Management Of Thromboembolism Research Articles

The Saudi Consensus for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism: A Modified Delphi-Based Study.

Background Cancer is a well-known risk factor of preventable thromboembolic disease. This study aims to provide guidance on the prevention and management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) that tailors prophylactic and therapeutic options for medical and surgical oncology patients presenting to health care settings in Saudi Arabia. Methods The present consensus was developed in concordance with the modified Delphi-based approach, which incorporates a face-to-face meeting between two voting rounds to gain experts' feedback on the proposed statements. All experts were either oncologists, hematologists, or hemato-oncologist with an active clinical and research profile in hemato-oncology. Results The experts highlighted that the comparatively high incidence of inherited thrombophilia among the Saudi population may account for a higher CT burden in the Kingdom than in other parts of the world. However, due to the lack of literature that assesses CT in Saudi Arabia, primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be tailored according to a valid risk assessment of cancer patients and should be implemented in routine practice. For hospitalized medical oncology patients, the experts agreed that prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) should be offered, regardless of the presence of acute illness. For ambulatory medical oncology patients, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prophylaxis should be offered for high-risk patients. Concerning surgical patients, they agreed that all oncology patients undergoing surgery should be offered thromboprophylaxis. In terms of secondary prophylaxis, the experts recommended continuing a prophylactic dose of anticoagulant (LMWH or DOAC), for an appropriate period depending on the cancer type and stage. Finally, they also provided a set of statements on management of CT in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion The present modified Delphi-based study combined the best available evidence and clinical experience with the current health care policies and settings in Saudi Arabia to build a consensus statement on the epidemiology, prevention, and management of CT.

Frequency of Thrombosis in Covid-19 Patients Compared to Non-Covid-19 Sepsis Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

The COVID-19 pandemic to date is responsible for 6.39 million deaths and has devastated economies and healthcare infrastructure worldwide. In mid-January 2021 in the United States, more than 28,000 Covid-19 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at a given time. Systemic activation of coagulation may be a part of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the hypercoagulable state associated with COVID-19 infection may be associated with adverse outcomes and mortality. Historically, studies have also demonstrated high rates of thrombotic events among patients with sepsis. Whether the associated increase in thrombotic events results from COVID-19 specific infection or a general severe infection response is unknown. Understanding the relative contribution of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 severe disease helps risk stratify and clarify thromboembolism management from sepsis guidelines. Moreover, different VTE rates may indicate COVID-19-specific mechanisms warranting further investigation. To delineate the role of VTE in COVID-19 ICU admission and outcomes and to elucidate the pathophysiology of COVID-19 hypercoagulability, we evaluated the rate of thrombotic events across ICU patients with COVID-19 disease and compared the rate with all patients with non-COVID-19 sepsis or septic shock. This retrospective cohort study was approved by the USF Institutional Review Board. A chart review was performed of patients 18 years or older admitted to the ICU at Tampa General Hospital between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or sepsis secondary to other organisms. Sepsis criteria was defined as non-Covid-19 systemic infection and at least two of the following: 1) Temperature >38C or <36C; 2) heart rate >90 3) respiratory rate >20 or PaCO2<32; 4) WBC >12,000 or <4000, or >10% bands. Patients' data were collected, including age, body mass index (BMI), malignancy, heart failure, respiratory failure, rheumatologic disorders, diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2), and history of hypercoagulable events and incidence of a thrombotic event. Our study evaluated 2,752 patients admitted to the ICU. We found no statistically significant difference in the thrombotic event incidence in COVID-19 patients in the ICU [n=540] compared to non-COVID-19 patients [n=2,212] (15.6 % versus 18.2%, p-value 0.15). Based on these results, further study is required to lower the rate of VTE in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 sepsis patients admitted to the ICU. It is reasonable to consider similar thromboembolism guidelines between COVID-19 and sepsis. However, comparing additional ICU outcomes such as mortality rates and length of stay is warranted.

Thromboembolic Events in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Overview.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory disorders of the intestines. The underlying inflammation activates the coagulation cascade leading to an increased risk of developing arterial and venous thromboembolic events such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Patients with IBD are at a 2–3-fold increased risk of developing thromboembolism. This risk increases in patients with active IBD disease, flare-ups, surgery, steroid treatment, and hospitalization. These complications are associated with significant morbidity and mortality making them important in clinical practice. Clinicians should consider the increased risk of thromboembolic events in patients with IBD and manage them with appropriate prophylaxis based on the risk. In this review, we discuss the literature associated with the pathophysiology of thromboembolism in patients with IBD, summarize the studies describing the various thromboembolic events, and the management of thromboembolism in patients with IBD.

