher exact test). Our findings support the need for a randomized comparison of preoperative and postoperative initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis of DVT. Such a trial would resolve the divergent practices for DVT prophylaxis between Europe and the North American countries, the United States and Canada, and would affect the treatment for thousands of patients on both continents.

Deep vein thrombi associated with the use of plastic ankle-foot orthoses

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a well-known complication of neurologic disorders that result in immobility, such as stroke and spinal cord injury. There is little information available, however, regarding the association of DVT with orthotic devices commonly used in this patient population. We report an unusual case in which lesser saphenous vein DVTs were associated with the use of plastic ankle-foot orthoses (PAFOs) in a patient with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy treated with plasmaphoresis and intravenous Ig. The possible role of PAFOs in the development of the DVTs, as well as other contributing factors such as plasmaphoresis, is discussed. The need for posthospitalization DVT prophylaxis in patients with paralysis is reviewed.