Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction)

Postoperative management of antithrombotic medication in microvascular head and neck reconstruction: a comparative analysis of unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin

Purpose

Free flap reconstruction is a valuable technique to preserve function in oncological head and neck surgery. Postoperative graft thrombosis is a dreaded risk. This study aims to compare low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in perioperative thrombosis prophylaxis.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of 266 free flaps performed at our academic center. A comparison was made between 2 patient groups, based on their respective postoperative prophylaxis protocols either with UFH (n = 87) or LMWH (n = 179). Primary endpoints were the frequency of transplant thrombosis and the number of flap failures. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of peri- and postoperative complications.

Results

The flap survival rate was 96.6% and 93.3% for the groups UFH and LMWH, respectively (P = 0.280). The rate of postoperative bleeding requiring revision was 4.6% and 6.7% for each group, respectively (P = 0.498). We found a hematoma formation in 4.6% and 3.9% (P = 0.792).

Conclusion

The free-flap survival rate using low-dose UFH seems to be equivalent to LMWH regimens without compromising the postoperative outcome. Consequently, for risk-adapted thrombosis prophylaxis, either LMWH or UFH can be administrated.

Low venous thromboembolism incidence in high risk medical patients in an Israeli hospital. Can risk assessment be extrapolated to different populations?

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with Padua prediction score (PPS) ≥4 points. This recommendation is based on the high risk of symptomatic VTE observed among these patients in the Italian PPS derivation study, and the fivefold risk reduction with VTE-prophylaxis. This study aims to assess the incidence of VTE in high risk medical patients in a medium sized hospital in Israel.

METHOD

In this retrospective cohort study, data was collected of all medical patients hospitalized between January and June 2014. Patients were classified into low and high risk groups according to their PPS score, and according to whether they received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis for VTE. Patients were further randomly selected to compare high risk patients that did or did not receive anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. We further compared VTE incidence in high and low risk patients not treated with thromboprophylaxis. A search was conducted for diagnoses of venous thromboembolism and death during hospitalization and the following 90 days.

RESULTS

568 high risk patients (PPS ≥4 points) were included, 284 treated with prophylactic anticoagulation and 284 not. There were no VTE events in either group. There was no difference in mortality. A total of 642 non anticoagulated patients were randomly selected, 474 low risk and 168 high risk. There were no VTE events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of VTE appears to be very low in our study, suggesting that among medical patients with PPS ≥4, the risk of VTE may differ dramatically between populations.

Venous thromboembolism incidence in the Ireland east hospital group: a retrospective 22-month observational study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the incidence of hospital-acquired VTE (HA-VTE) arising within the population served by the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG).

DESIGN

/home/user/Documents/Sathish Kumar G/RFO/June/21-06-2019/bmjopen_iss_9_7_20190621_1/ A retrospective observational study was conducted using hospital discharge data obtained from the hospital inpatient enquiry data reporting system. In this system, VTE events recorded as 'primary diagnosis' represented the reason for initial hospital admission, whereas VTE recorded as a 'secondary diagnosis' occurred following admission and were therefore used as an approximation of HA-VTE. These data were used to estimate the overall incidence of VTE and the proportion of these events which were hospital-acquired.

SETTING

The IEHG is the largest hospital group in the Irish healthcare system and serves a population of over 1 million individuals.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were generated from records pertaining to the 2727 patient admission episodes where a diagnosis of VTE was made during the 22-month study period.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2727 VTE events were recorded within the IEHG (which serves a population of 1 036 279) corresponding to an incidence of 1.44 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.51) per 1000 per annum. 1273 (47%) of VTE events were recorded as secondary VTE. The incidence of VTE was highest among individuals over 85 years of age (16.03 per 1000;95% CI 12.81 to 19.26) and was more common following emergency hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that HA-VTE accounts for at least 47% of all VTE events arising within a hospital group serving a population of over 1 million individuals within the Ireland. Given that HA-VTE is a well-recognised source of (potentially preventable) hospital deaths, these findings provide a compelling argument for prioritising strategies directed at reducing the risk of VTE among hospital patients served by the IEHG and within the Ireland as a whole.

