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

Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients

Importance

Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for medical inpatients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to stratify VTE risk, but a prospective head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs is lacking.

Objectives

To prospectively validate an easy-to-use RAM, the simplified Geneva score, and compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was conducted from June 18, 2020, to January 4, 2022, with a 90-day follow-up. A total of 4205 consecutive adults admitted to the general internal medicine departments of 3 Swiss university hospitals for hospitalization for more than 24 hours due to acute illness were screened for eligibility; 1352 without therapeutic anticoagulation were included.

Exposures

At admission, items of 4 RAMs (ie, the simplified and original Geneva score, the Padua score, and the IMPROVE [International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism] score) were collected. Patients were stratified into high and low VTE risk groups according to each RAM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Symptomatic VTE within 90 days.

Results

Of 1352 medical inpatients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 54-77 years]; 762 men [55.4%]), 28 (2.1%) experienced VTE. Based on the simplified Geneva score, 854 patients (63.2%) were classified as high risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 2.6% (n = 22; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.9%), and 498 patients (36.8%) were classified as low risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 1.2% (n = 6; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%). Sensitivity of the simplified Geneva score was 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%) and specificity was 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.8%); the positive likelihood ratio of the simplified Geneva score was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03-1.52) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.28-1.18). In head-to-head comparisons, sensitivity was highest for the original Geneva score (82.1%; 95% CI, 64.4%-92.1%), while specificity was highest for the IMPROVE score (70.4%; 95% CI, 67.9%-72.8%). After adjusting the VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis use and site, there was no significant difference between the high-risk and low-risk groups based on the simplified Geneva score (subhazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 0.83-5.05]; P = .12) and other RAMs. Discriminative performance was poor for all RAMs, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 53.8% (95% CI, 51.1%-56.5%) for the original Geneva score to 58.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-60.7%) for the simplified Geneva score.

Conclusions and Relevance

This head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs found suboptimal accuracy and prognostic performance of the simplified Geneva score and other RAMs to predict hospital-acquired VTE in medical inpatients. Clinical usefulness of existing RAMs is questionable, highlighting the need for more accurate VTE prediction strategies.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Enoxaparin versus Placebo to Prevent Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Older Adult Medical Patients

BACKGROUND: Admission to the hospital is a major risk factor for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin prevents symptomatic VTE in medically ill, hospitalized older adults remains debated. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, older adults (>70 years of age) hospitalized for acute medical conditions were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg a day of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) or placebo for 6 to 14 days. The primary efficacy outcome was the cumulative incidence of symptomatic VTE (distal or proximal deep vein thrombosis, fatal or nonfatal pulmonary embolism) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included efficacy and safety outcomes at 90 days. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely discontinued in September 2020, 5 years after enrollment began, because of drug supply issues. By the time of trial discontinuation, 2559 patients had been randomly assigned at 47 centers. Median age was 82 years and 60% of patients were female. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 22 out of 1278 (cumulative incidence, 1.8%) patients in the enoxaparin group and in 27 out of 1263 (cumulative incidence, 2.2%) patients in the placebo group (cumulative incidence difference, −0.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.5 to 0.7), with no significant difference in time to VTE (P=0.46). The incidence of major bleeding was 0.9% in the enoxaparin group and 1.0% in the placebo group. At 90 days there were 14 symptomatic pulmonary emboli in the enoxaparin group and 25 in the placebo group; all 39 pulmonary embolism events resulted in hospital readmission and/or death, with 5 deaths from pulmonary embolism in the enoxaparin group and 11 deaths in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: This trial of thromboprophylaxis in medically ill, hospitalized older adults did not demonstrate that enoxaparin reduced the risk of symptomatic VTE after 1 month. Because the trial was prematurely discontinued, larger trials are needed to definitively address this question. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, grant number PHRC-N-13-0283; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02379806.)

Overuse and underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients

Background

Thromboprophylaxis (TPX) prescription is recommended in medical inpatients categorized as high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by validated risk assessment models (RAMs), but how various RAMs differ in categorizing patients in risk groups, and whether the choice of RAM influences estimates of appropriate TPX use is unknown.

Objectives

To determine the proportion of medical inpatients categorized as high or low risk according to validated RAMs, and to investigate the appropriateness of TPX prescription.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study of acutely ill medical inpatients from 3 Swiss university hospitals. Participants were categorized as high or low risk of VTE by validated RAMs (ie, the Padua, the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism, simplified, and original Geneva scores). We assessed prescription of any TPX at baseline. We considered TPX prescription in high-risk and no TPX prescription in low-risk patients as appropriate.

Results

Among 1352 medical inpatients, the proportion categorized as high risk ranged from 29.8% with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score to 66.1% with the original Geneva score. Overall, 24.6% were consistently categorized as high risk, and 26.3% as low risk by all 4 RAMs. Depending on the RAM used, TPX prescription was appropriate in 58.7% to 63.3% of high-risk (ie, 36.7%-41.3% underuse) and 52.4% to 62.8% of low-risk patients (ie, 37.2%-47.6% overuse).

Conclusion

The proportion of medical inpatients considered as high or low VTE risk varied widely according to different RAMs. Only half of patients were consistently categorized in the same risk group by all RAMs. While TPX remains underused in high-risk patients, overuse in low-risk patients is even more pronounced.

Timing and choice of systemic anticoagulation in the setting of extremity arterial injury repair

PURPOSE

The role of perioperative anticoagulation in the setting of peripheral arterial injury remains unclear. We hypothesized that early initiation of anticoagulation is associated with a reduced amputation rate without increasing bleeding complications.

METHODS

Using the 2016-2019 ACS-TQIP database, adult patients with upper and lower extremity vascular injuries who underwent open arterial repair and received anticoagulation were included. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) early venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (≤ 24 h) and (2) late prophylaxis (> 24 h) following arterial repair. The primary outcomes were the rates of limb amputation and bleeding complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the impact of timing and type of anticoagulation on the rates of limb amputation and bleeding complications.

RESULTS

4379 patients were included, and 83.9% were males. 68.1% of patients received early anticoagulation, whereas 31.9% received late thromboprophylaxis. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was used in 62.0% of patients, and unfractionated heparin (UFH) was administered in 34.3% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that late initiation of thromboprophylaxis (OR = 1.69 [1.16-2.45], p = 0.006) and use of UFH (OR = 2.61 [1.80-3.79], p < 0.001) were associated with increased rate of amputation. Early initiation of anticoagulation (OR = 2.16 [1.63-2.85], p < 0.001) was associated with increased risk of bleeding complications requiring blood transfusions. Similarly, the use of UFH was associated with a higher rate of bleeding events compared to LWMH (OR = 2.61, [1.80-3.79], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with the operative repair of arterial injuries receiving early perioperative anticoagulation demonstrated an improved limb salvage outcome than those who received late thromboprophylaxis. Our data also suggest that early initiation of prophylaxis may be associated with increased bleeding risk, which may be attenuated using LMWH compared to UFH.

