Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis In Patients Research Articles

#2988 Use of rivaroxaban for prevention of thrombotic events in patients with nephrotic syndrome

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with nephrotic syndrome are at increased risk of thrombotic events. The risk of thromboembolism is particularly high in patients with primary membranous nephropathy, elderly patients and patients with severe hypoalbuminemia. Although increased incidence of thrombosis is a well reported complication associated with nephrotic syndrome, management strategies are not well established. Use of aspirin seems to be insufficient to prevent venous thromboembolism. Use of warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins is inconvenient for outpatients. The aim of the trial was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with nephrotic syndrome. Method The randomized single-center trial was performed from October 2020 to November 2023. 30 adult patients with nephrotic syndrome due to primary glomerular diseases and glomerular filtration rate more than 60 ml/min were divided into two groups. The treatment group (n = 15) received 10-20 mg of rivaroxaban daily. The control group (n = 15) had no anticoagulation therapy. Thrombotic events and bleedings were recorded. Results Patients in both groups received immunosuppressive treatment of nephrotic syndrome according to primary disease. Rivaroxaban was prescribed for the entire treatment period until the onset of remission. Patients with membranous nephropathy were equally represented in both study groups (4 per group). No thromboembolic events were recorded in both groups. As well as there were no bleeding complications in patients who received rivaroxaban. Conclusion Rivaroxaban might be a possible alternative to warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins in prevention of thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome. However, indications for anticoagulant prophylaxis, its duration and discontinuation are still not clear. Future studies should address the question regarding the utility of primary thromboprophylaxis.

Randomized, controlled, multi‐center phase II study of postoperative enoxaparin treatment for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for hepatobiliary‐pancreatic malignancies

AbstractPurposePostoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is pronounced after abdominal cancer surgery. Enoxaparin shows promise in preventing VTE in gastrointestinal, gynecological, and urological cancers, but its application after surgery for hepatobiliary‐pancreatic malignancy has been under‐evaluated due to bleeding concerns. We confirmed the safety of enoxaparin administration in patients undergoing curative hepatobiliary‐pancreatic surgery for malignancies in a prospective, multi‐center, phase I study.MethodsThe study was conducted from April 2015 to May 2021 across eight specialized centers. Patients (n = 262) were randomized to enoxaparin prophylaxis given postoperatively for 8 days (n = 131) or control (n = 131). The primary endpoint was the efficacy in reducing VTE. Secondary endpoints examined safety.ResultsThe full analysis set included 259 patients (131 control, 129 enoxaparin). The per‐protocol population included 233 patients (117 control, 116 enoxaparin). Most cases were hepatic malignancies (111 control, 111 enoxaparin). The median administration duration of enoxaparin was 7 days, with 92% receiving 4000 units/day. Despite a reduction in the relative risk (RR) of VTE due to postoperative enoxaparin administration, the results were not significant (control: four cases, 3.4% vs. treatment: two cases, 1.7%; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09–2.70; p = 0.6834). No significant difference was found in the incidence of bleeding events (control: five cases, 4.3% vs. treatment: five cases, 4.3%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.53–1.89; p = 1.0000).ConclusionsThe perioperative administration of enoxaparin in hepatobiliary‐pancreatic malignancies is feasible and safe. However, further case accumulation and investigation are necessary to assess its potential in reducing the occurrence of VTE.

Advances in the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the prevention of venous thromboembolism

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is the most commonly used prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the pharmacologic prophylaxis is limited in patients at high risk of bleeding. Mechanical prophylaxis alone or in combination is an important method of VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk of bleeding, but the current mainstream mechanical prophylaxis, which includes graded compression stockings, intermittent inflatable compression pumps and plantar venous compression pumps, has some limitations, leading to discomfort for patients wearing them due to the large contact area, and even affecting ability to perform daily activities. Many clinical studies have found that NMES combined with pharmacological prophylaxis has better efficacy and safety than pharmacological prophylaxis alone in preventing VTE in medical and surgical patients, and the preventive effect of NMES alone is not inferior to other mechanical prophylaxis. Besides, it also has the advantages of ease of wear and patient compliance. Currently, clinicians have limited experience and knowledge of NMES. We aimed to present the rationale, progress in clinical research and future perspective of NMES in VTE prophylaxis.