Thromboprophylaxis in Pregnancy

Venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Identifying women who are at greatest risk for venous thromboembolism, and managing their pregnancies with appropriate thromboprophylaxis is essential to decreasing this life-threatening condition. Those at greatest risk are patients with thrombophilias, a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, and those undergoing cesarean delivery. Current international guidelines on thromboprophylaxis vary in details, but all strategies rely on risk factor identification and thromboprophylaxis for the highest risk patients. All guidelines require clinicians to think critically about individual patient's risk factors throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period.

Using knowledge translation for quality improvement: an interprofessional education intervention to improve thromboprophylaxis among medical inpatients

Background

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is an effective means of preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) among medical inpatients. Compared with unfractionated heparin, LMWH is equivalent or superior in efficacy and risk of bleeding. Despite its advantages, LMWH is underused in VTE prophylaxis for general-medicine patients hospitalized at our institution. Thus, a quality improvement (QI) initiative was undertaken to increase LMWH use for VTE prophylaxis among medical patients hospitalized on resident teaching services.

Methods

A QI team was formed, consisting of resident and attending physicians with pharmacy leaders. A systems analysis was performed, which showed gaps in resident knowledge as the greatest barrier to LMWH use. A knowledge translation framework was used to improve prescribing practices. Several Plan–Do–Study–Act cycles were executed, including resident-of-resident and pharmacist-of-resident education with performance audit and feedback.

Results

Pharmacist-of-resident education elicited the largest improvement and was sustained through a recurring pharmacist-led, interprofessional educational session as part of the monthly hospital orientation for incoming residents. Data analysis showed a statistically significant increase in LMWH use among treatment-eligible hospitalized medical patients, from 12.1% to 69.2%, following intervention (P<0.001). Extrapolated over 1 year, this improvement conserved 9,490 injections and nearly 791 hours of nurse time.

Conclusions

This QI project indicates that an interprofessional education intervention can lead to sustainable improvement in resident prescribing practices. This project also highlights the value of knowledge translation for the design of tailored interventions in QI initiatives.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients using the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini Risk Assessment Model

Aim: The optimal risk assessment model (RAM) to stratify the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients is not known. We examined and compared how well the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) and the Caprini RAM stratify VTE risk in medical inpatients.

Methods: We undertook a retrospective case-control study among medical inpatients admitted to a large general hospital in China during a 4-year period. In total, 902 cases were confirmed to have VTE during hospitalization and 902 controls were selected randomly to match cases by medical service.

Results: The VTE risk increased significantly with an increase of the cumulative PPS or Caprini RAM score. A PPS and Caprini RAM “high risk” classification was, respectively, associated with a 5.01-fold and 4.10-fold increased VTE risk. However, the Caprini RAM could identify 84.3% of the VTE cases to receive prophylaxis according to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, whereas the PPS could only identify 49.1% of the VTE cases. In the medical inpatients studied, five risk factors seen more frequently in VTE cases than in controls in the Caprini RAM were not included in the PPS. The Caprini RAM risk levels were linked almost perfectly to in-hospital and 6-month mortality.

Conclusions: Both the PPS and Caprini RAM can be used to stratify the VTE risk in medical inpatients effectively, but the Caprini RAM may be considered as the first choice in a general hospital because of its incorporation of comprehensive risk factors, higher sensitivity to identify patients who may benefit from prophylaxis, and potential for prediction of mortality.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients

Although the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended for acutely ill medical patients at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), it remains unclear which risk assessment model (RAM) should be routinely used to identify at-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. We therefore aimed to describe existing RAMs, and to compare these tools in terms of validity and applicability for clinical decisionmaking. We performed a comprehensive systematic search in MEDLINE from the date of initiation until May 2016 for studies in acutely ill medical patients investigating validity of RAMs for VTE. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text, and evaluated the characteristics of studies, and the composition, evidence of validation, and results on validity of the RAMs. We included 11 studies assessing eight RAMs: 4-Element RAM, Caprini RAM, a full logistic model, Geneva risk score, IMPROVE-RAM, Kucher Model, a “Multivariable Model”, and Padua Prediction Score. The 4-Element RAM, IMPROVE-RAM, Multivariable Model, and full logistic model had derivation by identifying factors with predictive power. The other four RAMs were empirically generated based on consensus guidelines, published data, and clinical expertise. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, the Geneva Risk Score and the IMPROVE-RAM underwent multicenter external validation. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, and the Geneva Risk Score improved rates of thromboprophylaxis or clinical outcomes. In conclusion, existing RAMs to evaluate the need of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients are difficult to compare and none fulfills the criteria of an ideal RAM. Nevertheless, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis may be improved by implementing one of the validated RAMs.