Efficacy and safety of two heparin regimens for prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The optimal heparin regimen remains unknown and should balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of standard or higher heparin regimens for the prevention of VTE in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We performed a systematic literature search; studies reporting on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received standard heparin prophylaxis vs. high (intermediate or therapeutic) heparin regimens were included if outcome events were reported by treatment group and more than 10 patients were included. Primary study outcome was in-hospital VTE. Secondary study outcomes were major bleeding (MB), all-cause death, fatal bleeding and fatal pulmonary embolism. Overall, 33 studies (11,387 patients) were included. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 5.2% and in 8.2% of patients who received heparin prophylaxis with at high-dose or standard-dose, respectively (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.90, I2 48.8%). MB was significantly higher in patients who received high- compared to the standard-dose (4.2% vs 2.2%, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.47-2.56, I2 18.1%). Sub-analyses showed a slight benefit associated with high-dose heparin in patients admitted to non-intensive care unit (ICU) but not in those to ICU. No significant differences were observed for mortality outcomes. Heparin prophylaxis at high-dose reduces the risk of VTE, but increased the risk of MB compared to the standard-dose. No clinical benefit for heparin high-dose was observed for ICU setting, but its role in the non-ICU deserves further evaluation. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021252550.

A novel anticoagulation treatment protocol using unfractionated heparin for coronavirus disease 2019 patients in Japan, 2022

Hypercoagulability, which can be induced by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although anticoagulation therapy is expected to decrease the incidence of thrombosis and mortality in COVID-19 patients, the optimal use of anticoagulation therapy has not been established, especially using unfractionated heparin (UFH). Herein, we suggest a new anticoagulation treatment protocol for the use of UFH in Japanese COVID-19 patients. This protocol considers the safety regarding UFH usage, to lower major bleeding events, and reflects the latest evidence and the current situation regarding anticoagulation therapy in Japan.

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.

RESULTS

44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

Preventing Postpartum Venous Thromboembolism in 2022: A Narrative Review

The postpartum period represents the most critical time for pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is responsible for substantial morbidity and an important cause of maternal mortality. The estimated risk of postpartum VTE of about 1/1,000 deliveries can be modulated with the knowledge of maternal and obstetrical risk factors, although a precise estimate remains challenging in individuals. The use of postpartum low-dose low-molecular-weight heparins are tailored at intermediate and high-risk groups to reduce the thrombotic burden, despite the lack of dedicated randomized controlled trials. In this review, we will highlight the contemporary evidence on the risk of postpartum VTE, its stratification and its prevention. We will also discuss our knowledge on the values and preferences of women for postpartum thromboprophylaxis and their adherence to treatment.

Clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation, incidence of major bleeding and mortality: a multi-centre cohort study using the French national health data system

PURPOSE

Low-dose parenteral anticoagulation has demonstrated its efficacy for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in randomized trials. However, current practice is not widely documented. In ambulatory settings, we aimed to provide an overview of the clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation in France and to assess the incidence of major bleeding and death rates.

METHODS

A population-based prospective cohort study using the French national health data system (SNIIRAM) identified 142,815 adults living in five well-defined geographical areas who had a course of low-dose parenteral anticoagulants (a total of 150,389 courses) in the period 2013-2015. The main outcome measures were the types of low-dose parenteral anticoagulant, the duration and the clinical context. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) were derived from Poisson models.

RESULTS

Enoxaparin was the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant (58.9%) followed by tinzaparin (27.3%) and fondaparinux (10.9%). Patients receiving unfractionated heparin (N = 766, 0.53%) were older, more frequently had renal disease (48.75%) and had a higher modified HAS-B(L)ED score (≥ 3 in 61.6%) than patients receiving low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Surgical thrombo-prophylaxis was the most frequent indication (47.6%), followed by medical prophylaxis (29.9%). Course durations were in line with regulatory agency specifications. Only 43 (0.028%) major bleeding events and 478 (0.32%) deaths were observed. Adjusted IRRs for major bleeding or death were not significantly different for dalteparin/nadroparin, tinzaparin or fondaparinux compared to enoxaparin.

CONCLUSION

Very low incidence rates of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were observed. Our study confirms the safety of LMWHs and fondaparinux in thrombo-prophylaxis in ambulatory settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02886533.

Challenging management dogma where evidence is non-existent, weak or outdated

Medical practice is dogged by dogma. A conclusive evidence base is lacking for many aspects of patient management. Clinicians, therefore, rely upon engrained treatment strategies as the dogma seems to work, or at least is assumed to do so. Evidence is often distorted, overlooked or misapplied in the re-telling. However, it is incorporated as fact in textbooks, policies, guidelines and protocols with resource and medicolegal implications. We provide here four examples of medical dogma that underline the above points: loop diuretic treatment for acute heart failure; the effectiveness of heparin thromboprophylaxis; the rate of sodium correction for hyponatraemia; and the mantra of "each hour counts" for treating meningitis. It is notable that the underpinning evidence is largely unsupportive of these doctrines. We do not necessarily advocate change, but rather encourage critical reflection on current practices and the need for prospective studies.

Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit.

Methods

We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard prophylactic dose anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality at end of follow-up or discharge. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events, and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation.

Results

Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in mortality for up to 45 days compared with prophylactic anticoagulation: 17.5% (501/2861) died in the intensified anticoagulation group and 18.8% (513/2734) died in the prophylactic anticoagulation group, relative risk (RR) 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79 - 1.10. On subgroup analysis, there was a possible signal of mortality reduction for inpatients admitted to general wards, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 - 1.44; I ² = 75%) and not significantly different to studies performed in the ICU (interaction P = 0.51). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced with intensified anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis (8 studies; RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41 - 0.69; I ² = 0%). This effect was driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing on subgroup analysis (interaction P =0.04). Major bleeding was increased with use of intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting.

Conclusion

Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU hospitalised patients requires exploration in additional RCTs.

Summary

In this aggregate data meta-analysis, use of intensified anticoagulation had no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and was associated with increased risk of bleeding.

