Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Research Articles

Non-Inferiority of Aspirin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Hip Arthroplasty in a Statewide Registry

BackgroundUncertainty remains surrounding the use of aspirin as a sole chemoprophylactic agent to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) and bleeding after primary total hip arthroplasty. MethodsWe performed a non-inferiority analysis of a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018. Cases were retrieved from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative database and performed by 355 surgeons at 61 hospitals throughout Michigan. Surgical setting ranged from small community hospitals to large academic and non-academic centers. The primary outcomes were post-operative venous thromboembolism event or death and bleeding event. ResultsOf the 59,747 patients included, 32,878 (55.03%) were female, and the mean age was 64.5. A total of 462 (0.77%) composite venous thromboembolism events occurred. There were 221 (0.71%) and 129 (0.80%) venous thromboembolism events in patients receiving aspirin only and anticoagulants only, respectively. Aspirin was non-inferior to anticoagulants for composite venous thromboembolism events (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.26, P < .001). Bleeding events occurred in 767 (1.28%) patients, with 304 (0.97%) and 281 (1.74%) bleeding events in patients receiving aspirin only and anticoagulants only, respectively. Aspirin was non-inferior to anticoagulants for bleeding events (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.74, P < .001). ConclusionAspirin is not inferior to other anticoagulants as pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with regards to post-operative risk of venous thromboembolism or bleeding. Sole use of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty should be considered in the appropriate patient.

Is There Value in Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis After Pediatric Scoliosis Surgery? A 28-Year Single Center Study.

With a recognized increase in the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in children, especially in those with complex, chronic conditions, it is important for patient safety and risk management to identify subgroups that would benefit from prophylactic treatment. The aim of our study was to assess whether scoliosis surgery in children was associated with an increased incidence of VTE, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and if chemoprophylaxis is warranted. We reviewed our institution's Pediatric Orthopaedic Spine Database (1992-2019) to identify patients who had a symptomatic VTE postoperatively. There were 1471 patients (1035 female, 436 male) with a mean age at surgery of 12.1±3.2 years (range, 1 to 18 y) underwent posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation (2131 procedures). No patients were given pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, and no routine screening for VTE was performed. Two patients had a lower extremity DVT (0.13%) within 6 months following surgery, (range, 55 to 161 d). Neither patient had a subsequent pulmonary embolism. They were 9 and 17 years of age with a diagnosis of neuromuscular scoliosis (1 each postpolio and myelodysplasia). One affected patient had a central venous line inserted perioperatively, a known risk factor for thromboembolism. All DVTs were treated with appropriately dosed anticoagulants. None had a family history of hypercoagulation. The risk of symptomatic VTE is extraordinarily low after pediatric spinal deformity surgery. Mechanical prophylaxis is sufficient in most cases. Further multi-center studies may help identify patient specific risk factors.

Correlation between thrombodynamics test levels and the incidence of venous thromboembolic complications in prostate cancer patients undergone radical prostatectomy. Retrospective study

Introduction. According to international studies, the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE), in cancer patients, is between 5–7 %. The presence of VTE in cancer patients during the oncological treatment increases the risk of lethal outcome. The pelvic cavity, especially in patients with cancer of the prostate gland, represents one of the main thrombogenic localizations. This problem remains actual despite the implementation of modern techniques of VTE prophylaxis and laboratory control of the hemostatic system. Objectives. to assess the correlation between thrombodynamics test levels and the frequency of VTE complications in prostate cancer patients after surgical treatment. Materials and methods. 59 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with or without lymphadenectomy were included in the study. Preoperative assessment included standard laboratory investigations and an ultrasound examination to exclude deep vein thrombosis in lower extremities. To calculate the risk of VTE, Caprini score was used. Pharmacological prophylaxis of VTE was performed according to the ASCO clinical recommendations with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), the dose was selected out of the patient weight. In the early postoperative period, standard coagulation tests were performed at 3 control points with the determination of D-dimer and the thrombodynamics test. Ultrasound monitoring of lower extremities was performed on the 3rd day after surgery and the day before discharge. Results. The incidence of VTE in the early postoperative period was found as 5 %. Using the thrombodynamics test we’ve revealed that if the steady-state rate of clot growth rises above 43 μm/min before administration or at the peak of LMWH action in the first 3 days after surgery, the risk of thrombosis increases significantly. Conclusion. The steady-state clot growth rate exceeding 43 μm/min can be used as a criterion for an increased risk of VTE in patients undergone radical prostatectomy.

Pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism: Is it time to change the gold standard?

Pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism: Is it time to change the gold standard?

Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acute period of isolated traumatic brain injury

Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acute period of isolated traumatic brain injury

Rethinking pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in minimally invasive gynaecological procedures.

Rethinking pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in minimally invasive gynaecological procedures.

Incidence, Management and Outcomes of Arterial and Venous Thromboembolism after Chimeric Antigen Receptor Modified T Cells for B-Cell Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor modified T Cell (CAR-T) therapy is a rapidly developing treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM). Although this population is at high risk for thrombosis, there are few data about rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) with CAR-T. Additionally, treatment with anticoagulation is complicated because of the prevalence of thrombocytopenia following CAR-T. Our goal was to determine the incidence, associated risk factors, management and outcomes of VTE and ATE in the 60 days following CAR-T therapy. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all patients who received inpatient CAR-T cells at UCSF Medical Center between January 2018 and May 2020 for R/R NHL or MM as standard-of-care or on a clinical trial. The outcomes of incident VTE and ATE were identified by ICD-10 codes and medical record review. Patient characteristics, pre-existing thrombosis risk factors, laboratory results, medications, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding or recurrent thrombotic complications were obtained through chart review. We used descriptive statistics to delineate risk factors, incidence, management and outcomes of thrombotic events. Results: Ninety-one patients who underwent CAR-T therapy were included in the analysis, 37 with NHL and 54 with MM. For NHL, mean age was 63 (range 38-82), and 41% were women. For MM, mean age was 62 (range 33-77), and 50% were women. Patients with NHL were treated with either investigational or Federal Drug Administration-approved CD19-directed therapies, and patients with MM were treated with a variety of investigational B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) therapies. For thrombotic risk factors, 13% of patients with NHL had a history of VTE, 3% had a history of ATE, 27% had a BMI ≥30, 59% had a recent procedure including central venous catheter (CVC) placement, 14% had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and 22% had an infectious complication in the 30 days pre- or post-CAR-T. Forty-one percent of patients with NHL had neurotoxicity of any grade, and 59% had CRS of any grade. At 30 days, 57% had a complete response, 41% had a partial response, 3% had stable disease. For MM, 6% of patients had a pre-existing history of VTE, 2% had a history of ATE, 19% had a BMI ≥30, 96% had a recent procedure, 11% had an ICU stay and 19% had an infection. Seventeen percent had neurotoxicity, and 85% had CRS. Thirty-two percent of patients with NHL and 48% with MM received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis while undergoing CAR-T. For those who did not receive VTE prophylaxis, thrombocytopenia was the reason for holding prophylaxis, which occurred in 51% and 50% of NHL and MM patients, respectively. In the 60 days post-CAR-T, 4 (11%) patients with NHL were diagnosed with VTE-3 pulmonary embolism (PE) and 1 lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with a previously placed inferior vena cava filter. Four (7%) patients with MM were diagnosed with VTE-1 PE and 3 upper extremity DVTs associated with CVCs. Five out of these 8 (63%) patients had symptomatic VTE, while the remainder were incidental on PETCT. Mean time from CAR-T infusion to VTE diagnosis was 20 days (range 6-39 days). There were no documented ATEs. Six out of 8 (75%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Of those who were anticoagulated, 4 patients received direct oral anticoagulants and 2 received low-molecular-weight-heparin. Duration was 3 months in 3 patients, 11 days in 1, 150 days in 1, and indefinitely in 1 with atrial fibrillation. Among all 8 patients with VTE, there were no bleeding events or recurrent thromboses regardless of whether or not they received anticoagulation. Discussion: In this cohort of patients with R/R NHL or MM who received either CD19- or BCMA-directed therapies, almost 1 in 10 developed VTE in the 60 days post-CAR-T. This occurred in the context of a high prevalence of risk factors for thrombosis and low rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Among those who developed VTE, the majority were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for at least 3 months, without documented bleeding or recurrent VTE. Our findings provide crucial information on a common complication that can inform patients, clinicians and researchers and should be expanded upon in larger, prospective studies to identify optimal preventive and therapeutic strategies. Disclosures Fakhri: University of California San Francisco: Current Employment. Andreadis:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wong:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Shah:BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding; GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Disseminating a patient-centered education bundle to reduce missed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis to a community hospital