Secondary Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) with Low Dose Apixaban or Rivaroxaban: Results from a Patient Population with More than 2 Years of Median Follow-up.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used for the treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Nowadays, DOACs represent the gold standard for long-term anticoagulation, with low-intensity DOACs administration becoming increasingly used worldwide in such scenario. Albeit low-intensity apixaban and rivaroxaban are approved for clinical usage as secondary VTE prophylaxis, there are few literature data regarding their efficacy and safety with a long follow-up. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose DOACs for VTE secondary prophylaxis in patients at high risk of VTE recurrence. We retrospectively evaluated patients who required long-term anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent VTE, treated with apixaban 2.5 mg BID or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily with a follow-up ≥ 12 months. The examined patients were 323. The median low-dose DOAC administration time was 25.40 months (IQR 13.93-45.90). Twelve (3.7%) VTE recurrences were observed; 21 bleeding events were registered (6.5%), including one episode of Major bleeding (MB) (0.3%), 8 Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (2.5%) and 12 minor bleeding (3.7%). No statistically significant difference in the rate of VTE recurrence and/or bleeding events emerged between the rivaroxaban and apixaban groups. Patients included in the study for multiple episodes of VTE presented a significantly higher risk of a new VTE recurrence during low-intensity DOAC. Our data suggest that low-dose DOACs may be effective and safe in secondary VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk of VTE recurrence; however, attention might be needed in their choice in such a scenario for patients who experienced multiple episodes of VTE.

Inadequate Anti–Factor Xa Levels With Daily 40-mg Enoxaparin After Cardiac Surgery

BackgroundCardiac surgery patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Prevention is the most critical strategy to reduce VTE-associated morbidity and mortality. However, there is a lack of data on the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in this population of high-risk patients. This study aimed to assess whether the standard dose of enoxaparin, the subcutaneous injection of 40 mg of enoxaparin daily, achieves adequate anti–factor Xa (aFXa) levels for VTE prophylaxis in patients after open heart surgery. MethodsAll patients with open heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass from August to December 2022 who received at least 3 consecutive doses of subcutaneously administered enoxaparin were included in the study. Patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, patients who underwent cardiac transplantation or placement of ventricular assist device, and patients with renal insufficiency were excluded. Serum aFXa was measured 0.5 to 1 hour before the fourth dose to attain the steady-state trough levels. ResultsData were completed for 44 patients. The target aFXa level was between 0.10 and 0.20 IU/mL for the avoidance of both underanticoagulation (≤0.10 IU/mL) and overanticoagulation (>0.20 IU/mL). The mean was 0.049 IU/mL with SD of 0.026 IU/mL, which was statistically significantly lower than the lower end of the target aFXa values (0.10 IU/mL; t43 = −13; P < .001; d = −1.9; 99% CI, −0.059 to −0.043). ConclusionsThe daily subcutaneous administration of 40 mg of enoxaparin leads to subprophylactic aFXa levels for most patients who undergo cardiac surgery. Further studies on the clinical relevance are warranted.

Safety of postdischarge extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery is high. Extended postdischarge prophylaxis in this patient population has been controversial. This study aimed to examine the safety of postdischarge extended VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk of VTE events after HPB surgery. Adult patients risk stratified as very high risk of VTE who underwent HPB operations between 2014 and 2020 at a quaternary care center were included. Patients were matched 1:2 extended VTE prophylaxis to the control group (patients who did not receive extended prophylaxis). Analyses compared the proportions of adverse bleeding events between groups. A total of 307 patients were included: 103 in the extended prophylaxis group and 204 in the matched control group. Demographics were similar between groups. More patients in the extended VTE prophylaxis group had a history of VTE (9% vs 3%; P=.045). There was no difference in bleeding events between the extended VTE prophylaxis and the control group (6% vs 2%; P=.091). Of the 6 patients with bleeding events in the VTE prophylaxis group, 5 had gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and 1 had hemarthrosis. Of the 4 patients with bleeding events in the control group, 1 had intra-abdominal bleeding, 2 had GI bleeding, and 1 had intra-abdominal and GI bleeding. Patients discharged with extended VTE prophylaxis after HPB surgery did not experience more adverse bleeding events compared with a matched control group. Routine postdischarge extended VTE prophylaxis is safe in patients at high risk of postoperative VTE after HPB surgery.