Does kidney function matter in pulmonary thromboembolism management?

Cardiovascular circulation and kidney function are closely interrelated. The impairment of renal function is a well-known hazard of increased mortality and morbidity of patients with heart failure or coronary artery disease. Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) impacts pulmonary and systemic circulation, and can severely impair functions of other organs, including kidneys, as a result of hypoxemia and increased venous pressure.Previous studies indicate that renal dysfunction predicts short- and long-term outcomes and can improve the risk assessment in APE. However, renal function should also be cautiously considered during the diagnostic workup because the contrast-induced nephropathy after computed tomography pulmonary angiography is noticed more frequently in APE. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare but imminent complication of APE. This condition promotes renal impairment by increasing venous pressure and decreasing glomerular filtration. The renal function improvement and serum creatinine concentration reduction were noted in CTEPH subgroup with glomerular filtration rate ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 after successful treatment.In this review, we present the essential research results on the kidney function in thromboembolism disease.

IMPROVE bleeding score predicts major bleeding in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients with venous thromboembolism.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism has been reported as 20% in cancer patients. Anticoagulation therapy is the standard treatment for venous thromboembolism. On the other hand, bleeding should be carefully managed, because advanced cancer, particularly gastrointestinal cancer, carries a high risk of bleeding. However, the optimal management for cancer-associated thromboembolism remains to be clarified. We retrospectively examined patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer, including gastric cancer and colorectal cancer, who were treated with chemotherapy between 2014 and 2018 for the incidence and characteristics of venous thromboembolism and bleeding. In total, 194 patients (120 men, 74 women) were enrolled in this study. The underlying pathology was gastric cancer in 74 cases and colorectal cancer in 120 cases. Of the 194 patients, 40 patients (20.6%) were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism and 10 patients (5.2%) were diagnosed with concomitant pulmonary thromboembolism. Conversely, bleeding was observed in 29 patients (15%). The location of bleeding was the primary tumor in 17 cases, metastatic tumor in 9 and hemorrhagic gastric ulcer in 3. Within the venous thromboembolism group (n=40), bleeding was observed in 10 patients (25%). Multivariate analysis showed that International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) bleeding score ≥7 correlated significantly with major bleeding (P=0.01). In patients with a low risk of bleeding, major bleeding was observed in only three patients. IMPROVE bleeding score may predict the risk for bleeding in gastrointestinal cancer patients with venous thromboembolism. Selecting patients with a low risk of bleeding using with IMPROVE bleeding score is expected to contribute to the safer management of anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated thromboembolism.

Assessment of Jordanian physicians’ knowledge about venous thromboembolism risk and management among COVID-19 patients

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to assess Jordanian physicians’ awareness about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk among COVID-19 patients and its treatment protocol. Methods This was a cross-sectional-based survey that was conducted in Jordan in 2020. During the study period, a convenience sample of physicians working in various Jordanian hospitals were invited to participate in this study. Physicians’ knowledge was evaluated and physicians gained one point for each correct answer. Then, a knowledge score out of 23 was calculated for each. Key findings In this study, 102 physicians were recruited. Results from this study showed that most of the physicians realize that all COVID-19 patients need VTE risk assessment (n = 69, 67.6%). Regarding VTE prophylaxis, the majority of physicians (n = 91, 89.2%) agreed that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the best prophylactic option for mild-moderate COVID-19 patients with high VTE risk. Regarding severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients, 75.5% of physicians (n = 77) recognized that LMWH is the correct prophylactic option in this case, while 80.4% of them (n = 82) knew that mechanical prevention is the preferred prophylactic option for severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients with high bleeding risk. Moreover, 77.5% of physicians (n = 79) knew that LMWH is the treatment of choice for COVID-19 patients diagnosed with VTE. Finally, linear regression analysis showed that consultants had an overall higher knowledge score about VTE prevention and treatment in COVID-19 patients compared with residents (P = 0.009). Conclusion All physicians knew about VTE risk factors for COVID-19 patients. However, consultants showed better awareness of VTE prophylaxis and treatment compared with residents. We recommend educational workshops be conducted to enhance physicians’ knowledge and awareness about VTE thromboprophylaxis and management in COVID-19 patients.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Venous Interventions: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Interventions for thrombotic and nonthrombotic venous disorders have increased with technical advances and more trained venous specialists. Antithrombotic therapy is essential to clinical and procedural success; however, postprocedural therapeutic regimens exhibit significant heterogeneity due to limited prospective randomized data and incomplete mechanistic understanding of the critical factors driving long-term patency. Postinterventional antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic venous disorders should adhere to existing venous thromboembolism management guidelines, which include 3-6 months of therapeutic anticoagulation at minimum and consideration of extended therapy in patients with higher risk of thrombosis because of procedural or patient factors. The added benefit of antiplatelet agents in the acute and intermediate period is unknown, having shown improved long-term stent patency in some retrospective studies. Dual- and/or triple-agent therapy should be limited based on individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding. The treatment of nonthrombotic disorders is more heterogeneous, though patients with limited flow, extensive stent material, or underlying prothrombotic states such as malignancy or chronic inflammation may benefit from single-agent or multiagent antithrombotic therapy. However, the agent, dose, and duration of therapy remain indeterminate. Future prospective studies are warranted to improve patient risk stratification and standardize postprocedural anti-thrombotic therapy in patients receiving venous interventions.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BackgroundEarly reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices.ObjectiveDefine practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample.MethodsIn this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication.Results1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21–2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06–17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89–10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0–11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0–10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing).ConclusionsTherapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Implementing a Clinical Decision Tool to Improve Oncologic Venous Thromboembolism Management.

