Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis

Comparison of clinical outcomes of venous thromboembolic disease between outpatient and inpatient management

Objectives

To compare the occurrence of death, bleeding, and recurrence according to inpatient or outpatient management of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE).

Materials and methods

. Retrospective cohort that included a consecutive sampling of VTE consultations between 2016 and 2019 diagnosed in the Emergency Center of a private hospital in Argentina.

Results

There were 1202 cases, 908 with isolated deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 205 with isolated pulmonary embolism (PE), and 89 cases of combined DVT - PE. 66% were women, with a median age of 77 years; 72% of cases were managed on an outpatient basis (n= 862). Comorbidities associated with hospitalization were obesity (p=0.03), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (p=0.01), heart failure (CHF) (p=0.01), chronic renal failure (CKD) (p=0.01), and cancer (p=0.01). At 90 days, the cumulative incidence of bleeding was 2.6% in inpatient compared to 2.9% in outpatient management (p=0.81); recurrence was 0% versus 0.9% (p=0.07), and mortality was 42.9% versus 18.9%, respectively (p=0.01). The HR for 90-day mortality in hospitalized patients adjusted for confounders (sex, age, type of VTE, obesity, CKD, CHF, COPD, and cancer) was 1.99 (95% CI 1.49-2.64; p=0.01).

Conclusions

In this elderly, and predominantly female Argentine population, the 90-day mortality in patients hospitalized for VTE was higher than mortality in patients with outpatient management, without differences in recurrence or major bleeding.

Incidence and factors associated with deep vein thrombosis among hospitalized adult patients at Hawassa university comprehensive specialized hospital Hawassa city, Sidama, Ethiopia: retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Deep vein thrombosis is a public health problem with substantial morbidity and mortality globally. In Ethiopia, death due to complications of DVT is very significant however its incidence, risk factors, and preventive methods are not well studied. To assess the incidence and factors associated with deep vein thrombosis among hospitalized adult patients at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Hawassa, Ethiopia.

METHOD

Intuitional-based retrospective study design was employed in July1-August 30, 2022 in 660 randomly selected patients' record cards. The patients' record cards were reviewed from 2012 to 2014 at Hawassa University Compressive Specialized Hospital. The data entry and analysis were done by using Epi Info and SPSS version 24. After adjusting covariates at a 95% confidence interval, an independent variable with a P value < 0.05 was declared significantly associated with deep vein thrombosis. An odds ratio was calculated to measure the strength of the relationship independent variable and deep vein thrombosis.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of DVT was 10.6% [95% CI: 8.5%, 13.1%]. After adjusting for covariates, orthopedic trauma; AOR = 2.6 (95% CI (1.2-5.4), corona virus; AOR = 2.5 (95%CI (1.07-5.1), and hospital stay > 15 days; AOR = 2.2 (95% CI (1.25-3.94) were significantly associated with deep vein thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

DVT incidence is high among hospitalized patients. An orthopedic trauma, a recent infection of the coronavirus, and a hospital stay above 15 days were a risk to acquire deep vein thrombosis. Early identification and detection of patients at high risk of developing DVT and provision of prophylaxis are recommended.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were short- and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding, adverse effects, recurrence of PE, and patient satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update. We included a total of two RCTs involving 453 participants. Both trials discharged participants randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage, and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimens. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.98; 2 studies, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58; 2 studies, 451 participants; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 2 studies, 444 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and it was not possible to determine the effect of missing data or the presence of publication bias. The included studies did not assess PE-related mortality or adverse effects, such as haemodynamic instability, or adherence to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-certainty evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding, or recurrence of PE.

A clinical decision framework to guide the outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis: Results from a multidisciplinary consensus panel

The outpatient treatment of select emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been shown to be safe, cost effective and associated with high patient satisfaction. Despite this, outpatient PE and DVT treatment remains uncommon. To address this, the American College of Emergency Physicians assembled a multidisciplinary team of content experts to provide evidence-based recommendations and practical advice to help clinicians safely treat patients with low-risk PE and DVT without hospitalization. The emergency clinician must stratify the patient's risk of clinical decompensation due to their PE or DVT as well as their risk of bleeding due to anticoagulation. The clinician must also select and start an anticoagulant and ensure that the patient has access to the medication in a timely manner. Reliable follow-up is critical, and the patient must also be educated about signs or symptoms that should prompt a return to the emergency department. To facilitate access to these recommendations, the consensus panel also created 2 web-based "point-of-care tools."