Bleeding Risk from Anticoagulant Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Introduction: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to unique disease-related (i.e., vascular inflammation, hyperviscosity) and treatment-related factors (i.e., immunomodulatory drugs [IMiDs], high-dose dexamethasone). Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for most patients starting MM therapy. Anticoagulants are preferred over aspirin except in patients at low risk for VTE. However, compliance with prophylaxis guidelines is low. The risk of bleeding from thromboprophylaxis is not well described in these patients so an excessive perceived risk may influence clinicians' practice. We conducted a real-world analysis of bleeding complications from VTE prophylaxis in MM. Methods: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database was used to identify MM cases between 2013 and 2021. Cases required MM diagnosis from 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims, based on ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes, and MM-specific therapy started between 7 days before and 90 days after index diagnosis code, based on HCPCS codes and prescription records. Those with preexisting VTE, atrial fibrillation or stroke were excluded. Thromboprophylaxis was defined as at least 1 prescription for warfarin, low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) within 30 days of diagnosis. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalization using inpatient ICD codes previously validated (Cunningham algorithm). Patients were followed from end of prophylaxis exposure window (index MM + 30 days) to first major bleeding event, disenrollment (due to death or other reasons) or December 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate rates of bleeding. Cox regression was used to assess the risk of bleeding from thromboprophylaxis and define risk factors associated with major bleeding. Results: We included 6,656 patients diagnosed and treated for MM, with mean age 62.7 years and 55.3% males. Although over 50% of the population would have had a high thrombotic risk based on consensus guidelines, concurrent anticoagulant prophylaxis was prescribed in only 6.6% (436). Prophylaxis agent of choice was warfarin in 23% (102), LMWH in 39% (169), and DOAC in 38% (165), respectively. There was a trend over time favoring DOAC over other agents (25% increase in DOAC use vs. other agents per year on average, p&amp;lt;0.01). Patients on prophylaxis had a higher rate of IMiD-based therapy (63.8% vs. 46.7%, p&amp;lt;0.01) and lower concomitant anti-platelet use (2.1% vs. 4.7%, p=0.01) than those not receiving prophylaxis. There were no differences in age/sex distribution, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) or history of bleeding between groups. With a median 1.3 years follow-up, the incidence of major bleeding among MM patients receiving VTE prophylaxis was 1.4% or 7.8 bleeding events per 1,000 person-years. This was numerically but not statistically lower than the incident bleeding rate in patients not receiving prophylaxis: 1.8% or 10.1 events per 1,000 person-years. Table 1 shows risk factors for bleeding in this MM population, adjusting for age and sex, including higher age (per 10-year increase, HR 1.38), higher CCI (per SD increment, HR 1.18), history of bleeding (HR 1.54), hypertension (HR 1.87), and renal disease (HR 1.56). IMiD-based MM therapy was associated with decreased risk of bleeding (HR 0.69). Table 2 shows the estimated bleeding risk associated with prophylaxis across several models. No statistically significant association was identified between major bleeding and anticoagulant prophylaxis. Discussion: In a real-world analysis of commercial claims data, the risk of major bleeding associated with VTE prophylaxis in patients with MM undergoing cancer therapy is low and no significant increase in bleeding risk was identified for concurrent anticoagulant use. The rate of major bleeding events appears to be comparable between patients who receive VTE prophylaxis and those who do not. Nevertheless, underutilization of VTE prophylaxis is frequent. Higher CCI, bleeding history, hypertension, and renal disease were clinical factors associated bleeding risk, which may be included in models to help clinicians assess individual patient's risk and guide clinical decisions.

Persistent underuse of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer operations.