Prophylaxis of Venous Thrombosis in Neurocritical Care Patients: An Evidence-Based Guideline: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society

The risk of death from venous thromboembolism (VTE) is high in intensive care unit patients with neurological diagnoses. This is due to an increased risk of venous stasis secondary to paralysis as well as an increased prevalence of underlying pathologies that cause endothelial activation and create an increased risk of embolus formation. In many of these diseases, there is an associated risk from bleeding because of standard VTE prophylaxis. There is a paucity of prospective studies examining different VTE prophylaxis strategies in the neurologically ill. The lack of a solid evidentiary base has posed challenges for the establishment of consistent and evidence-based clinical practice standards. In response to this need for guidance, the Neurocritical Care Society set out to develop and evidence-based guideline using GRADE to safely reduce VTE and its associated complications.

Ensuring timely thromboprophylaxis on a Medical Assessment Unit

The Department of Health has defined hospital acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) as any VTE event occurring within 90 days of hospital admission or surgery. 1 Hospital acquired thrombosis (HAT) is common during and after hospital admission and is considered a major patient safety issue. Current NICE guideline (CG 92) 2010, recommends that medical patients assessed at risk of VTE should have pharmacological prophylaxis commenced as soon as possible after risk assessment has been completed and continued until the patient is no longer at increased risk of VTE. 2 This quality improvement project was carried out in the medical assessment unit in Derriford Hospital, Plymouth. We aimed to increase appropriate VTE pharmacological prophylaxis to 100% prescribed in 6 hours by the end of May 2016 using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology. The primary outcome measure was whether or not enoxaparin was given within 6 hours of admission. Analysis showed that a major contributing factor to the prolonged time interval was lack of awareness of the Trust VTE guidelines which had recently been updated in accordance with NICE recommendations. Baseline measurement demonstrated that 29% of patients had first dose of enoxaparin within the 6-hour target, with a mean delay of 12 hours 22 minutes. With implementation of an education programme and development of a local VTE prevention care pathway to raise awareness of the new guidelines, a significant improvement was achieved with 71% of patients meeting the 6-hour target in PDSA cycle 1 and 83% of patients in PDSA cycle 2. The average time interval also reduced to 5 hours 52 minutes in PDSA cycle 1 and 5 hours 7 minutes in PDSA cycle 2. In conclusion, through utilization of simple change methodology, enoxaparin prescribing practice significantly improved. Potentially this may reduce morbidity (and mortality) associated with HAT together with cost implications of its management.

The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical and critically ill patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) acquired during hospitalization is common, yet preventable by the proper implementation of thromboprophylaxis which remains to be underutilized worldwide. As a result of an initiative by the Saudi Ministry of Health to improve medical practices in the country, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo Embolism (SAVTE; a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) with the methodological guidance of the McMaster University Guideline working group, produced this clinical practice guideline to assist healthcare providers in VTE prevention. The expert part panel issued ten recommendations addressing 10 prioritized questions in the following areas: thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (Recommendations 1-5), thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical patients (Recommendations 6-9), and thromboprophylaxis in chronically ill patients (Recommendation 10). The corresponding recommendations were generated following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

Central venous catheters and upper extremity deep vein thrombosis in medical inpatients: the Medical Inpatients and Thrombosis (MITH) Study

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is an increasingly recognized complication in medical inpatients, with few data available regarding the incidence, risk factors and association with central venous catheter (CVC) use.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2009 all cases of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) at a university hospital were frequency matched 1 : 2 to non-cases without VTE by admission year and medical service. Records were abstracted to identify, characterize and assess risk factors for UEDVT. Weighted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for UEDVT associated with use of a CVC, adjusting for known VTE risk factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine cases of VTE complicated 64 034 admissions to medical services (4.6 per 1000 admissions). UEDVT constituted 51% (91/180) of all deep vein thrombosis (DVT), for an incidence of 1.4 per 1000 admissions (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.7). There were 247 CVCs placed per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 203-292). The use of a CVC was associated with a 14.0-fold increased risk of UEDVT (95% CI, 5.9-33.2), but was not associated with a significantly increased risk of PE (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.1). Peripherally inserted central catheters had a higher OR for UEDVT (OR, 13.0; 95% CI, 6.1-27.6) than centrally inserted central venous catheters (CICC) (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-6.8).