Low-Molecular Weight Heparin is Superior to Unfractionated Heparin for Elderly Trauma Patients

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated that low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in trauma patients. The superiority of either one has not been established for the elderly. In this study, we compared LMWH to UFH in elderly trauma patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons' Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was performed for patients aged ≥65 y. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounders between the two groups. Outcomes included venous thromboembolic (VTE) and bleeding events.

RESULTS

Overall, 93,987 patients were identified (mean age 77.1 ± 7.3 y, females 55,035 [58.6%]), of which 67,738 (72.1%) patients received LMWH and 26,249 (27.9%) received UFH. After Propensity score matching, LMWH was associated with a lower incidence of deep venous thrombosis (1.7% versus 2.1%, P = 0.007) and pulmonary embolisms (0.6% versus 1%, P< 0.001). LMWH was also associated with fewer bleeding complications (transfusions: 2.8% versus 3.5%, P< 0.001, procedures: 0.7% versus 0.9%, P = 0.007). Sub-analyses showed that differences in VTE rates were identified in patients with mild injuries (Injury Severity Score [ISS] <16, 0.6% versus 1.9%, P< 0.001). Differences in bleeding complications were identified in patients with injuries of mild (ISS <16, transfusions: 3% versus 3.8%, P< 0.001, surgeries: 0.3% versus 0.4%, P= 0.015) and moderate severity (ISS 16-24, transfusions: 1.9% versus 2.7%, P= 0.038, surgeries: 1% versus 1.7%, P= 0.013).

CONCLUSION

LMWH prophylaxis is superior to UFH for VTE prevention among elderly trauma patients. LMWH prophylaxis is associated with fewer bleeding complications compared to UFH in patients with injuries of mild or moderate severity.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.

RESULTS

Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Anticoagulation and Venous Thrombotic Disease for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

New studies of COVID–19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on high-income country investigations to resource limited settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present a set of pragmatic recommendations for the management of anticoagulation and thrombotic disease for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. In the absence of contraindications, we recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis to minimize risk to healthcare workers. We recommend against the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Because of limited evidence, we suggest against the use of “enhanced” or “intermediate” prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Based on current available evidence, we recommend against the initiation of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation without clinical suspicion for VTE. If contraindications exist to chemical prophylaxis, we recommend mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices or graduated compression stockings (GCS) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. In LMICs, we recommend initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, in accordance with local clinical practice guidelines, if there is high clinical suspicion for VTE, even in the absence of testing. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH or Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of VTE in LMICs to minimize risk to healthcare workers. In LMIC settings where continuous intravenous UFH or LMWH are unavailable or not feasible to use, we recommend fixed dose heparin, adjusted to body weight, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE. We suggest D-dimer measurement, if available and affordable, at the time of admission for risk stratification, or when clinical suspicion for VTE is high. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on current available evidence, we make no recommendation on the use of serial D-dimer monitoring for the initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving intravenous therapeutic UFH, we recommend serial monitoring of partial thromboplastin time or anti-factor Xa level, based on local laboratory capabilities. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving LMWH, we suggest against serial monitoring of anti-factor Xa level. We suggest serial monitoring of platelet counts in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE, to assess risk of bleeding or development of heparin induced thrombocytopenia.

Postdischarge venous thromboembolism following hospital admission with COVID-19

The association of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has resulted in specific guidelines for its prevention and management. The VTE risk appears highest in those with critical care admission. The need for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis remains controversial, which is reflected in conflicting expert guideline recommendations. Our local protocol provides thromboprophylaxis to COVID-19 patients during admission only. We report postdischarge VTE data from an ongoing quality improvement program incorporating root-cause analysis of hospital-associated VTE (HA-VTE). Following 1877 hospital discharges associated with COVID-19, 9 episodes of HA-VTE were diagnosed within 42 days, giving a postdischarge rate of 4.8 per 1000 discharges. Over 2019, following 18 159 discharges associated with a medical admission; there were 56 episodes of HA-VTE within 42 days (3.1 per 1000 discharges). The odds ratio for postdischarge HA-VTE associated with COVID-19 compared with 2019 was 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-3.1). COVID-19 hospitalization does not appear to increase the risk of postdischarge HA-VTE compared with hospitalization with other acute medical illness. Given that the risk-benefit ratio of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain, randomized controlled trials to evaluate the role of continuing thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients following hospital discharge are required.

Incidence and risk factors for PTT prolongation in patients receiving low-dose unfractionated heparin thromboprophylaxis

Low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) prophylaxis decreases the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients, but increases the risk of bleeding events. Patients who develop a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) while on LDUH may be at higher risk for bleeding complications. To determine the incidence and risk factors for aPTT prolongation in hospitalized patients receiving LDUH thromboprophylaxis, we performed a retrospective pharmacoepidemiologic cohort study of adult patients admitted to an academic medical center from September 2013 through September 2015. Among 3857 patients with at least one aPTT checked within 24 h of LDUH administration, aPTT prolongation > 1.5 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 131 (3.4%). Age 68-78 years (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.01-2.4), age > 78 years (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9), female gender (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5), black race (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3), low BMI (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5), being admitted to a surgical service (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), and receipt of high-dose (> 10,000 units in a day) unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.003-2.0), were independently associated with aPTT prolongation after LDUH exposure. LDUH VTE prophylaxis is associated with aPTT prolongation in 3.4% of general hospitalized patients. We demonstrated several factors independently associated with aPTT prolongation. Monitoring aPTT levels may be indicated for select patients on LDUH thromboprophylaxis who are at high risk or consequence of bleeding and for aPTT prolongation.

Thromboembolic events and Covid-19

The novel Corona virus infection (Covid-19) first identified in China in December 2019 has rapidly progressed in pandemic leading to significant mortality and unprecedented challenge for healthcare systems. Although the clinical spectrum of Covid-19 is variable, acute respiratory failure and systemic coagulopathy are common in severe Covid-19 patients. Lung is an important target of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing eventually acute respiratory distress syndrome associated to a thromboinflammatory state. The cytokinic storm, thromboinflammation and pulmonary tropism are the bedrock of tissue lesions responsible for acute respiratory failure and for prolonged infection that may lead to multiple organ failure and death. The thrombogenicity of this infectious disease is illustrated by the high frequency of thromboembolic events observed even in Covid-19 patients treated with anticoagulation. Increased D-Dimers, a biomarker reflecting activation of hemostasis and fibrinolysis, and low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) are associated with higher mortality in Covid-19 patients. In this review, we will summarize our current knowledge on the thromboembolic manifestations, the disturbed hemostatic parameters, and the thromboinflammatory conditions associated to Covid-19 and we will discuss the modalities of anticoagulant treatment or other potential antithrombotic options.