Anticoagulation Treatment in Venous Thromboembolism: Options and Optimal Duration

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically presenting as deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), constitutes a major global healthcare concern with severe complications, long-term morbidity and mortality. Although several clinical, genetic and acquired risk factors for VTE have been identified, the molecular pathophysiology and mechanisms of disease progression remain poorly understood. Anticoagulation has been the cornerstone of therapy for decades, but there still are uncertainties regarding primary and secondary VTE prevention, as well as optimal therapy duration. In this review we discuss the role of factor Xa in coagulation cascade and the different choices of anticoagulation therapy based on patients' predisposing risk factors and risk of event recurrence. Further, we compare newer agents to traditional anticoagulation treatment, based on most recent studies and guidelines.

National guidelines on the management of venous thromboembolism: Joint guideline of the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Phlebology Society

These evidence-based guidelines from the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Phlebology Society intend to support clinicians in best decisions regarding the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The Editor was selected by the three national societies and was tasked with the recruitment of the recognized panel. All financial support was solely derived from the sponsoring societies without the direct involvement of industry or other external stakeholders. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians in terms of VTE. The panel agreed on 42 recommendations under 15 headings for the diagnosis, initial management, secondary prevention of VTE, and treatment of recurrent VTE events. Important recommendations included the use of ultrasonography, preference for home treatment over hospital treatment for uncomplicated VTE, preference for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over vitamin K antagonists for primary treatment of cancer and non-cancer-related VTE, extended or indefinite anticoagulation with DOACs in selected high-risk patients. Early catheter-directed thrombectomy was recommended in only young symptomatic patients with a diagnosis of fresh iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis in the Emergency Department: Results of an Italian Nominal Group Technique Study

Early diagnosis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a main issue in the Emergency setting. With the aim of assisting clinicians in the diagnosis and the subsequent management of DVT in the Emergency Departments, a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) study was conducted. A panel of 5 Italian experts developed 21 consensus statements based on available evidence and their clinical experience. The agreed consensus statements may assist clinicians in applying the results of clinical studies and clinical experience to routine care settings, providing guidance on all aspects of the risk assessment, prophylaxis, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of DVT in the EDs.

Outpatient management of patients presenting with venous thromboembolism: Retrospective cohort study at 11 community hospitals

A gap exists between clinical practice guidelines and real-world practice. We aim to investigate hospital admissions among patients presenting to emergency departments of 11 hospitals with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Eligible patients’ first emergency department VTE visit were retrospectively collected between 2013 and 2018 from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients were categorized at low risk of VTE complications if they were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the leg or if they were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE) and had a PE score index < 85. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to measure the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of hospital admissions before and after clinical practice guidelines were updated to recommend outpatient management of DVT and PE with low risk of complications. A total of 13,677 patients were included in the analysis, of which 55% were diagnosed with DVT. Mean age was 65  ±  17 years, 54% were females, and 62% were Caucasian. Overall, 9281 patients were categorized at low risk VTE complications, of whom 77% were admitted for in-hospital management. The rate of in-hospital management declined from 81% in 2013 to 73% in 2018. Patients visiting emergency departments between 2016 and 2018 (post-guidelines) were equally likely to be admitted compared to patients visiting the emergency departments between 2013 and 2015 (pre-guidelines; OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.11). Results from this real-world study indicate that most low-risk VTE patients are admitted for in-hospital management, despite recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

Home vs hospital treatment of low-risk venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Increasing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of managing low-risk deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) in outpatient settings. We performed a systematic review to assess safety and effectiveness of managing patients with DVT or PE at home compared with the hospital. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective cohort studies. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts of identified citations and extracted data from relevant full-text papers. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Seven RCTs (1922 patients) were included in meta-analyses on managing patients with DVT. Pooled estimates indicated decreased risk of PE (RR = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.93) and recurrent DVT (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90) for home management, both with moderate certainty of the evidence. Reductions in mortality and major bleeding were not significant, both with low certainty of the evidence. Two RCTs (445 patients) were included in meta-analyses on home management of low-risk patients with PE. Pooled estimates indicated no significant difference in all-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding, all with low certainty of the evidence. Results of pooled estimates from 3 prospective cohort studies (234 patients) on home management of PE showed similar results. Our findings indicate that low-risk DVT patients had similar or lower risk of patient-important outcomes with home treatment compared with hospital treatment. In patients with low-risk PE, there was important uncertainty about a difference between home and hospital treatment.