CONCLUSION

UEDVT is a relevant complication affecting medical inpatients, accounting for half of hospital-acquired DVTs. Use of CVCs was strongly associated with risk of UEDVT.

Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction)

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic disease has been extensively studied in surgical patients. The benefit of thromboprophylaxis is now generally accepted, but it is medical patients who make up the greater proportion of the hospital population. Medical patients differ from surgical patients with regard to their health and the pathogenesis of thromboembolism and the impact that preventative measures can have. The extensive experience from thromboprophylaxis studies in surgical patients is therefore not necessarily applicable to non-surgical patients. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of heparin (unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin) thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients admitted to hospital, excluding those admitted to hospital with an acute myocardial infarction or stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) or those requiring admission to an intensive care unit.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 10).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or no treatment, or comparing UFH with LMWH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author identified possible trials and a second review author confirmed their eligibility for inclusion in the review. Two review authors extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed the meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model with the results expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies with a combined total of 34,369 participants with an acute medical illness were included in this review. We identified 10 studies comparing heparin with placebo or no treatment and six studies comparing LMWH to UFH. Just under half of the studies had an open-label design, putting them at a risk of performance bias. Descriptions of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were missing in most of the studies. Heparin reduced the odds of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; P < 0.00001). The estimated reductions in symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; P = 0.08), fatal PE (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.15; P = 0.16) and in combined non-fatal PE and fatal PE (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.00; P = 0.05) associated with heparin were imprecise. Heparin resulted in an increase in major haemorrhage (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.98; P = 0.02). There was no clear evidence that heparin had an effect on all-cause mortality and thrombocytopaenia. Compared with UFH, LMWH reduced the risk of DVT (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and major bleeding (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83; P = 0.01). There was no clear evidence that the effects of LMWH and UFH differed for the PE outcomes, all-cause mortality and thrombocytopaenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from this review describe a reduction in the risk of DVT in patients presenting with an acute medical illness who receive heparin thromboprophylaxis. This needs to be balanced against an increase in the risk of bleeding associated with thromboprophylaxis. The analysis favoured LMWH compared with UFH, with a reduced risk of both DVT and bleeding.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients. As a secondary objective we compared all therapies within the network to each other.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for randomized trials that evaluated pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients. We conducted a traditional meta-analysis for all pairwise comparisons using a random effects model, reporting relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome. To determine the relative efficacy and safety of included therapies we conducted a MTC meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework, reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty trials met inclusion criteria. Enoxaparin, dalteparin, nadroparin and certoparin were the LMWHs evaluated although none in direct comparative trials. Upon MTC, the relative efficacy of all LMWHs was similar in preventing mortality and VTE as well as in the odds of major and minor bleeding. Dalteparin was not included in the network to evaluate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) due to lack of reported data and the remaining LMWHs were found to be similar in relative efficacy in preventing these outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Traditional meta-analysis was not possible for many drug comparisons made within the MTC. Heterogeneity was observed in several of the traditional meta-analyses although this may be an inherent limitation of the studied population. Overall rarity of events contributed to imprecise estimates demonstrated by the wide confidence intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Enoxaparin, dalteparin, nadroparin and certoparin are similar in relative efficacy for the prevention of mortality and VTE and in the odds of major or minor bleeding while enoxaparin, nadroparin and certoparin are similar in relative efficacy for the prevention of PE and DVT in hospitalized medical patients.

Lack of Clinical Benefit of Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized in a Medical Unit Over a 10-year Span

Background

Thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with a high risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is strongly recommended but is not universally applied on medical units. Outside of randomized trials, there is minimal evidence that the usual medications reduce the incidence of clinically significant VTE.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients admitted into a teaching medical unit during years 2001-2002, 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were having one or more risk factors for a VTE and no contraindication to thromboprophylaxis.