Hypercoagulopathy and Adipose Tissue Exacerbated Inflammation May Explain Higher Mortality in COVID-19 Patients With Obesity

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is characterized by pneumonia, lymphopenia, exhausted lymphocytes and a cytokine storm. Several reports from around the world have identified obesity and severe obesity as one of the strongest risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. Moreover, countries with greater obesity prevalence have a higher morbidity and mortality risk of developing serious outcomes from COVID-19. The understanding of how this increased susceptibility of the people with obesity to develop severe forms of the SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs is crucial for implementing appropriate public health and therapeutic strategies to avoid COVID-19 severe symptoms and complications in people living with obesity. We hypothesize here that increased ACE2 expression in adipose tissue displayed by people with obesity may increase SARS-CoV-2 infection and accessibility to this tissue. Individuals with obesity have increased white adipose tissue, which may act as a reservoir for a more extensive viral spread with increased shedding, immune activation and pro-inflammatory cytokine amplification. Here we discuss how obesity is related to a pro-inflammatory and metabolic dysregulation, increased SARS-CoV-2 host cell entry in adipose tissue and induction of hypercoagulopathy, leading people with obesity to develop severe forms of COVID-19 and also death. Taken together, it may be crucial to better explore the role of visceral adipose tissue in the inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and investigate the potential therapeutic effect of using specific target anti-inflammatories (canakinumab or anakinra for IL-1β inhibition; anti-IL-6 antibodies for IL-6 inhibition), anticoagulant or anti-diabetic drugs in COVID-19 treatment of people with obesity. Defining the immunopathological changes in COVID-19 patients with obesity can provide prominent targets for drug discovery and clinical management improvement.

The rational use of thromboprophylaxis therapy in hospitalized patients and the perspectives of health care providers in Northern Cyprus

Background

Despite the presence of effective strategies and standard guidelines for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a considerable proportion of patients at risk of developing thromboembolism did not receive prophylaxis during hospitalization, while others received it irrationally, thus led to unwanted side effects.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the current thromboprophylaxis practice and management of hospitalized patients at risk of developing DVT, along with the assessment of health care providers (HCPs) knowledge, and attitudes regarding DVT prevention.

Methods

An observational study was conducted in the general wards of two leading tertiary university hospitals in Northern Cyprus in which patients from multiple clinics were enrolled to investigate the rational use of DVT prophylaxis using the Caprini risk assessment tool. Patients were also followed for possible complications two weeks post-hospitalization. A cross-sectional study followed to assess the knowledge and attitude of HCPs regarding DVT risks and prophylaxis.

Results

Of the 180 patients enrolled, 47.7% were identified as irrationally managed, 52.3% were identified as rationally managed, 77.8% of patients were identified as having a high level of risk. Notably, Four of thirteen patients who received more thromboprophylaxis developed minor complications. Additionally, 73.3% of nurses had not received DVT education. Furthermore, more than 50% of physicians and nurses achieved a low knowledge score for DVT risks and prophylaxis.

Conclusions

A high degree of irrationality in the administration of thromboprophylaxis therapy to hospitalized patients was observed. The overall scores for HCPs indicated insufficient knowledge of DVT risk assessments and prophylaxis.

Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients: An NATF Anticoagulation Action Initiative

Hospitalized patients with acute medical illnesses are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) during and after a hospital stay. Risk factors include physical immobilization and underlying pathophysiologic processes that activate the coagulation pathway and are still present after discharge. Strategies for optimal pharmacologic VTE thromboprophylaxis are evolving, and recommendations for VTE prophylaxis can be further refined to protect high-risk patients after hospital discharge. An early study of extended VTE prophylaxis with a parenteral agent in medically ill patients yielded inconclusive results with regard to efficacy and bleeding. In the Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention with Extended Duration Betrixaban (APEX) trial, extended use of betrixaban halved symptomatic VTE, decreased hospital readmission, and reduced stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events compared with standard enoxaparin prophylaxis. Based on findings from APEX, the Food and Drug Administration approved betrixaban in 2017 for extended VTE prophylaxis in acute medically ill patients. In the Reducing Post-Discharge Venous Thrombo-Embolism Risk (MARINER) study, extended use of rivaroxaban halved symptomatic VTE in high-risk medical patients compared with placebo. In 2019, rivaroxaban was approved for extended thromboprophylaxis in high-risk medical patients, thus making available a new strategy for in-hospital and post-discharge VTE prevention. To address the critical unmet need for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients at the time of hospital discharge, the North American Thrombosis Forum (NATF) is launching the Anticoagulation Action Initiative, a comprehensive consensus document that provides practical guidance and straightforward, patient-centered recommendations for VTE prevention during hospitalization and after discharge.

Deep vein thrombosis cured by homeopathy: A case report

Venous thrombosis (VT) of deep vein is a life-threatening condition which may lead to sudden death as an immediate complication due to formation of thrombo-embolism. VT is associated with various risk factors such as prolonged immobilization, inflammation, and/or coagulation disorders including muscular or venous injury. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) frequently occurs in the lower limb. Successful treatment of DVT exclusively with homeopathic remedies has rarely been recorded in peer-reviewed journals. The present case report intends to record yet another case of DVT in an old patient totally cured exclusively by the non-invasive method of treatment with micro doses of potentized homeopathic drugs selected on the basis of the totality of symptoms and individualization of the case. Since this report is based on a single case of recovery, results of more such cases are warranted to strengthen the outcome of the present study.

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in at-risk patient groups: pregnancy, elderly and obese patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) accounts for an estimated 900,000 cases per year in the US alone and constitutes a considerable burden on healthcare systems across the globe.

OBJECTIVE

To understand why the burden is so high, qualitative and quantitative research was carried out to gain insights from experts, guidelines and published studies on the unmet clinical needs and therapeutic strategies in VTE prevention and treatment in three populations identified as being at increased risk of VTE and in whom VTE prevention and treatment were regarded as suboptimal: pregnant women, the elderly and obese patients.

METHODOLOGY

A gap analysis methodology was created to highlight unmet needs in VTE management and to discover the patient populations considered most at risk. A questionnaire was devised to guide qualitative interviews with 44 thrombosis and haemostasis experts, and a review of the literature on VTE in the specific patient groups from 2015 to 2017 was completed. This was followed by a Think Tank meeting where the results from the research were discussed.

