Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients

Establishment and validation of a nomogram predicting the risk of deep vein thrombosis before total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the independent risk factors contributing to preoperative DVT in TKA and constructed a predictive nomogram to accurately evaluate its occurrence based on these factors.

METHODS

The study encompassed 496 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty at our hospital between June 2022 and June 2023. The dataset was randomly divided into a training set (n = 348) and a validation set (n = 148) in a 7:3 ratio. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to screen the predictors of preoperative DVT occurrence in TKA and construct a nomogram. The performance of the predictive models was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index), calibration curves, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Decision curve analysis was used to analyze the clinical applicability of nomogram.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients who underwent TKA were included in this study, of which 28 patients were examined for lower extremity DVT preoperatively. Platelet crit, Platelet distribution width, Procalcitonin, prothrombin time, and D-dimer were predictors of preoperative occurrence of lower extremity DVT in the nomograms of the TKA patients. In addition, the areas under the curve of the ROC of the training and validation sets were 0.935 (95%CI: 0.880-0.990) and 0.854 (95%CI: 0.697-1.000), and the C-indices of the two sets were 0.919 (95%CI: 0.860-0.978) and 0.900 (95%CI: 0.791-1.009). The nomogram demonstrated precise risk prediction of preoperative DVT occurrence in TKA as confirmed by the calibration curve and decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This Nomogram demonstrates great differentiation, calibration and clinical validity. By assessing individual risk, clinicians can promptly detect the onset of DVT, facilitating additional life monitoring and necessary medical interventions to prevent the progression of DVT effectively.

Placenta Accreta Spectrum Part II: hemostatic considerations based on an extended review of the literature

"Placenta accreta spectrum" (PAS) is a rare but serious pregnancy condition where the placenta abnormally adheres to the uterine wall and fails to spontaneously release after delivery. When it occurs, PAS is associated with high maternal morbidity and mortality-as PAS management can be particularly challenging. This two-part review summarizes current evidence in PAS management, identifies its most challenging aspects, and offers evidence-based recommendations to improve management strategies and PAS outcomes. The first part of this two-part review highlighted the general anesthetic approach, surgical and interventional management strategies, specialized "centers of excellence," and multidisciplinary PAS treatment teams. The high rates of PAS morbidity and mortality are often provoked by PAS-associated coagulopathies and peripartal hemorrhage (PPH). Anesthesiologists need to be prepared for massive blood loss, transfusion, and to manage potential coagulopathies. In this second part of this two-part review, we specifically reviewed the current literature pertaining to hemostatic changes, blood loss, transfusion management, and postpartum venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in PAS patients. Taken together, the two parts of this review provide a comprehensive survey of challenging aspects in PAS management for anesthesiologists.

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis Alone in Body Contouring Surgery for Post Massive Weight Loss Patients: Is this Good Enough?

BACKGROUND

Although the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis effectively reduces Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) incidence after body contouring surgery, this might increase the risk of bleeding and hematoma formation. In this scenario, the use of mechanical prophylaxis alone could be an attractive alternative. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of DVT in patients with massive weight loss undergoing body contouring surgeries in whom mechanical prophylaxis alone was indicated.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent body contouring surgery after massive weight loss between 09/01/16-12/31/19 and received solely mechanical prophylaxis of VTD. Data collected included smoking habit, body mass index, history of cancer, use of contraceptives, magnitude of weight loss, Caprini scale, American society of anesthesiology physical status (ASA-PS) classification, and type and length of procedures. An analysis of DVT events during the postoperative period up to 90 days was undertaken.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients, in whom 82 BCS were performed, were included in this study. Most of them (89.1%) were female with a mean age of 47 ± 12 years. Mechanical prophylaxis methods used were elastic compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression boots, and early deambulation. In all cases, the average length of hospital stay was 26.3 ± 9.6 hours. Surgical times were less than 155,7 minutes in all procedures. Global incidence of DVT was 1.2% in a patient receiving mechanical prophylaxis alone. There were no bleeding complications or pulmonary embolism episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, DVT incidence in patients with mechanical prophylaxis alone was deemed acceptable if compared to the incidence reported in the literature. Individualization of the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in this group of patients is of paramount importance to reduce complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19).  The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.

Secondary Erosive Arthritis in a Young Lady - A Rare Manifestation of Primary Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Arthritis in primary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (PAPS) is a rare manifestation that is much more common in secondary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), particularly those associated with systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE), and has been reported to be non-erosive responding to conservative management. In this background, we describe a case of secondary erosive arthritis of knee (SEAK) in a female patient with PAPS.