Guidelines recommend extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for high-risk populations undergoing major abdominal cancer operations. Few studies have evaluated extended VTE prophylaxis in the Medicare population who are at higher risk due to age. We performed a retrospective study using a 20% random sample of Medicare claims, 2012-2017. Patients ≥65 years with an abdominal cancer undergoing resection were included. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving new extended VTE prophylaxis prescriptions at discharge. Secondary outcomes included postdischarge VTE and hemorrhagic events. The study included 72 983 patients with a mean age of 75. Overall, 8.9% of patients received extended VTE prophylaxis. This proportion increased (7.2% in 2012, 10.6% in 2017; p < 0.001). Incidence of postdischarge hemorrhagic events was 1.0% in patients receiving extended VTE prophylaxis and 0.8% in those who did not. The incidence of postdischarge VTE events was 5.2% in patients receiving extended VTE prophylaxis and 2.4% in those who did not. Adherence to guideline-recommended extended VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal cancer operations is low. The higher rate of VTE in the prophylaxis group may suggest we captured some therapeutic anticoagulation, which would mean the actual rate of thromboprophylaxis is lower than reported herein.

Safety and comparative efficacy of initiating low-molecular-weight heparin within 24 hours of injury or surgery for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with spinal cord injury: a prospective TRACK-SCI registry study.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a significant clinical concern. This study sought to determine the incidence of VTE and hemorrhagic complications among patients with SCI who received low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) within 24 hours of injury or surgery and identify variables that predict VTE using the prospective Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in SCI (TRACK-SCI) database. The TRACK-SCI database was queried for individuals with traumatic SCI from 2015 to 2022. Primary outcomes of interest included rates of VTE (including deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) and in-hospital hemorrhagic complications that occurred after LWMH administration. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, discharge location type, and in-hospital mortality. The study cohort consisted of 162 patients with SCI. Fifteen of the 162 patients withdrew from the study, leading to loss of data for certain variables for these patients. One hundred thirty patients (87.8%) underwent decompression and/or fusion surgery for SCI. DVT occurred in 11 (7.4%) of 148 patients, PE in 9 (6.1%) of 148, and any VTE in 18 (12.2%) of 148 patients. The analysis showed that admission lower-extremity motor score (p = 0.0408), injury at the thoracic level (p = 0.0086), admission American Spinal Injury Association grade (p = 0.0070), and younger age (p = 0.0372) were significantly associated with VTE. There were 3 instances of postoperative spine surgery-related bleeding (2.4%) in the 127 patients who had spine surgery with bleeding complication data available, with one requiring return to surgery (0.8%). Thirteen (8.8%) of 147 patients had a bleeding complication not related to spine surgery. There were 2 gastrointestinal bleeds associated with nasogastric tube placement, 3 cases of postoperative non-spine-related surgery bleeding, and 8 cases of other bleeding complications (5.4%) not related to any surgery. Initiation of LMWH within 24 hours was associated with a low rate of spine surgery-related bleeding. Bleeding complications unrelated to SCI surgery still occur with LMWH administration. Because neurosurgical intervention is typically the limiting factor in initializing chemical DVT prophylaxis, many of these bleeding complications would have likely occurred regardless of the protocol.

PB1478 Attributes of Randomized Controlled Trials and Their Associations with Funding Sources in Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis for Patients with Cancer: A Bibliographical Analysis

PB1478 Attributes of Randomized Controlled Trials and Their Associations with Funding Sources in Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis for Patients with Cancer: A Bibliographical Analysis

Aspirin versus LMWH for VTE prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery.

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is often used to prevent perioperative venous thrombosis after surgery, but aspirin is also recommended by academics. Studies were searched in electronic databases until February 24, 2023. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of aspirin and LMWH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients after orthopedic surgery. The outcomes were death from any causes, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), etc. This study was registered with INPLASY, number 202320117. Six randomized controlled trials enrolled 13,851 patients with postoperative joint surgery. The risk of DVT was comparable between the two groups when aspirin was combined with mechanical devices (RR 0.61 [95% CI 0.27-1.39], I² = 62%, P = 0.24). No significant differences in all cause death, PE, wound infection, and wound complication were found between the aspirin and LMWH groups. In this meta-analysis, the mortality rate was comparable between the aspirin and LMWH groups. However, aspirin alone had a higher risk of DVT than LMWH. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we suggest aspirin combined with mechanical devices for VTE prophylaxis in patients after orthopedic surgery.