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm in hospitalized patients. However, many doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis are frequently missed. We investigated the effect of a patient-centered education bundle on missed doses of VTE prophylaxis in a community hospital. Methods We performed a pre-post analysis examining missed doses of VTE prophylaxis in a community hospital. A real-time alert from the electronic health record system facilitated the delivery of a patient education bundle intervention. We included all patient visits on a single floor where at least 1 dose of VTE prophylaxis was prescribed during pre- (January 1, 2018, - November 31, 2018) and post- (January 1 - June 31, 2019) intervention periods. Outcomes included any missed dose (primary) and reasons for missed doses (refusal, other [secondary]) and were compared between both periods. Results 1,614 patient visits were included. The proportion of any missed dose significantly decreased (13.8% vs. 8.2% [OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.64]) between the pre-post intervention periods. Patient refusal was the most frequent reason for missed doses. In the post-intervention period, patient refusal significantly decreased from 8.8% to 5.0% (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46, 0.64). Similarly, other reasons for missed doses significantly decreased from 5.0% to 3.2% (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51, 0.77). Conclusions A real-time alert-triggered patient-centered education bundle developed and tested in an academic hospital, significantly reduced missed doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis when disseminated to a community hospital.

What is the optimal pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in the hospitalized dialysis patient?

Evidence-Based Practice: July 2021 - Volume 24 - Issue 7 - p 33-34 doi: 10.1097/EBP.0000000000001116

The effect of physician educational intervention on venous thromboembolism pharmacological prophylaxis in medical inpatients from the respiratory department: a retrospective cohort study.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious health problem for which pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to be effective. However, there are significant gaps between the guidelines and clinical practice. This study is to evaluate the effect of physician educational intervention (PEI) on VTE pharmacological prophylaxis in medical inpatients from the respiratory department. Medical inpatients from the respiratory department between February 2014 and December 2016 were recruited in this retrospective cohort study. They were assigned to the PEI group or the control group according to whether their physicians undertook a quality improvement (QI) project carried out in hospital to raise physician awareness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis by educational intervention. Any and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rates, the use of appropriate anticoagulants, and the occurrence of VTE events in the two groups were calculated and compared using a chi-square test and continuity correction. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of PEI on the occurrence of VTE events. The any pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (11.3% vs. 5.9%, P=0.048) and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (9.3% vs. 5.5%, P=0.036) in high-risk patients without high major bleeding risk were both significantly higher than the control group. Compared with the control group, appropriate anticoagulants in the PEI group took up a larger proportion of all used anticoagulants (90.3% vs. 78.7%, P=0.007). In anticoagulants used for high-risk patients without high major bleeding, appropriate anticoagulants show no statistical difference between the two groups (93.8% vs. 77.8%, P=0.153). There was no difference in the occurrence of VTE events between the two study groups in overall patients (0.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.913), and among those with high VTE risk (1.7% vs. 1.0%, P=0.554). PEI had no association with the probability of VTE event occurrence (RR, 1.246; 95% CI, 0.478-2.188, P=0.954). Educational intervention effectively increased physician awareness of VTE prophylaxis in the respiratory department. Further interventions are still necessary since the guidelines were implemented to a relatively low degree.