Results

Of 2,369 patients reviewed, 1,302 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Between years 2001-2002 and 2009-2010, the proportion of patients receiving thromboprophylaxis increased from 29.2% to 76.4% (P < 0.0001) and the duration of thromboprophylaxis increased from 63% of hospital stay to 84% (P = 0.004). There was no statistically significant association between the number of risk factors and the rate of thromboprophylaxis. Overall, only 32 patients suffered from a VTE with no decrease in VTE incidence between years 2001-2002 and 2009-2010. A total of 107 patients had a bleeding event, and there was no statistically significant change in the incidence of bleeding during our study period.

Conclusions

In our medical units, we found a statistically significant increase in the use of the thromboprophylaxis practice. However, this was not associated with any statistically significant impact on the VTE incidence. This suggests that patients given thromboprophylaxis could be better selected.

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia.

METHODS

This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.

SEOM guidelines on thrombosis in cancer patients

The association between cancer and thrombosis is well established. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered a main cause of mortality and morbidity in cancer patients and is commonly underestimated by oncologists. In recent years the incidence rates of VTE have notably increased. Several studies have clearly shown that cancer patients who are diagnosed with VTE present a poorer prognosis. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) presents the guidelines for thrombosis and cancer in order to improve the prevention and management of VTE.

Adverse effects of heparin

All the adverse effects of heparins are related to their wide variety of biological activities, with bleeding being the most important safety issue, resulting directly from the potency of heparin as an anticoagulant. However, it is hard to define the bleeding risk, since it depends on numerous parameters including the indication, dosage, method, and duration of heparin application, the clinical study design and definition of bleeding as well as patient characteristics and determinants of bleeding such as type of surgery and co-medication. Nonbleeding complications of heparins are caused by binding of heparin molecules to proteins other than antithrombin and to cells, which is generally more pronounced with unfractionated heparin than with low-molecular-weight heparins. Accordingly, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the most severe nonbleeding adverse reaction, occurs about 10 times less with low-molecular-weight heparins than with unfractionated heparin. Frequent and therefore important adverse reactions of heparins are skin lesions resulting from delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. All the other undesirable effects are discussed as well, but they are mostly clinically irrelevant.

Extended-duration rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients: MAGELLAN study protocol

Patients with acute medical illnesses are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in these patients but questions remain regarding the optimal duration of therapy. The aim of this study is to determine whether oral rivaroxaban is non-inferior to standard-duration (approximately 10 days) subcutaneous (s.c.) enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, and whether extended-duration (approximately 5 weeks) rivaroxaban is superior to standard-duration enoxaparin. Patients aged 40 years or older and hospitalized for various acute medical illnesses with risk factors for VTE randomly receive either s.c. enoxaparin 40 mg once daily (od) for 10 ± 4 days or oral rivaroxaban 10 mg od for 35 ± 4 days. The primary efficacy outcomes are the composite of asymptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic DVT, symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and VTE-related death up to day 10 + 4 and up to day 35 + 4. The primary safety outcome is the composite of treatment-emergent major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. As of July 2010, 8,101 patients from 52 countries have been randomized. These patients have a broad range of medical conditions: approximately one-third were diagnosed with acute heart failure, just under one-third were diagnosed with acute infectious disease, and just under one-quarter were diagnosed with acute respiratory insufficiency. MAGELLAN will determine the efficacy, safety, and pharmacological profile of oral rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE in a diverse population of medically ill patients and the potential of extended-duration therapy to reduce incidence of VTE.

Diet as prophylaxis and treatment for venous thromboembolism?