Background:Cancer patients with venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease are complex, and many factors must be considered when initiating anticoagulation management. Clinical decision support systems can aid in decision-making by utilizing guidelines at the point of care.Objectives:The purpose of our project was to develop, implement, and evaluate an electronic clinical decision tool (CDT) utilizing evidence-based guidelines to aid in decision-making for adult oncologic patients who present with new VTE to symptom care clinics.Methods:We compared a pre-intervention group of patients who were prescribed anticoagulation (n = 98) with two post-intervention groups: CDT applied (n = 96) and not applied (n = 46). Outcomes included whether the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed and if the tool was perceived to be helpful or improve confidence in initiating management for new VTE by the SCC advanced practitioners and physicians.Results:There was no significant difference between the pre- and post-intervention groups in how many of the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed (68.8% pre-intervention, 60.8% post-intervention tool applied, and 63.5% post-intervention tool not applied; χ2 [2, N = 161] = .921, p = .631). However, the tool was found to be helpful and improved confidence of the providers in initiating management for new VTE (pre median = 3, interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 3.5; post median = 3, IQR 3, 4; p = .033).Conclusion:This CDT provided evidence-based anticoagulation recommendations for cancer-associated VTE and enhanced familiarity with the standard of care. Further development of the CDT will be required to account for situations that resulted in deviation from the recommendations.

Translated article] Multidisciplinary consensus for the management of pulmonary thromboembolism

We have updated recommendations on 12 controversial topics that were published in the 2013 National Consensus on the diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). A comprehensive review of the literature was performed for each topic, and each recommendation was evaluated in two teleconferences. For diagnosis, we recommend against using the Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) rule as the only test to rule out PE, and we recommend using a d-dimer cutoff adjusted to age to rule out PE. We suggest using computed tomography pulmonary angiogram as the imaging test of choice for the majority of patients with suspected PE. We recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (over vitamin K antagonists) for the vast majority of patients with acute PE, and we suggest using anticoagulation for patients with isolated subsegmental PE. We recommend against inserting an inferior cava filter for the majority of patients with PE, and we recommend using full-dose systemic thrombolytic therapy for PE patients requiring reperfusion. The decision to stop anticoagulants at 3 months or to treat indefinitely mainly depends on the presence (or absence) and type of risk factor for venous thromboembolism, and we recommend against thrombophilia testing to decide duration of anticoagulation. Finally, we suggest against extensive screening for occult cancer in patients with PE.

Factor Xa inhibitor for venous thromboembolism management in patient with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: An earlier systematic review reported no differences in the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding between factor Xa inhibitors and standard anticoagulation. The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of factor Xa inhibitors for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), specifically in patients with cancer, as there were more randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available. Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically screened for all RCTs assessing factor Xa inhibitor efficacy for VTE management in cancer patients. Using RevMan 5.3, we performed a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects meta-analysis of the following outcomes: recurrent VTE, VTE events, and major bleeding rates. Results: We identified 11 studies involving 7,965 patients. Factor Xa inhibitors were superior in preventing VTE recurrence, compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.80; P < 0.01) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.78; P < 0.01). As prophylaxis, factor Xa inhibitors had a similar rate of VTE compared to VKAs (OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.31-3.77]; P = 0.90) and a lower rate compared to placebo (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.35-0.81]; P < 0.01). Major bleeding rates were higher with factor Xa inhibitors than with LMWHs (OR 1.34 [95% CI 0.83-2.18]; P = 0.23), but significantly lower than VKAs (OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55-0.92]; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Factor Xa inhibitors are effective for VTE management in patients with cancer; however, they are also associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to LMWH, but decreased when compared to VKA.