RESULTS

This review highlights the insights gained and examines in detail the unmet needs with regard to VTE risk-assessment tools, biomarkers, patient stratification methods, and anticoagulant and dosing regimens in pregnant women, the elderly and obese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Specifically, in pregnant women at high risk of VTE, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the therapy of choice, but it remains unclear how to use anticoagulants when VTE risk is intermediate. In elderly patients, evaluation of the benefit of VTE prophylaxis against the bleeding risk is particularly important, and a head-to-head comparison of efficacy and safety of LMWH versus direct oral anticoagulants is needed. Finally, in obese patients, lack of guidance on anticoagulant dose adjustment to body weight has emerged as a major obstacle in effective prophylaxis and treatment of VTE.

A Prospective Observational Cohort of Clinical Outcomes in Medical Inpatients prescribed Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models(COMPT RAMs)

The Caprini and Padua venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to assess VTE risk in surgical and in medical patients respectively. This study aims to compare the proportion of medical inpatients eligible for VTE prophylaxis using the hospital Caprini-based RAM to using the Caprini and Padua RAMs and to assess the associated clinical outcomes. In a prospective observational study, we assessed 297 adult medical inpatients for whom VTE thromboprophylaxis was initiated according to the hospital Caprini-based RAM, referred to as the Lebanese American University Medical Center RAM (LAUMC-RAM). The Padua, Caprini and IMPROVE bleeding risk scores were also assessed for all patients. Bleeding and thromboembolism were evaluated at 14 and 30 days post VTE risk assessment. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was warranted in 97.6%, 99.7%, and 52.9% of patients using the Caprini-based, Caprini, and Padua RAMs respectively. The Caprini-based and Caprini RAMs were highly correlated (r = 0.873 p < 0.001) and were significantly less correlated with the Padua RAM. Major and overall bleeding occurred in 1.4% and 9.2% respectively. VTE was reported in 0.4% with no VTE related mortality. In hospitalized medical patients, the Caprini-based RAM can accurately distinguish low and high VTE risk without resulting in increased risk of bleeding.

Low Dose Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thrombosis Prophylaxis: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

International guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as first-line pharmacological option for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in many patient categories. Guidance on the optimal prophylactic dose is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials to assess benefits and harms of low-dose LMWH versus placebo or no treatment for thrombosis prophylaxis in patients at risk of VTE. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to June 2019. Results were presented as relative risk (RR) with conventional and TSA-adjusted confidence intervals (CI). Forty-four trials with a total of 22,579 participants were included. Six (14%) had overall low risk of bias. Low-dose LMWH was not statistically significantly associated with all-cause mortality (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.85-1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.89-1.16) but did reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.81; TSA-adjusted CI 0.44-0.89) and any VTE (RR 0.61; 95%CI 0.50-0.75; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49-0.82). Analyses on major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.72-1.59), as well as serious adverse events (SAE) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding were inconclusive. There was very low to moderate-quality evidence that low-dose LMWH for thrombosis prophylaxis did not decrease all-cause mortality but reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic VTE, while the analysis of the effects on bleeding and adverse events remained inconclusive.

Natural history of patients with venous thromboembolism and hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. Findings from the RIETE registry

Background

Limited data exist about the clinical presentation, ideal therapy and outcomes of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Methods

We used the data in the RIETE Registry to assess the clinical characteristics, therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes during the course of anticoagulant therapy in patients with HHT according to initial presentation as pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

Results

Of 51,375 patients with acute VTE enrolled in RIETE from February 2009 to January 2019, 23 (0.04%) had HHT: 14 (61%) initially presented with PE and 9 (39%) with DVT alone. Almost half (47.8%) of the patients with VTE had a risk factor for VTE. Most PE and DVT patients received low-molecular-weight heparin for initial (71 and 100%, respectively) and long-term therapy (54 and 67%, respectively). During anticoagulation for VTE, the rate of bleeding events (major 2, non-major 6) far outweighed the rate of VTE recurrences (recurrent DVT 1): 50.1 bleeds per 100 patient-years (95%CI: 21.6-98.7) vs. 6.26 recurrences (95%CI: 0.31–30.9; p = 0.020). One major and three non-major bleeding were epistaxis. No patient died of bleeding. One patient died shortly after being diagnosed with acute PE.

Conclusions

During anticoagulation for VTE in HHT patients, there were more bleeding events than VTE recurrences. Most bleeding episodes were non-major epistaxis.

Evaluation of prophylactic dosages of Enoxaparin in non-surgical elderly patients with renal impairment

Background

Thromboprophylaxis dosing strategies using enoxaparin in elderly patients with renal disease are limited, while dose adjustments or monitoring of anti-Xa levels are recommended. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin 20 mg versus 30 mg subcutaneously daily by comparing anti-Xa levels, thrombosis and bleeding.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, single-blinded, single-center randomized clinical trial including non-surgical patients, 70 years of age or older, with renal disease requiring thromboprophylaxis. Patients were randomized to receive either 20 mg or 30 mg of enoxaparin. The primary endpoint was peak anti-Xa levels on day 3. Secondary endpoints included trough anti-Xa levels on day 3, achievement of within range prophylactic target peak anti-Xa levels and the occurrence of hemorrhage, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia or hyperkalemia during hospitalization.

Results

Thirty-two patients were recruited and sixteen patients were randomized to each arm. Mean peak anti-Xa level was significantly higher in 30 mg arm (n = 13) compared to the 20 mg arm (n = 11) 0.26 ± 0.11, 95%CI (0.18–0.34), versus 0.14 ± 0.09, 95CI (0.08–0.19) UI/ml, respectively; p = 0.004. Mean trough anti-Xa level was higher in 30 mg arm (n = 10) compared to the 20 mg arm (n = 16), 0.06 ± 0.03, 95CI (0.04–0.08) versus 0.03 ± 0.03, 95CI (0.01–0.05) UI/ml, respectively; p = 0.044. Bleeding events reported in the 30 mg arm were one retroperitoneal bleed requiring multiple transfusions, and in the 20 mg arm one hematuria. No thrombotic events were reported.

Conclusion

Peak anti-Xa levels provided by enoxaparin 20 mg were lower than the desired range for thromboprophylaxis in comparison to enoxaparin 30 mg.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03158792. Registered: May 18, 2017.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common vascular disease. Medical inpatients, long-term care residents, persons with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers are at increased risk.