CASE REPORT

Thirty-seven-year-old working women presented with chronic right knee pain for the past 2 years which was increasing in severity and interfering with her activities of daily living for the past 3 months. The patient was a known case of PAPS with a history of one early and one late abortion. On radiological examination, Grade IV secondary osteoarthritis knee was made out. The patient underwent total knee replacement. At 2 years follow-up, the patient had a good functional outcome. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of secondary osteoarthritis in PAPS requiring arthroplasty. Perioperative management is crucial in PAPS to prevent thromboembolic complications. Multimodality approach with strict patient compliance is a key to achieve good functional recovery.

CONCLUSION

SEAK can be a rare presentation of PAPS. Secondary causes like SLE or rheumatoid arthritis must be ruled out before a diagnosis of PAPS is made. Perioperative management in APS is critical and challenging. Multidisciplinary team approach involving internal medicine, anesthesiology, orthopedics, and rehabilitative departments is essential.

Prevention of thromboembolism in spinal cord injury -S1 guideline

Introduction

Traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury bears a high risk for thromboembolism in the first few months after injury. So far, there is no consented guideline regarding diagnostic and prophylactic measures to prevent thromboembolic events in spinal cord injury. Based on a Pubmed research of related original papers and review articles, international guidelines and a survey conducted in German-speaking spinal cord injury centers about best practice prophylactic procedures at each site, a consensus process was initiated, which included spinal cord medicine experts and representatives from medical societies involved in the comprehensive care of spinal cord injury patients. The recommendations comply with the German S3 practice guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Recommendations

Specific clinical or instrument-based screening methods are not recommended in asymptomatic SCI patients. Based on the severity of neurological dysfunction (motor completeness, ambulatory function) low dose low molecular weight heparins are recommended to be administered up to 24 weeks after injury. Besides, mechanical methods (compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression) can be applied. In chronic SCI patients admitted to the hospital, thromboembolism prophylactic measures need to be based on the reason for admission and the necessity for immobilization.

Conclusions

Recommendations for thromboembolism diagnostic and prophylactic measures follow best practice in most spinal cord injury centers. More research evidence needs to be generated to administer more individually tailored risk-adapted prophylactic strategies in the future, which may help to further prevent thromboembolic events without causing major side effects. The present article is a translation of the guideline recently published online (https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/179-015l_S1_Thromboembolieprophylaxe-bei-Querschnittlaehmung_2020-09.pdf).

Thromboembolism prophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery and trauma

Thromboembolism prophylaxis is well-established in major orthopaedic surgery (hip and knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery), with low-molecular-weight heparins the most often chosen agent. In recent years, however, direct-acting anticoagulants have been gaining ground and can be used in this scenario (except for hip fracture surgery). In the US, even aspirin could be indicated for low-risk patients who undergo hip or knee arthroplasty. For other orthopaedic procedures (leg surgery below the knee, ankle and foot; knee arthroscopy; arm surgery; and spine surgery), thromboembolism prophylaxis requires individualisation based on the patient's risk factors and the surgery's characteristics, given that the risk of venous thromboembolic disease is minor. In this patient group, the agent of choice is low-molecular-weight heparin, given that direct-acting anticoagulants are not approved for these types of surgery.

Critical appraisal of international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

Background

Pregnancy-associated Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in developed countries. In this study, we aimed to systematically review and critical appraisal of guidelines to compare the recommendations in pregnancy-associated VTE.

Methods

Guidelines in English between January 1, 2009 and November 31, 2018 were searched using Medline via PubMed, as well as the guidelines’ website. The guidelines containing the recommendations on pregnancy-associated VTE were included. Through the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, three reviewers appraised the quality of the included guidelines. The recommendations were also summarized and compared to analyze the consistency.

Results

Fifteen guidelines from 13 organizations were included. Ten guidelines from nine organizations, namely, ACCP, ANZJOG, ASH, Australia, ESC, Korea, RCOG, SASTH, SOCC, were regarded as “strongly recommended for use in practice”. Most of the included guidelines scored low in lower scores in domain 3 (Rigor of development) and domain 6 (Editorial independence). Recommendations on prevention are contained in ten guidelines while treatment are included in seven. The main conflicting recommendations were mainly at the anticoagulant choice for prevention on pregnant women and prevention after cesarean section. The duration of VTE treatment in pregnant women was also controversial.

Conclusions

In summary, the quality of pregnancy-associated VTE guidelines varied widely, especially in Rigor of development and Editorial independence. Recommendations were inconsistent both in prevention and treatment across guidelines. Increased efforts are required to provide high-quality evidence specific to the pregnancy population. Guideline developers should also pay more attention to methodological quality.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1183-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevention of Deep Venous Thromboembolism

The nature of many combat wounds puts patients at a high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), which fall under the broader disease category of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In addition to the hypercoagulable state induced by trauma, massive injuries to the extremities, prolonged immobility, and long fixed wing transport times to higher echelons of care are unique risk factors for venous thromboembolism in the combat-injured patient. These risk factors mandate aggressive prophylaxis for DVT and PE that can effectively be achieved by the use of lower extremity sequential compression devices and low dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. In addition, inferior vena cava filters are often used for PE prophylaxis when chemical DVT prophylaxis fails or is contraindicated. The following Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Trauma System (JTS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) discusses the current recommendations for the prevention of DVT and PE including the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).