BACKGROUND

Both prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE: deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary emboli (PE)) with anticoagulants are associated with significant risks of major and fatal hemorrhage. Anticoagulation treatment of VTE has been the standard of care in the USA since before 1962 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showing efficacy, so efficacy trials were never required for FDA approval. In clinical trials of 'high VTE risk' surgical patients before the 1980s, anticoagulant prophylaxis was clearly beneficial (fatal pulmonary emboli (FPE) without anticoagulants = 0.99%, FPE with anticoagulants = 0.31%). However, observational studies and RCTs of 'high VTE risk' surgical patients from the 1980s until 2010 show that FPE deaths without anticoagulants are about one-fourth the rate that occurs during prophylaxis with anticoagulants (FPE without anticoagulants = 0.023%, FPE while receiving anticoagulant prophylaxis = 0.10%). Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.012% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants can be attributed to 'rebound hypercoagulation' in the two months after stopping anticoagulants. Alternatives to anticoagulant prophylaxis should be explored.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The literature concerning dietary influences on VTE incidence was reviewed. Hypotheses concerning the etiology of VTE were critiqued in relationship to the rationale for dietary versus anticoagulant approaches to prophylaxis and treatment.Epidemiological evidence suggests that a diet with ample fruits and vegetables and little meat may substantially reduce the risk of VTE; vegetarian, vegan, or Mediterranean diets favorably affect serum markers of hemostasis and inflammation. The valve cusp hypoxia hypothesis of DVT/VTE etiology is consistent with the development of VTE being affected directly or indirectly by diet. However, it is less consistent with the rationale of using anticoagulants as VTE prophylaxis. For both prophylaxis and treatment of VTE, we propose RCTs comparing standard anticoagulation with low VTE risk diets, and we discuss the statistical considerations for an example of such a trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of (a) the risks of biochemical anticoagulation as anti-VTE prophylaxis or treatment, (b) the lack of placebo-controlled efficacy data supporting anticoagulant treatment of VTE, (c) dramatically reduced hospital-acquired FPE incidence in surgical patients without anticoagulant prophylaxis from 1980 - 2010 relative to the 1960s and 1970s, and (d) evidence that VTE incidence and outcomes may be influenced by diet, randomized controlled non-inferiority clinical trials are proposed to compare standard anticoagulant treatment with potentially low VTE risk diets. We call upon the U. S. National Institutes of Health and the U.K. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to design and fund those trials.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin in the hospitalized medical patient: the case for thrice daily over twice daily dosing

For venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in the hospitalized medical patient, no head-to-head trials have been performed of unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 U subcutaneously thrice (i.e. q8 h or TID) daily versus twice daily (q12 h or BID). Several meta-analyses have been undertaken in attempts to determine whether one regimen may be more beneficial for safety and efficacy. Currently, not all international guidelines include a recommended frequency for UFH. Delineation of this frequency may be helpful to the practicing clinician. Primary studies (with a modified Jadad score of >or=6 to demonstrate a stronger study design) that compared low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and UFH, and UFH and placebo were evaluated. Meta-analyses evaluating safety and efficacy of LMWH versus UFH, or TID UFH versus BID UFH were also evaluated. Although BID UFH shows some efficacy in one primary study, it is no more beneficial than no prophylaxis in another study. LMWH appears to be more efficacious than BID UFH, but comparable in safety and efficacy to TID UFH. Meta-analytic data demonstrates that BID UFH may have some reduction in deep vein thrombosis. Meta-analytic data also suggests that TID UFH is more efficacious than BID UFH at the cost of more major bleeding. The medical patient with risk factors for the development of VTE appears to be at moderate to high risk. International guidelines for VTE prevention should incorporate a frequency for UFH to guide use. TID UFH is superior in efficacy to BID UFH even when taking into consideration the increased rate of major bleeds. Newly published risk-assessment models may be beneficial in determining which patients would best benefit from BID UFH or TID UFH.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic disease (TED), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, hence methods of prophylaxis are often used for women at risk. This may include women delivered by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of TED and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry a risk of side effects, and as the risk of TED is low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harm. Current guidelines for clinical practice are based on expert opinion only, rather than high quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently delivered and are at increased risk of TED on the incidence of venous TED and side effects of treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and resolved any discrepancies by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria but only 13 trials, involving 1774 women, examining a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data for the outcomes of interest. Four of them compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (two studies), and heparin versus no treatment (two studies). Eight studies assessed postnatal prophylaxis after caesarean section; one compared hydroxyethyl starch with unfractionated heparin; four compared heparin with placebo; and the other three compared UFH with LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis in the postnatal period.The small number of statistically significant findings in this review are largely derived from trials which are not of high methodological quality. It was not possible to assess the effects of any of these interventions on most outcomes, and especially on rare outcomes such as death, TED and osteoporosis, because of small sample sizes and the small number of trials making the same comparisons.There was some evidence of side effects associated with thromboprophylaxis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period. Large scale randomised trials of currently-used interventions should be conducted.