OBJECTIVE

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

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 approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 19 recommendations for acutely ill and critically ill medical inpatients, people in long-term care facilities, outpatients with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included provision of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in acutely or critically ill inpatients at acceptable bleeding risk, use of mechanical prophylaxis when bleeding risk is unacceptable, against the use of direct oral anticoagulants during hospitalization, and against extending pharmacological prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Conditional recommendations included not to use VTE prophylaxis routinely in long-term care patients or outpatients with minor VTE risk factors. The panel conditionally recommended use of graduated compression stockings or low-molecular-weight heparin in long-distance travelers only if they are at high risk for VTE.

Compliance with Guidelines on Thromboprophylaxis for Acutely Admitted Medical Patients

INTRODUCTION

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased by more than 100-fold among hospitalised medical patients compared to subjects in the community. The Danish Council for the Use of Expensive Hospital Medicines has published national guidelines on thromboprophylaxis (TP) in which the risks of VTE and bleeding are balanced. We wanted to investigate the proportion of acutely admitted medical patients for whom thromboprophylaxis was indicated and to what extent the guidelines were followed.

METHODS

Data from patients hospitalised at two medical wards were screened. We registered the proportion of patients for whom mechanical or pharmacologic TP (MTP and PTP, respectively) was indicated and whether national guidelines were followed. All data extraction and analyses were performed retrospectively.

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria were applied, 340 cases remained. PTP was indicated in 26 patients (7.6%) but only 4 patients were treated besides 12 patients who were already in anticoagulant treatment at submission. Conversely, 8/306 patients, in whom TP was not indicated, were started on PTP. MTP was indicated in 8/340 patients (2.4%) but therapy was not initiated in any of them. The majority (320/340, 94.1%) of cases was managed in accordance with existing guidelines. However, this high proportion was mainly explained by the large number of untreated patients, where TP was not indicated.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of hospitalised medical patients was managed in conflict with national guidelines. A systematic approach to TP in patients with acute medical illness should be implemented. Plain language summary available for this article.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for primary prevention of thrombosis in individuals with antiphospholipid antibodies

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications (recurrent miscarriage, premature birth, intrauterine growth retardation) and thrombotic events (both arterial and venous). The most common thrombotic events include brain ischaemia (stroke or transient ischaemic attack) and deep vein thrombosis. To diagnose APS, the presence of aPL antibodies in two measurements and at least one thrombotic event or pregnancy complication are required. It is unclear if people with positive aPL antibodies but without any previous thrombotic events should receive primary antithrombotic prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents versus placebo or no intervention or other intervention on the development of thrombosis in people with aPL antibodies who have not had a thrombotic event. We did not address obstetric outcomes in this review as these have been thoroughly addressed by other Cochrane Reviews.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (4 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last search 29 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (searched 4 December 2017), and trials registries (searched 29 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or their combinations, at any dose and mode of delivery with placebo, no intervention, or other intervention. We also included RCTs that compared antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents with each other or that compared two different doses of the same drug. We included studies performed in people of any age and with no history of thrombosis (as defined by APS Sapporo classification criteria or updated Sydney classification criteria), but with aPL antibodies confirmed on at last two separate measurements. The studies included both pregnant women who tested positive for aPL antibodies and had a history of recurrent obstetric complications, as well as non-pregnancy related cases with positive screening for antibodies, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies and quality of evidence using GRADE. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third review author when necessary. In addition, one review author checked all the extracted numerical data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies involving 1044 randomised participants. The studies took place in several countries and had different funding sources. No study was at low risk of bias in all domains. We classified all included studies as at unclear or high risk of bias in two or more domains. Seven included studies focused mainly on obstetric outcomes. One study included non-pregnancy-related cases, and one study included both pregnancy-related cases and other patients with positive results for aPL antibodies. The remaining studies concerned women with aPL antibodies and a history of pregnancy failure. Four studies compared anticoagulant with or without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA only and observed no clear difference in thrombosis risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 3.77; 4 studies; 493 participants; low-quality evidence). No major bleeding was reported, but minor bleeding risk (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was higher in the anticoagulant with ASA group as compared with ASA alone in one study (RR 22.45, 95% CI 1.34 to 374.81; 1 study; 164 participants; low-quality evidence). In one study ASA was compared with placebo, and there were no clear differences in thrombosis (RR 5.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.97; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) or minor bleeding risk between the groups (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.34 to 29.01; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence), and no major bleeding was observed. Two studies compared ASA with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus placebo or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and no thrombotic events were observed in any of the groups. Moreover, there were no clear differences in the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (RR 9.0, 95% CI 0.49 to 164.76; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or postpartum bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.81; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. Two studies compared ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWF or unfractionated heparin (UFH); no thrombotic events or major bleeding was reported. Mortality and quality of life data were not reported for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit or harm of using anticoagulants with or without ASA versus ASA alone in people with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and with no such history; ASA versus placebo in people with aPL antibodies; and ASA with LMWH versus placebo or IVIG, and ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWH or UFH, in women with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, for the primary prevention of thrombotic events. In a mixed population of people with a history of previous pregnancy loss and without such a history treated with anticoagulant combined with ASA, the incidence of minor bleeding (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was increased when compared with ASA alone. Studies that are adequately powered and that focus mainly on thrombotic events are needed to draw any firm conclusions on the primary prevention of thrombotic events in people with antiphospholipid antibodies.

Prophylaxis against Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients Hospitalized in Surgical Wards in One of the Hospitals in Iran: Based on the American College of Chest Physician's Protocol

Background

There is not enough studies to determine the frequency of using the prophylaxis against deep venous thrombosis (DVT) based on the American College of Chest Physician's (ACCP) guidelines in Iran. Thus, providing such statistics is essential to improve thromboprophylaxis in hospital. The present study aimed to determine the frequency of using the prophylaxis against DVT based on ACCP guidelines in patients hospitalized in surgical wards in one of teaching hospital in Ilam, Iran.

Methods

In a cross-sectional, the samples were selected among medical records of patients who were hospitalized and underwent surgery in surgical wards of the hospital from April 2012 to September 2013. Type of prophylaxis was determined based on ACCP guidelines. After reviewing inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients' data were extracted from medical records based on required variables.

Results

In reviewing 169 qualified samples, 46.2% (78 patients) were women. Of these, 132 patients were at risk of DVT and needed prophylaxis, only 39 patients (29.5%) received prophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis based on ACCP guidelines had been fully implemented only in 30 cases (22.7%) of patients with the risk of DVT.. The highest thromboprophylaxis was in the intensive care unit (46.6%) and neurosurgery (37.5%), and the least rate was in urology (0%).