Current Trends in the Duration of Anticoagulant Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review.

Anticoagulation therapy is the first line and drug of choice for both the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism). Anticoagulation drugs, ranging from different preparations of heparin, warfarin, and newer direct oral drugs such as rivaroxaban and dabigatran, work mainly by inhibiting important factors and enzymes in the coagulation cascade by preventing fibrin formation, platelet aggregation, and clot assembly. With recurrent thrombosis and embolisms being a feared complication for many physicians treating such cases, anticoagulation is often extended beyond the initial three- to six-month acute phase after an incident of venous thromboembolism. For some groups of patients, anticoagulation needs to be offered indefinitely to decrease the risk of a recurrent thrombosis. However, this concomitantly increases obvious and dangerous adverse effects such as increased risk of hemorrhage, as the ability to clot is hindered. This tradeoff between recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding is what underscores the controversy of the clinical question: for how long should anticoagulation be administered for venous thromboembolism? This review analyzes the use of anticoagulants in different types of venous thromboembolism and remarks on current consensus and trends on the length of anticoagulation treatment. We are doing so while acknowledging that venous thromboembolism management is an active area of research that is rapidly evolving. A literature search was performed looking at recent studies on anticoagulant administration for the treatment of venous thromboembolism with a focus on varying durations and patient populations. Factors that affect clinical decisions of duration are also elucidated. The most clinically relevant anticoagulants were discussed and their effects on the risk of recurrent thrombosis and embolism, and the risk of bleeding in relation to other drugs were analyzed. Ultimately, this article discussed patterns of anticoagulant treatments duration and which patient groups are likely to benefit the most from certain durations, shedding light on the ambiguity in how physicians should approach administering anticoagulation therapy over time for a broad range of presentations of venous thromboembolism.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Acute Venous Thromboembolism Management: Trends and Postacute Healthcare Utilization From 2011 to 2018.

BackgroundAcute outpatient management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), is perceived to be as safe as inpatient management in some settings. How widely this strategy is used is not well documented.Methods and ResultsUsing MarketScan administrative claims databases for years 2011 through 2018, we identified patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes indicating incident VTE and trends in the use of acute outpatient management. We also evaluated healthcare utilization and hospitalized bleeding events in the 6 months following the incident VTE event. A total of 200 346 patients with VTE were included, of whom 50% had evidence of PE. Acute outpatient management was used for 18% of those with PE and 57% of those with DVT only, and for both DVT and PE its use increased from 2011 to 2018. Outpatient management was less prevalent among patients with cancer, higher Charlson comorbidity index scores, and whose primary treatment was warfarin as compared with a direct oral anticoagulant. Healthcare utilization in the 6 months following the incident VTE event was generally lower among patients managed acutely as outpatients, regardless of initial presentation. Acute outpatient management was associated with lower hazard ratios of incident bleeding risk for both patients who initially presented with PE (0.71 [95% CI, 0.61, 0.82]) and DVT only (0.59 [95% CI, 0.54, 0.64]).ConclusionsOutpatient management of VTE is increasing. In the present analysis, it was associated with lower subsequent healthcare utilization and fewer bleeding events. However, this may be because healthier patients were managed on an outpatient basis.