Comparison of Standard Versus Intermediate Prophylaxis Dose for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection.

Background: COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. VTE prophylaxis reduces the risk of these events. The optimal dose of VTE prophylaxis however remains uncertain. Objectives: To compare the incidence of VTE in patients treated with either standard dose VTE versus intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 1786 adult patients admitted into the hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 infection between April 2020 to September 2021. For analysis, patients were divided into 2 cohorts: either standard dose prophylaxis treatment group (patients who received either unfractionated heparin 5000units 3 times a day or enoxaparin 30-40 mg daily subcutaneously) or intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis group (patients received either unfractionated heparin 7500 units 3 times daily or enoxaparin 30-40 mg twice a day subcutaneously). The primary outcome was incidence of VTE events described as either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Secondary outcome was bleeding events. Results: During the study period, 398 (22%) patients were primarily treated with standard dose VTE prophylaxis, whereas 1388 (78%) patients were treated with intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis. There was a significantly higher incidence of venous thromboembolism events noted in the standard dose prophylaxis treatment group when compared with the intermediate dose prophylaxis group (25/398 (6.3%) vs 35/1388 (2.5%) P < .001, [Odds Ratio 2.6197, 95% confidence interval = 1.5482-4.4327]). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, adjusting for age, obesity, and smoking, with the intermediate dose prophylaxis treatment group as the referent category revealed higher odds for incident venous thromboembolism events in the standard dose prophylaxis group. There was no statistically significant difference in bleeding events between the 2 treatment groups (9 (2.3%) for standard dose prophylaxis group vs 46 (3.3%) for intermediate dose prophylaxis group P = .26). Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, patients receiving intermediate dose VTE prophylaxis experienced lower incident rates of venous thromboembolism events compared to those receiving standard dose VTE prophylaxis without a statistically significant increase in the risk of bleeding events.

Comparative effectiveness of aspirin for symptomatic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty, a cohort study

BackgroundThis study compares the symptomatic 90-day venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates in patients receiving aspirin to patients receiving low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), after total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsData were collected from a multi-centre cohort study, including demographics, confounders and prophylaxis type (aspirin alone, LMWH alone, aspirin and LMWH, and DOACs). The primary outcome was symptomatic 90-day VTE. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, joint related reoperation and mortality within 90 days. Data were analysed using logistic regression, the Student’s t and Fisher’s exact tests (unadjusted) and multivariable regression (adjusted).ResultsThere were 1867 eligible patients; 365 (20%) received aspirin alone, 762 (41%) LMWH alone, 482 (26%) LMWH and aspirin and 170 (9%) DOAC. The 90-day VTE rate was 2.7%; lowest in the aspirin group (1.6%), compared to 3.6% for LMWH, 2.3% for LMWH and aspirin and 2.4% for DOACs. After adjusted analysis, predictors of VTE were prophylaxis duration < 14 days (OR = 6.7, 95% CI 3.5–13.1, p < 0.001) and history of previous VTE (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.1–5.8, p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcomes between prophylaxis groups.ConclusionsAspirin may be suitable for VTE prophylaxis following THA and TKA. The comparatively low unadjusted 90-day VTE rate in the aspirin group may have been due to selective use in lower-risk patients.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, trial number NCT01899443 (15/07/2013).