Coagulopathy, Venous Thromboembolism, and Anticoagulation in Patients with COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has led to a worldwide pandemic, and patients with the infection are referred to as having COVID‐19. Although COVID‐19 is commonly considered a respiratory disease, there is clearly a thrombotic potential that was not expected. The pathophysiology of the disease and subsequent coagulopathy produce an inflammatory, hypercoagulable, and hypofibrinolytic state. Several observational studies have demonstrated surprisingly high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in both general ward and intensive care patients with COVID‐19. Many of these observational studies demonstrate high rates of VTE despite patients being on standard, or even higher intensity, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Fibrinolytic therapy has also been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Unfortunately, high quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. A literature search was performed to provide the most up‐to‐date information on the pathophysiology, coagulopathy, risk of VTE, and prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID‐19. These topics are reviewed in detail, along with practical issues of anticoagulant selection and duration. Although many international organizations have produced guidelines or consensus statements, they do not all cover the same issues regarding anticoagulant therapy for patients with COVID‐19, and they do not all agree. These statements and the most recent literature are combined into a list of clinical considerations that clinicians can use for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID‐19.

Management and outcomes of severe pelvic fractures in level I and II ACS verified trauma centers

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the management strategies and outcomes of isolated severe pelvic fractures in level I and II ACS verified trauma centers. MethodsACS-TQIP database study, including patients with blunt, isolated severe pelvic facture (AIS 3–5). Results2629 level I and 1277 level II patients were included. Early blood product transfusion was significantly higher, pharmacological VTE prophylaxis significantly lower and ICU length of stay significantly longer in level II centers (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, treatment at level II centers was independently associated with increased overall complications, specifically ARDS, but not mortality. ConclusionsIn isolated severe pelvic fractures there was a significantly higher use of early blood products, less VTE pharmacological prophylaxis, longer ICU length of stay and higher overall complications and ARDS in level II centers. Blood product utilization and pharmacological VTE prophylaxis are potential areas of quality improvement in level II centers.

Effects of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis in Benign Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy

Study Objective To evaluate if the addition of pharmacologic prophylaxis (heparin, low molecular weight heparin) for VTE is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) hysterectomy for benign indications compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC). Patients or Participants Patients who underwent a benign MIS hysterectomy (i.e. laparoscopic, vaginal, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal, or robotic-assisted laparoscopy) performed between July 2012 and June 2015 and received mechanical prophylaxis for thromboembolism. Interventions Patients were divided into cohorts who received mechanical prophylaxis alone (MPpx) or mechanical + pharmacologic prophylaxis (M+Pppx). Propensity score matching was used to minimize confounding due to differences in age, race, body mass index>40, hypertension, congestive heart failure, smoking, functional status, preoperative transfusion, preoperative anemia or thrombocytopenia, length of stay, and hospital teaching status. Outcomes evaluated in the propensity-matched cohorts were estimated blood loss, intraoperative time, postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative VTE, surgical site infection, reoperation, and readmission. Measurements and Main Results There were 1944 matched pairs of patients in the Mppx and M+Pppx cohorts. Intraoperative time was 21 minutes longer (168 minutes ± 63 min vs 189 ± 75 mins, p Conclusion Further research is needed into the addition of pharmacologicprophylaxis to mechanical prophylaxis and its association with longer operative time for benign minimally invasive hysterectomy. Given extremely low rates of VTE in both groups and no difference detected in other significant peri-operative outcomes using a large database, it seems reasonable to question routine use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in these patients.

Splenic Artery Angioembolization is Associated with Increased Venous Thromboembolism.