Conclusions

As the results of this study, there are differences between clinical practice and the ACCP guidelines recommendation in prophylaxis against DVT. Thromboprophylaxis has not been implemented based on ACCP guidelines in more than 75% of patients with the risk of DVT. Thus, new strategies are needed to implement thromboprophylaxis against DVT in Iranian hospitals.

The Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cardiovascular condition, after myocardial infarction and stroke. Prophylactic measures in accordance with current guidelines can significantly reduce the risk of VTE and the associated morbidity and mortality. Until now, the German interdisciplinary, evidence- and consensus-based (S3) clinical practice guideline on VTE prophylaxis was based on a complete review of all pertinent literature available in MEDLINE up to January 2008. More recent publications and drug approvals have made a thorough revision necessary.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for publications that appeared from 1 January 2008 to 7 August 2013. Updates of 5 national and international reference guidelines and 2 new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were considered as well. A structured consensus-finding process was carried out with delegates from 27 scientific medical societies and from the Union of Medical Specialist Associations.

RESULTS

46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for critical appraisal. New findings led to re-evaluation of the value of compression stockings in combination with pharmacological prophylaxis (open recommendation), and suggest equal value of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or fondaparinux in elective hip and knee replacement (strong recommendation). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, we recommend LMWH or fondaparinux.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to assess the value of NOACs for pharmacological prophylaxis in orthopedic/trauma patients undergoing surgical procedures other than the ones mentioned above, and into the benefit and harm of new devices available for mechanical prophylaxis. The stringent implementation of basic measures such as early mobilization, movement exercises, and patient instruction is a key point to prevent venous thrombo - embolism.

Enfermedad renal crónica y sangrado entre pacientes bajo profilaxis con heparinas de bajo peso molecular

Introducción. La seguridad del uso profiláctico de heparinas de bajo peso molecular (HBPM) en pacientes con función renal alterada continúa no definida.Objetivo. Establecer si la reducción de la tasa de filtración glomerular (TFG) se asocia al desarrollo de sangrado bajo profilaxis con HBPM.Materiales y métodos. Se construyó una cohorte de pacientes no quirúrgicos en profilaxis con HBPM sobre la cual se anidó un estudio de casos y controles. Fue posible obtener del seguimiento los casos de sangrado y se tomaron cuatro controles sobre la población a riesgo al tiempo de aparición de cada caso.Resultados. De 716 pacientes en seguimiento, se presentaron 51 sangrados con una incidencia de 3 casos por 100 pacientes por día en tratamiento; el 39% de los casos fueron mayores y se tomaron 204 controles. El análisis multivariado no mostró relación entre sangrado y la anormalidad de la función renal por reducción de la TFG. Sin embargo, solo el 3.5% de pacientes tuvo una TFG<30ml/min. El Odds Ratio (OR) final ajustado fue 1.27 y el intervalo de confianza (IC) al 95% fue 0.60-2.68.Conclusiones. No se encontró relación entre la reducción de la TFG leve a moderada y el desarrollo de sangrado bajo profilaxis con HBPM.

The safety of low-molecular-weight heparins in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgically-treated cancer patients: results of a multicentre observational study

Aim of the study

Despite widespread use of pharmacological prophylaxis, venous thromboembolism (VTE) still constitutes a common complication in cancer patients. The aim of the study was to analyse the safety of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in the prevention of VTE in surgically-treated cancer patients.

Material and methods

A total of 5207 cancer patients (44.5% men and 55.5% women) aged 16–97 years participated in a prospective observational study conducted in 13 Polish cancer centres in 2005–2008. This cohort included 4782 subjects who were treated surgically and received LMWH as a pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE prior to or after the surgery. The incidence of haemorrhagic complications and thrombocytopaenia was analysed in this cohort, along with intra-hospital mortality.

Results

Mean duration of LMWH administration was 9.4 ±7.8 days. Haemorrhagic complications: heavy (n = 15) or light bleeding (n = 299), were observed in 314 patients (6.5%). A total of 314 patients (6.5%) presented with haemorrhagic complications: heavy (n = 15, 0.3%) or light bleeding (n = 299, 6.3%). Four cases of heavy bleeding: gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 2), retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1), and central nervous system bleeding (n = 1), were classified as definitely related to LMWH. No significant association was found between the incidence of haemorrhagic complications and the type of administered LWMH (p = 0.523). No cases of thrombocytopaenia or deaths related to administration of LMWH were reported.

Conclusions

LMWH seems to be a safe form of pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE in surgically-treated cancer patients.

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients

Essentials Low risk patients don't require venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; low risk is unquantified. We used a Markov model to estimate the risk threshold for VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Prophylaxis was cost-effective for an average medical patient with a VTE risk of ≥ 1.0%. VTE prophylaxis can be personalized based on patient risk and age/life expectancy.

SUMMARY

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable condition in medical inpatients. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for inpatients who are not at low risk of VTE, but no specific risk threshold for prophylaxis has been defined. Objective To determine a threshold for prophylaxis based on risk of VTE. Patients/Methods We constructed a decision model with a decision-tree following patients for 3 months after hospitalization, and a lifetime Markov model with 3-month cycles. The model tracked symptomatic deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli, bleeding events and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Long-term complications included recurrent VTE, post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary hypertension. For the base case, we considered medical inpatients aged 66 years, having a life expectancy of 13.5 years, VTE risk of 1.4% and bleeding risk of 2.7%. Patients received enoxaparin 40 mg day-1 for prophylaxis. Results Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/ quality-adjusted life year (QALY), prophylaxis was indicated for an average medical inpatient with a VTE risk of ≥ 1.0% up to 3 months after hospitalization. For the average patient, prophylaxis was not indicated when the bleeding risk was > 8.1%, the patient's age was > 73.4 years or the cost of enoxaparin exceeded $60/dose. If VTE risk was < 0.26% or bleeding risk was > 19%, the risks of prophylaxis outweighed benefits. The prophylaxis threshold was relatively insensitive to low-molecular-weight heparin cost and bleeding risk, but very sensitive to patient age and life expectancy. Conclusions The decision to offer prophylaxis should be personalized based on patient VTE risk, age and life expectancy. At a WTP of $100 000/QALY, prophylaxis is not warranted for most patients with a 3-month VTE risk below 1.0%.