Body Mass Index and Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Traumatic Brain Injury

IntroductionPatients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at risk for developing venous thromboembolic complications. Previous work suggests venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is protective compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of body mass index (BMI) and type of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in patients who develop VTE with severe TBI. MethodsPatients with a severe TBI who received VTE prophylaxis were queried from the 2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. Demographics, injury characteristics, timing of VTE prophylaxis, and BMI were collected. Outcome measures include VTE, mortality, and neurosurgical interventions. ResultsOf the 39,520 patients with severe TBI included in the study, 25,671 received LMWH and 13,849 received UH. Multivariable logistic regression found patients with a BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.375; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.180-1.603; P < 0.0001) and a BMI>30 kg/m2 (OR 1.831; 95% CI 1.570-2.137; P < 0.0001) were independent predictors of VTE. Patients with BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2 (OR 1.145; 95% CI 1.016-1.289; P = 0.0265) have a higher risk of mortality. For every hour delay in initiation to VTE prophylaxis, patients were 0.2% more likely to develop VTE (OR 1.002; 95% CI 1.002-1.003; P < 0.0001). Patients treated with UH were more likely to develop VTE complications (OR 1.085; 95% CI 1.058-1.112; P < 0.0001) and have increased mortality (OR 1.116; 95% CI 1.094-1.139; P < 0.0001), regardless of BMI and time to initiation of prophylaxis, compared to patients treated with LMWH. ConclusionsIn patients with severe TBI, higher BMI was associated with an increased risk of VTE and death. Delay in VTE prophylaxis initiation was associated with an increased risk of VTE. LMWH had a protective association with VTE.

Early Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients with Trauma Intracranial Hemorrhage: Analysis of the Prospective Multicenter CLOTT Study.

The optimal time to initiate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) for patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is controversial and must balance the risks of VTE with potential progression of ICH. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early VTEp initiation after traumatic ICH. This is a secondary analysis of the prospective multicenter Consortium of Leaders in the Study of Thromboembolism (CLOTT) study. Patients with head AIS > 2 and with immediate VTEp held due to ICH were included. Patients were divided into VTEp ≤ or > 48 hours and compared. Outcome variables included overall VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), progression of ICH (pICH), or other bleeding events. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed. There were 881 patients in total, 378 (43%) started VTEp ≤48 hours (early). Patients starting VTEp >48 hours (late) had higher VTE (12.4% vs 7.2%, p = .01) and DVT (11.0% vs 6.1%, p = .01) rates than the early group. The incidence of PE (2.1% vs 2.2%, p = .94), pICH (1.9% vs 1.8%, p = .95) or any other bleeding event (1.9% vs 3.0%, p = .28) were equivalent between early and late VTEp groups. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, VTEp >48 hours (OR 1.86), ventilator days >3 (OR 2.00), and risk assessment profile score ≥ 5 (OR 6.70) were independent risk factors for VTE (all p < 0.05), while VTEp with enoxaparin was associated with decreased VTE (OR 0.54, p < 0.05). Importantly, VTEp ≤48 hours was not associated with pICH (OR 0.75) or risk of other bleeding events (OR 1.28) (both p = NS). Early initiation of VTEp (≤48 h) for patients with ICH was associated with decreased VTE/DVT rates without increased risk of pICH or other significant bleeding events. Enoxaparin is superior to unfractionated heparin as VTE prophylaxis in patients with severe TBI. Level IV; Therapeutic/Care management.

Safety and efficacy of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with cirrhosis are considered in a haemostatic balance, though weaker than in normal subjects. In these patients, however, the use of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the occurrence of bleeding and VTE events in patients with cirrhosis, and controls, undergoing VTE prophylaxis. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to further explore the determinants of heterogeneity in the study of the occurrence of either bleeding or VTE events. In a total of 10 studies, including 5712 patients, of which 2330 undergoing VTE prophylaxis, bleeding (n = 5513) and VTE events occurred in 8.2% and 2.8% patients respectively. A total of 2963 and 3162 patients were included from low-risk of bias studies in bleeding and VTE analysis respectively: while administration of VTE prophylaxis did not seem to reduce VTE (OR = 1.07, CI 0.39-2.96, p = .89), importantly prophylaxis was not associated with increased bleeding risk (OR = 0.56, CI 0.20-1.59, p = .27). Meta-regression analysis showed that no parameter significantly influenced the heterogeneity of data regarding bleeding or VTE events. In patients with cirrhosis, current evidence is insufficient to advise for or against the use of VTE prophylaxis, mainly due to lack of quality and homogeneity of available data. However, its use does not appear to be associated with a significant bleeding risk. Adequately designed studies are required to provide a measure of its overall utility.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Patients with Thrombocytopenia or with Platelet Dysfunction: The Last 10 Years.