Angioembolization has become an increasingly utilized adjunct for splenic preservation after trauma. Embolization of the splenic artery may produce a transient systemic hypercoagulable state. This study was designed to determine the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in blunt trauma patients managed nonoperatively with splenic angioembolization, relative to those managed without. Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Performance (TQIP) Database from 2013 to 2016. Adult (>16years) patients with isolated, severe (Grades III-V) blunt splenic injuries managed nonoperatively who received pharmacological VTE prophylaxis formed the study population. Outcomes included deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), or any VTE. A total of 2643 patients met inclusion criteria (69.1% Grade III, 26.5% Grade IV, 4.5% Grade V). The incidence of DVT was 4.5% in patients who underwent angioembolization, compared to 1.4% in patients who did not (p<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that angioembolization was an independent risk factor for both DVT (OR 2.65, p = 0.006) and any VTE (OR 2.04, p = 0.01). Analysis according to splenic injury Grades showed that angioembolization remained an independent risk factor for DVT (p = 0.004) in the Grade IV-V injury group, and for VTE (p<0.01) in the Grade III injury group. Initiation of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis 48h after admission was associated with increased VTE rates in comparison to early initiation (OR 1.75, p = 0.02) CONCLUSIONS: Splenic artery angioembolization may be an independent risk factor for VTE events in isolated, severe blunt splenic trauma managed nonoperatively. Early prophylaxis with LMWH after intervention should be strongly considered.

Stroke and Thromboprophylaxis in the Era of COVID-19

Stroke and Thromboprophylaxis in the Era of COVID-19

When Is It Safe to Start Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Pelvic Fractures? A Prospective Study From a Level I Trauma Center

BackgroundThe ideal time for pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis initiation after pelvic fracture is controversial. This prospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of early VTE prophylaxis after blunt pelvic trauma. MethodsPatients presenting to our American College of Surgeons–verified level I trauma center (between December 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017) with blunt pelvic fracture were prospectively screened. Exclusion criteria were emergency department death, immediate operative intervention, transfers, home anticoagulation, pregnancy, and patients receiving no pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. Patients were dichotomized into study groups based on VTE prophylaxis initiation time ≤48 h (early prophylaxis [EP]) versus >48 h (late prophylaxis [LP]) after emergency department arrival. Demographics, injury data, clinical data, VTE prophylaxis agent and initiation time, and outcomes were compared. ResultsAfter exclusions, 146 patients were identified: 74 (51%) patients in EP group and 72 (49%) patients in LP group. Pelvic fracture severity was comparable between groups (Abbreviated Injury Scale extremity score 2 [2-3] versus 2 [2-3]; P = 0.610). On univariate analysis, deep vein thrombosis rates were higher after LP (n = 5, 7% versus 0, 0%; P = 0.027). Pulmonary embolism rates were similar (n = 2, 3% versus n = 3, 4%; P = 1.000). No patient required delayed intervention for bleeding, and postprophylaxis blood transfusion was comparable between groups (P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation was not associated with VTE development (odds ratio, 0.647; P = 0.999). Pelvic angioembolization was independently associated with VTE (odds ratio, 1.296; P = 0.044). ConclusionsEarly initiation of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis after blunt pelvic fracture is safe. Although EP initiation did not reduce the rate of VTE, these data identify angioembolization as an independent risk factor for VTE. Patients with blunt pelvic fracture who undergo angioembolization may therefore represent a high-risk population who may especially benefit from EP.

Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review.

Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital. We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen. We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.

Reply by Authors.