Genetic Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism in UK Biobank Identifies the ZFPM2 Locus and Implicates Obesity as a Causal Risk Factor

BACKGROUND

UK Biobank is the world's largest repository for phenotypic and genotypic information for individuals of European ancestry. Here, we leverage UK Biobank to understand the inherited basis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a leading cause of cardiovascular mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified 3290 VTE cases and 116 868 controls through billing code-based phenotyping. We performed a genome-wide association study for VTE with ≈9 000 000 imputed single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We performed a phenome-wide association study for a genetic risk score of 10 VTE-associated variants. To assess whether obesity is a causal factor for VTE, we performed Mendelian randomization analysis using a genetic risk score instrument composed of 68 body mass index-associated variants. The genome-wide association study for VTE replicated previous findings at the F5, F2, ABO, F11, and FGG loci. We identified 1 new locus-ZFPM2 rs4602861-at genome-wide significance (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.15; P=4.9×10^-10) and a new independent variant at the F2 locus (rs3136516; odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.13; P=7.60×10^-9). In a phenome-wide association study, a 10 single-nucleotide polymorphism VTE genetic risk score was associated with coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.10 per unit increase in VTE odds; P=1.08×10^-9). In a Mendelian randomization analysis, genetically elevated body mass index (a 1 SD increase) was associated with 57% higher risk of VTE (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.97; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

For common diseases such as VTE, biobanks provide potential to perform genetic discovery, explore the phenotypic consequences for disease-associated variants, and test causal inference.

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population at higher risk.Although LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by harmful effects such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism in postoperative patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4) and trials registries. The authors searched Lilacs (June 2016) and additional trials were sought from reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were postoperative patients allocated to receive prophylaxis with UFH or LMWH, in a blinded or unblinded fashion. Studies were excluded if they did not use the accepted definition of HIT. This was defined as a relative reduction in the platelet count of 50% or greater from the postoperative peak (even if the platelet count at its lowest remained greater than 150 x 10⁹/L) occurring within five to 14 days after the surgery, with or without a thrombotic event occurring in this timeframe. Additionally, we required circulating antibodies associated with the syndrome to have been investigated through laboratory assays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with participation of a third author.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included three trials involving 1398 postoperative participants. Participants were submitted to general surgical procedures, minor and major, and the minimum mean age was 49 years. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of HIT with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.73); low-quality evidence. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 59. The risk of HIT was consistently reduced comparing participants undergoing major surgical procedures exposed to LMWH or UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75); low-quality evidence. The occurrence of HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism was significantly lower in participants receiving LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.84); low-quality evidence. The NNTB was 75. Arterial thrombosis occurred in only one participant who received UFH. There were no amputations or deaths documented. Although limited evidence is available, it appears that HIT induced by both types of heparins is common in people undergoing major surgical procedures (incidence greater than 1% and less than 10%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review demonstrated low-quality evidence of a lower incidence of HIT, and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism, in postoperative patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with UFH. Similarily, the risk of HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures was lower when treated with LMWH compared to UFH (low-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to concerns about the risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the study results. These findings may support current clinical use of LMWH over UFH as front-line heparin therapy. However, our conclusions are limited and there was an unexpected paucity of RCTs including HIT as an outcome. To address the scarcity of clinically-relevant information on HIT, HIT must be included as a core harmful outcome in future RCTs of heparin.

Characterization of Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Medical Inpatients Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models.

METHODS

A retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013.

RESULTS

Of the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.

Effect of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant drugs on the incidence of arterial thrombotic events in medical inpatients: a systematic review

Pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is recommended for medical inpatients. Since arterial thrombosis (AT) shares some risk factors with VTE, it would be reasonable to assess the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis by considering both VTE and AT as outcome events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III RCTs on thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients, to evaluate the quality of reporting and the incidence of AT, and the effect of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants on AT incidence. Studies were identified by a combined search strategy until May 2015. Differences in outcomes among groups were expressed as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by I (2) statistic. Twenty phase III RCTs, encompassing 54,742 patients, were included; of these, 3 (15 %) reported on AT as a pre-defined secondary outcome and 8 (40 %) on at least one AT outcome. Raw-unweighed incidence of fatal MI in the three RCTs is 0.37 % in patients receiving unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin, and 0.38 % in controls (OR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.62-1.52; I (2) = 0 %). A non-statistically significant increase in AT is reported in patients on enoxaparin compared to control (OR 1.95, 95 % CI 0.89-4.27; I (2) = 13 %). AT is underreported in RCTs on VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Published data suggest that incidence of fatal MI in these patients may be clinically relevant. Insufficient data are available to draw firm conclusions on the effects of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants on AT incidence in this setting.

Effect of medical thromboprophylaxis on mortality from pulmonary embolus and major bleedingy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have failed to discover a beneficial effect of medical thromboprophylaxis on mortality.

AIMS

To examine the relative influence of acute fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and fatal major haemorrhage on overall mortality in medical patients treated with low molecular weight heparin (LMWP) for prophylaxis.

METHODS

The author compared deaths from the above factors using data from a recent Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis. Data from trials satisfying the criteria of the Cochrane analysis plus additional exclusions to avoid bias were pooled to produce point estimates of mortality from PE and major bleeds to estimate net mortality benefit. Estimates were then subject to limited sensitivity analysis based on reported epidemiological data.

RESULTS

Reported PE and major bleeds were 0.44 per cent and 0.27 per cent, respectively. The corresponding case-specific mortality rates were 30.8 per cent and 12.8 per cent and the relative risk reduction (RRR) for PE was 23.2 per cent. Estimated deaths from major bleeds exceeded PE deaths avoided by a small margin (3/100,000 patients given prophylaxis). This excess increased to 30/100,000 when more plausible literature values for PE case fatality rates were applied.

CONCLUSION

Medical thromboprophylaxis has a finely balanced effect on mortality but may increase it. Such an effect would explain the failure to discover a mortality benefit from medical thromboprophylaxis. Further work, including a formal meta-analysis and additional clinical studies, is required to confirm this picture.

In the Clinic. Deep venous thrombosis

This issue provides a clinical overview of deep venous thrombosis, focusing on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and patient information. The content of In the Clinic is drawn from the clinical information and education resources of the American College of Physicians (ACP), including ACP Smart Medicine and MKSAP (Medical Knowledge and Self-Assessment Program). Annals of Internal Medicine editors develop In the Clinic from these primary sources in collaboration with the ACP's Medical Education and Publishing divisions and with the assistance of science writers and physician writers. Editorial consultants from ACP Smart Medicine and MKSAP provide expert review of the content. Readers who are interested in these primary resources for more detail can consult http://smartmedicine.acponline.org, http://mksap.acponline.org, and other resources referenced in each issue of In the Clinic.