S3361 Thromboembolic Management in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprised of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s Disease (CD), is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Extraintestinal manifestations of these diseases can also cause life-threatening conditions, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and thromboembolic (TE) complications. IBD patients are at a two-fold increase of suffering from DVT and TE. The first step involves adequately treating the underlying IBD before they ever present with such complications. However, despite this, there are still no guidelines in place on how to manage anticoagulation in these patients in either the outpatient setting or while hospitalized. We looked to review what type of therapy IBD patients who ultimately suffered DVT or TE complication were on and how they were managed once hospitalized. Methods: We conducted a monocentric retrospective review of patients with a diagnosis of IBD who presented to our hospital with a DVT or some other TE between 2017- 2019. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, hospital course and clinical outcomes were obtained. A chi-square test was used to compare non-parametric variables. Results: Forty-three patients meet inclusion criteria, 26 had Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and 17 had Crohn’s Disease (CD). 26.9% of patients with UC had a DVT previous to the study encounter compared to 5.9% of CD patients. The median (IQR) albumin and hemoglobin of the study cohort was 2.9 (2.5, 3.6) and 12 (10.1, 13.1), respectively. CD patients were more likely to be on a biologic (58.8%) compared to those with UC (11.5%, p< 0.01=5) while 38.5% of UC patients presented on a steroid compared to only 5.9% of CD patients with a DVT (p< 0.05). Three UC patients were started on steroids during their hospitalization. Furthermore, of the admitted patients, only 35.3% of patients had a gastroenterology consultation before discharge. All 33 (76.7%) patients that were started on anticoagulation during their hospital encounter were also discharged on them. Conclusion: Patient’s with IBD have an increased risk of DVT and TE events. Discrepancies between the use of biologics and steroids are seen between UC and CD. Patient with UC experience more recurrent thrombotic events compared to CD. The majority of these patients are initiated on anticoagulation only following a primary thrombotic event. There is also a tendency to not involve a gastroenterologist in the management of these complex and high-risk patients.

Oncologists' attitudes towards prophylaxis of cancer associated venous thromboembolism: A prospective, descriptive study.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism creates a big burden on both patients and healthcare systems. Clinical guidelines have a consensus on the initiation of prophylactic treatment for hospitalised patients, however a debate still exists for ambulatory cancer patients. Therefore, this study aimed to identify attitudes and practices of medical oncologists on cancer-associated venous thromboembolism management. An online survey consisting of 22 questions was developed by researchers in the view of previous studies and delivered to 100 medical oncologists registered to the national society of medical oncology by e-mail between September and October 2018. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (ICM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). A total of 62 medical oncologists (75.8% male) responded to the survey (response rate of 62%). The most critical three risk factors considered for initiating prophylaxis were prior venous thromboembolism history, immobilisation and tumour/cancer type for inpatients and outpatients (χ2 test, p < 0.001). The first choice of drug for prophylaxis was mostly low molecular weight heparins (n = 60, 96.8%). In the absence of contraindications, physicians initiate prophylaxis 'usually' for inpatients (n = 25, 40.3%) and outpatients (n = 5, 8.1%). However routine use of the Khorana score is not incorporated into the risk assessment process of cancer patients. Attitudes of oncologists towards thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients are consistent with previous studies in the literature. The respondents are aware of the venous thromboembolism risk of cancer patients, however raising awareness on both cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and current guideline recommendations is needed.

Changes in anticoagulant prescription in a general hospital in 2008-2018

Aim. To study the structure of anticoagulant prescription in a general hospital to identify trends and contributing factors.Materials and methods. The study was conducted in an urban general hospital. According to retrospective retrieval from electronic health records, total 17,129 patients received anticoagulants from 2008 to 2018. Formal appropriateness of oral anticoagulants (OАС) prescriptions for 6,638 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was analyzed with CHA2-DS2-VASc score.Results. Appearance of recommendations for the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) prescription in clinical guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and AF management contributed to steady increase in the DOAC taking and decrease in the proportion of warfarin prescription. From 2011 to 2018, the proportion of patients with DOACs prescription increased from 1.7% to 81.5%. The most common indications for anticoagulant were ischemic stroke prevention in AF and VTE with mean rate 75.3% and 23.2%, respectively for the 2011-2018 period. Steady increase in low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) prophylactic prescriptions was also shown (Chi-square for linear trend=1340, df=1, p&lt;0.0001). Since 2014, the prescription of LMWH in prophylactic doses increased dramatically, probably related to implementation of computerized decision support system (CDSS) for VTE prevention in the hospital.Conclusion. The study showed that in a general hospital anticoagulants were prescribed in 19% of hospitalized patient. Not only the new clinical recommendations based on the results of the recent studies on anticoagulants efficacy and safety (external factors), but also implementation standard operating protocols and CDSS, providing physicians current information about the relevant clinical recommendations (internal changes), could influence the appropriateness of anticoagulants prescription.