Implementation of an acute DVT ambulatory care pathway in a large urban centre: current challenges and future opportunities

Background

Ambulatory management of isolated acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the recommended standard of care in selected populations. However, in practice a significant number of patients continue to be managed as in-patients.

Objectives

In this study we aimed to evaluate acute DVT treatment pathways in our emergency department (ED) in practice and to identify barriers to outpatient management.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional analysis of prospectively collected data pertaining to consecutive patients presenting to the ED of a large, city center, academic teaching hospital over a 46 week period who were diagnosed with DVT.

Results

Implementation of an outpatient care pathway led to the majority of patients presenting with DVT in our institution being treated without hospital admission. Forty percent (31/78) of patients with DVT were treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) as an outpatient in line with international best practice guidelines.

Conclusion

The study provides a clear picture of the clinical profile and management of patients in clinical practice. Due to the lack of resources and supported infrastructure it is difficult to effectively implement outpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) management to its full potential. Directing resources towards strategies which facilitate outpatient DVT treatment among vulnerable patient groups could represent a means of reducing hospital admissions for DVT in urban centers. Our study highlights the success and clinical limitations of the outpatient treatment model, which should become standard as part of wider VTE care.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; adverse events such as haemodynamic instability; recurrence of PE; and patients' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 26 March 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analysed data. We calculated effect estimates using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study was identified for this 2018 update, bringing the total number of included studies to two and the total number of participants to 451. Both trials discharged patients randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimes. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49; low-quality evidence), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99, low-quality evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30; low-quality evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14, P = 0.20; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; P = 0.96, low-quality evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51, low-quality evidence), and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04, P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and because the effect of missing data and the absence of publication bias could not be verified. PE-related mortality, and adverse effects such as haemodynamic instability and compliance, were not assessed by the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-quality evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE.

Systematic Review of Real-World Studies Evaluating Characteristics Associated With or Programs Designed to Facilitate Outpatient Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis

Select patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) can be managed as outpatients. We sought to conduct a systematic review of real-world studies describing either (1) the clinical characteristics associated with outpatient DVT treatment in all-comers or (2) emergency department (ED) programs designed to facilitate outpatient DVT treatment. MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched (January 1, 2012, to May 1, 2018) to identify citations meeting the aforementioned criteria. Twenty-one real-world studies were included. The proportion of all-comer patients with DVT managed as outpatients was ≤50% in 11 of 15 studies. With the exception of younger age, no characteristics were consistently associated with outpatient treatment across the 13 studies reporting these characteristics. We identified 8 studies describing ED programs aimed at facilitating DVT outpatient treatment, all of which provided education and included measures to encourage early outpatient follow-up after ED discharge. In conclusion, the proportion of patients with DVT managed as outpatients across real-world studies was low. Several ED programs aimed at facilitating this treatment have been described. It is possible that programs similar to these will increase the proportion of patients with DVT that can be safely managed as outpatients.

Comparison of All-Cause Mortality Following VTE Treatment Between Propensity Score-Adjusted Observational Studies and Matched Randomized Controlled Trials: Meta-Epidemiologic Study

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether propensity score-adjusted observational studies produce results comparable to those of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address similar VTE treatment issues.

METHODS

The PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for propensity score-adjusted observational studies, RCTs, and meta-analyses of RCTs that estimated all-cause mortality following VTE treatment. After identifying distinct clinical treatment issues evaluated in the eligible observational studies, a standardized algorithm was used to identify and match at least one RCT or RCT meta-analysis publication for paired study design analyses. Meta-analyses were used to summarize groups of studies. Treatment efficacy statistics (relative ORs) were compared between the paired observational and RCT studies, and the summary relative ORs for all study design pairs were also calculated.

RESULTS

The observational and RCT study pairs assessed seven clinical treatment issues. Overall, the observational study-RCT pairs did not exhibit significantly different mortality estimates (summary relative OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.32-1.46; I² = 23%). However, two of the seven treatment issue study pairs (thrombolysis vs anticoagulation for pulmonary embolism; once- vs twice-daily enoxaparin for VTE) exhibited a significantly different treatment effect direction, and there was a substantial (nonsignificant) difference in the magnitude of the effect in another two of the study pairs (rivaroxaban vs vitamin K antagonists for VTE; home treatment vs hospitalization for DVT).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic comparison across seven VTE treatment topics suggests that propensity score-adjusted observational studies and RCTs often exhibit similar all-cause mortality, although differences in the direction or the magnitude of estimated treatment effects may occasionally occur.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; CRD42018087819; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.