Current guideline recommendations for primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are based on randomized clinical trials that usually exclude subjects at a potentially high risk of bleeding complications. For this reason, no specific guideline is available for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with thrombocytopenia and/or platelet dysfunction. However, except in patients with absolute contraindications to anticoagulant drugs, antithrombotic prophylaxis should always be considered, for example, in hospitalized cancer patients with thrombocytopenia, especially in those with multiple VTE risk factors. Low platelet number, platelet dysfunction, and clotting abnormalities are also very common in patients with liver cirrhosis, but these patients have a high incidence of portal venous thrombosis, implying that cirrhotic coagulopathy does not fully protect against thrombosis. These patients may benefit from antithrombotic prophylaxis during hospitalization. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 need prophylaxis, but frequently experience thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. In patients with antiphospholipid antibodies, a high thrombotic risk is usually present, even in the presence of thrombocytopenia. VTE prophylaxis in high-risk conditions is thus suggested in these patients. At variance with severe thrombocytopenia (< 50,000/mm3), mild/moderate thrombocytopenia (≥ 50,000/mm3) should not interfere with VTE prevention decisions. In patients with severe thrombocytopenia, pharmacological prophylaxis should be considered on an individual basis. Aspirin is not as effective as heparins in lowering the risk of VTE. Studies in patients with ischemic stroke demonstrated that thromboprophylaxis with heparins is safe in these patients also during antiplatelet treatment. The use of direct oral anticoagulants in the prophylaxis of VTE in internal medicine patients has been recently evaluated, but no specific recommendation exists for patients with thrombocytopenia. The need for VTE prophylaxis in patients on chronic treatment with antiplatelet agents should be evaluated after assessing the individual risk of bleeding complications. Finally, the selection of patients who require post-discharge pharmacological prophylaxis remains debated. New molecules currently under development (such as the inhibitors of factor XI) may contribute to improve the risk/benefit ratio of VTE primary prevention in this setting of patients.

Poststroke venous thromboembolism and neutrophil activation: an illustrated review

Patients with acute ischemic stroke are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT), estimated to affect approximately 80,000 patients with stroke each year in the United States. The prevalence of symptomatic DVT after acute stroke is approximately 10%. VTE is associated with increased rates of in-hospital death and disability, with higher prevalence of in-hospital complications and increased 1-year mortality in patients with stroke. Current guidelines recommend the use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, thromboprophylaxis prevents only half of expected VTE events and is associated with high risk of bleeding, suggesting the need for targeted alternative treatments to reduce VTE risk in these patients. Neutrophils are among the first cells in blood to respond after ischemic stroke. Importantly, coordinated interactions among neutrophils, platelets, and endothelial cells contribute to the development of DVT. In case of stroke and other related immune disorders, such as antiphospholipid syndrome, neutrophils potentiate thrombus propagation through the formation of neutrophil-platelet aggregates, secreting inflammatory mediators, complement activation, releasing tissue factor, and producing neutrophil extracellular traps. In this illustrated review article, we present epidemiology and management of poststroke VTE, preclinical and clinical evidence of neutrophil hyperactivation in stroke, and mechanisms for neutrophil-mediated VTE in the context of stroke. Given the hyperactivation of circulating neutrophils in patients with stroke, we propose that a better understanding of molecular mechanisms leading to neutrophil activation may result in the development of novel therapeutics to reduce the risk of VTE in this patient population.

Selective use of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing breast surgery

Selective use of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing breast surgery

Safety of post discharge extended VTE prophylaxis after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

Background: Patients undergoing hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) operations for malignancy are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) following surgery. Due to potential risk of bleeding, differing recommendations have been proposed for the use of extended VTE prophylaxis after hospital discharge in this patient population. This study aims to examine the safety of routine post-discharge extended VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk for VTE events following HPB surgery.