WITHDRAWN: Multidisciplinary consensus for the management of pulmonary thromboembolism

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2021.01.038 . The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal

The way to a man\u2019s heart is through his stomach: a case of myocardial infarction mimic and pseudo-tamponade in a polytrauma patient

BackgroundThere exists a therapeutic conflict between haemorrhage control and prevention of thromboembolic events following polytrauma and complications are not uncommon. Such opposing therapies can result in unexpected pathophysiology and there is a real risk of misdiagnosis resulting in harm. This case presents a previously unreported complication of prevention and management of thromboembolism- STEMI (ST elevation myocardial infarction) and tamponade mimic secondary to retroperitoneal haematoma.Case presentationWe present a 50-year-old male polytrauma patient who following treatment for presumed pulmonary embolus demonstrated classical clinical findings of myocardial infarction and pericardial tamponade secondary to a retroperitoneal haematoma. This is an event not previously reported in the literature. The risk of adverse outcome by management along the standard lines of STEMI (ST elevation myocardial infarction) was averted through awareness for alternative aetiology via a multi-team approach which resulted in percutaneous drainage of the haematoma and complete resolution of symptoms.ConclusionsThis manuscript highlights the therapeutic conflict between haemorrhage control and prevention of thromboembolic events in critically injured, the importance of high index of suspicion in this patient cohort and the benefits of multidisciplinary decision making in the complex patient through a not previously published pathophysiologic phenomenon.

Venous thromboembolism management and the new NICE guidance: what the busy GP needs to know.

This article summarises the 2020 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) venous thromboembolism (VTE) guidelines, which are also covered in Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Essential Knowledge Updates (EKU) e-learning. This article focuses on rapid detection and treatment, changes in recommendations around anticoagulation, and implications for primary care practice.1 Individual signs and symptoms have a low positive predictive value (PPV) for VTE, making the clinical diagnosis difficult. For example, one primary care study found 77.8% of patients with a pulmonary embolism (PE) were breathless at time of assessment and 59.8% had chest pain, but only 29.5% were tachycardic and 28.0% had calf pain.2 The PPV of unilateral leg swelling ≥2 cm is just 27% for deep vein thrombosis (DVT).3 Reassuringly, the absence of any clinical signs suggestive of DVT in low-risk patients has a negative predictive value of 97%.3 To help exclude a PE on clinical grounds, the NICE now recommends using the PERC rule (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria) among selected low-risk patients.4 A patient must score zero to exclude a PE. One external validation study including over 8000 patients found that a PERC score of 0 had a false negative rate of just 1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6% to 1.6%) in low-risk patients.4 It is important to note that the PERC score was developed in emergency departments and is yet to be externally …

Hemorrhage risk of direct oral anticoagulants in real-world venous thromboembolism patients

IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) management increasingly involves anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Few studies have used competing-risks analyses to ascertain the mortality-adjusted hemorrhage and recurrent VTE (rVTE) risk of individual DOACs. Furthermore, hemorrhage risk factors in patients treated with apixaban remain underexplored. Materials and methodsPatients diagnosed with VTE receiving anticoagulation were identified from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (2003–2019). Study endpoints included readmissions for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), non-intracranial hemorrhage (non-ICH hemorrhage), and rVTE. Coarsened exact matching was used to balance baseline clinical characteristics. Complication incidence was evaluated using a competing-risks framework. We additionally modeled hemorrhage risk in apixaban-treated patients. ResultsOverall, 225,559 patients were included, of whom 34,201 received apixaban and 46,007 received rivaroxaban. Compared to rivaroxaban, apixaban was associated with decreased non-ICH hemorrhage (sHR = 0.560, 95%CI = 0.423–0.741), but not ICH, and rVTE (sHR = 0.802, 95%CI = 0.651–0.988) risk. This was primarily in emergent readmissions (sHR[emergent hemorrhage] = 0.515, 95%CI = 0.372–0.711; sHR[emergent rVTE] = 0.636, 95%CI = 0.488–0.830).Contributors to emergent hemorrhage in apixaban-treated patients include older age (sHR = 1.025, 95%CI = 1.011–1.039), female sex (sHR = 1.662, 95%CI = 1.252–2.207), prior prescription antiplatelet therapy (sHR = 1.591, 95%CI = 1.130–2.241), and complicated hypertension (sHR = 1.936, 95%CI = 1.134–3.307). Patients anticipated to be “high-risk” experienced elevated ICH (sHR = 3.396, 95%CI = 1.375–8.388) and non-ICH hemorrhage (sHR = 3.683, 95%CI = 2.957–4.588) incidence. ConclusionsIn patients with VTE receiving anticoagulation, apixaban was associated with reduced non-ICH hemorrhage and rVTE risk, compared to rivaroxaban. Risk reduction was restricted to emergent readmissions. We present a risk-stratification approach to predict hemorrhage in patients receiving apixaban, potentially guiding future clinical decision-making.