You have accessJournal of UrologyLetters to the Editor/Errata1 Oct 2020Reply by Authorsis a reply to letterRe: COVID-19 Coagulopathy: Considerations for Urologists J. S. Jue and M. Alameddine J. S. JueJ. S. Jue More articles by this author and M. AlameddineM. Alameddine More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001229AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention toward respiratory symptoms and treatment of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, while urological complaints and pathologies are sometimes overlooked. Cai et al describe a series of 18 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and superimposed urosepsis during the pandemic. In their series 5 of 18 patients (28%) were diagnosed with PE immediately after the onset of urosepsis. The authors note that 40% of the patients with PE died, while 60% were successfully treated. These initial results highlight the increased prevalence of thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 with active urological problems. Cai et al do not mention if the PEs in their series were detected incidentally or as a result of a sudden change in clinical status. They also do not mention the specific venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis used prior to PE diagnosis. It is essential that patients with COVID-19 be treated with pharmacological VTE prophylaxis while inpatients, and escalated to therapeutic anticoagulation if a new VTE is confirmed.1 Initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation for suspected PE has been commonly practiced during the COVID-19 pandemic due to difficulty transporting mechanically ventilated patients for cross-sectional imaging and initiatives to limit staff exposure to COVID-19.1 Currently reasons to suspect PE include sudden respiratory decompensation, evidence of right heart strain and confirmation of deep vein thrombosis. There is likely low value in performing computerized tomographic pulmonary angiography purely in the setting of urosepsis without clinical suspicion of PE. It is important to remember that many patients with urosepsis or SARS-CoV-2 infection have a concomitant acute kidney injury (AKI). Patients with both infections are likely to have an AKI that is multifactorial in nature. AKI in COVID-19 has been attributed to cardiovascular comorbidities, endothelial damage, immune response dysregulation and microthromboemboli.2 AKI in the setting of COVID-19 progresses to the point of requiring renal replacement therapy in 2% to 9% of patients.3,4 This rate increases to 6% to 23% when severe infection is present.5,6 Therefore, we only recommend diagnostic testing for PE if clinically suspected, in order to avoid the unnecessary risks associated with therapeutic anticoagulation and intravenous contrast material. Reference 1. : COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood 2020; 135: 2033. Google Scholar 2. : Management of acute kidney injury in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Respir Med 2020; doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30229-0. Crossref, Google Scholar 3. : Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet 2020; 395: 507. Google Scholar 4. : Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323: 1061. Google Scholar 5. : Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 475. Google Scholar 6. : Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1708. Google Scholar © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology1 Jul 2020Re: COVID-19 Coagulopathy: Considerations for Urologists Volume 204Issue 4October 2020Page: 849-850 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information J. S. Jue More articles by this author M. Alameddine More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Management and Outcomes of Severe Pelvic Fractures in Level I and II ACS Verified Trauma Centers

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the management strategies and outcomes of isolated severe pelvic fractures in level I and II ACS verified trauma centers. Methods ACS-TQIP database study, including patients with blunt, isolated severe pelvic facture (AIS 3–5). Results 2629 level I and 1277 level II patients were included. Early blood product transfusion was significantly higher, pharmacological VTE prophylaxis significantly lower and ICU length of stay significantly longer in level II centers (p Conclusions In isolated severe pelvic fractures there was a significantly higher use of early blood products, less VTE pharmacological prophylaxis, longer ICU length of stay and higher overall complications and ARDS in level II centers. Blood product utilization and pharmacological VTE prophylaxis are potential areas of quality improvement in level II centers.

Association of timing of initiation of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with outcomes in trauma patients.

Patients are at a high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) following traumatic injury. We examined the relationship between timing of initiation of pharmacologic prophylaxis with VTE complications. Trauma quality collaborative data from 34 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma-verified levels I and II trauma centers were analyzed. Patients were excluded if they were on anticoagulant therapy at the time of injury, had hospitalization <48 hours, or received no or nonstandard pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (heparin drip). Patient comparison groups were based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis relative to hospital presentation (0 to <24 hours, 24 to <48 hours, ≥48 hours). Risk-adjusted rates of VTE events were calculated accounting for patient factors including type of pharmacologic agent in addition to standard trauma patient confounders. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding patients who received blood in the first 4 hours and/or patients with a significant traumatic brain injury. Within the 79,386 patients analyzed, there were 1,495 (1.9%) who experienced a VTE complication and 1,437 (1.8%) who died. After adjusting for type of prophylaxis and patient factors, the risk of a VTE event was significantly increased in the 24- to <48-hour (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.47; p = 0.002) and ≥48-hour (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-2.70; p < 0.001) cohorts relative to patients initiated at 0 to <24 hours. These VTE event findings remained significant after exclusion of perceived higher-risk patients in a sensitivity analysis. Early initiation of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in stable trauma patients is associated with lower rates of VTE. Diagnostic, level III.