Effectiveness of Sequential Compression Devices in Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medically Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness of sequential compression devices (SCDs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in medically ill hospitalized patients.

Materials and Methods:

Adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital from April 2015 to March 2016 were included. Patients on anticoagulants with or without SCDs were excluded. We analyzed VTE risk, length of hospital stay, and other comorbidities among propensity score-matched patients on SCDs and those without thromboprophylaxis (NONE).

Results:

Among 30,824 patients, 67 patients (0.22%) developed VTE during their hospital stays, with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 55 cases and pulmonary embolism (PE) in 12. VTE was seen in 47 out of 20,018 patients on SCDs (41 DVT, 6 PE) and 20 out of 10,819 patients without SCDs (14 DVT, 6 PE). Risk-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference in VTE incidence in the SCD group compared to NONE (odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.73, p=0.74).

Conclusion:

Compared to the NONE group, SCDs are not associated with decreased VTE incidence during hospital stay.

Different combination strategies for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled study

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different combination strategies for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after gynecologic surgery in patients at different levels of risk. This was a prospective multicenter randomized controlled study, in which 625 women who would undergo pelvic surgery for gynecologic diseases were stratified into three risk groups and then randomized into four groups to receive graduated compression stockings (GCS) alone (group A), GCS + low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (group B), GCS + intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (group C), and GCS + IPC + LMWH (group C), respectively. The overall incidence of DVT was 5.1%. Group A had the highest incidence of DVT (8.8%), followed by group C (5.2%), group B (3.8%), and group D (2.6%). There was a significant difference in the incidence of DVT between groups A and D. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in LMWH-treated patients (group B + group D) than in non-LMWH-treated patients (group A + group C). In conclusion, combination prophylaxis, especially LMWH-containing strategies, is better than monoprophylaxis in reducing VTE after gynecologic surgery. Risk-stratified prophylactic strategies should be implemented in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery, with LMWH-containing strategies being recommended for high-risk and very-high-risk patients.

Thromboseprophylaxe in der bariatrischen Chirurgie

Patienten der bariatrischen Chirurgie sind eine Hochrisikogruppe für venöse Thromboembo-lien. Die aktuellen Leitlinien der AWMF (Deutschland), NICE (Großbritannien) und der ACCP (USA) werden vorgestellt, und es erfolgt eine Diskussion der Literatur zum Thema. Frühmobilisation und physikalische Methoden sind die Basismaßnahmen zur Thromboseprophylaxe für alle Patienten. Zusätzlich ist in der Regel eine medikamentöse Prophylaxe indiziert. Mittel der Wahl sind heute niedermolekulare Heparine. Evidenz-basierte Dosisempfehlungen für bariatrische Patienten liegen nicht vor. Wir empfehlen eine viertel therapeutische Dosis von niedermolekularen Heparinen ohne Gewichts-Obergrenze einmal täglich s.c. Der Beginn soll am Tag vor der OP sein. Alternative ist Fondaparinux in einer Fixdosis von 1 x 2,5 mg s.c. Gegen das Thrombose- muss individuell das Blutungsrisiko abgewogen werden.

Safety and efficacy of postoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin after pancreatic surgery

PURPOSE

Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for preventing pulmonary embolism according to some abdominal surgery guidelines. However, few reports have so far described pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after pancreatic surgery. In addition, concern remains regarding postoperative bleeding due to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. We investigated the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, as postoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after pancreatic surgery.

METHODS

In this record-based retrospective study, the sample population comprised 151 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic surgery and received enoxaparin postsurgery at our institute between November 2009 and March 2014. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism after surgery, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of bleeding as an adverse effect of enoxaparin injection.

RESULTS

No symptomatic pulmonary embolism events occurred during the study. Major and minor bleeding events were experienced in 5 (3.3%) cases each. Four of these major events were caused by the rupture of a pseudoaneurysm with a pancreatic fistula not related to enoxaparin, and all events were treated safely with no mortalities in the study period. We found no factors related to minor bleeding with enoxaparin injection in a statistical comparison.

CONCLUSION

The use of enoxaparin is considered to be safe and effective for pulmonary embolism prophylaxis after pancreatic surgery.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

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.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology surgery

Gynecologic oncology patients are at a high-risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism and these events are a source of major morbidity and mortality. Given the availability of prophylaxis regimens, a structured comprehensive plan for prophylaxis is necessary to care for this population. There are many prophylaxis strategies and pharmacologic agents available to the practicing gynecologic oncologist. Current venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies include mechanical prophylaxis, preoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis, postoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis and extended duration pharmacologic prophylaxis that the patient continues at home after hospital discharge. In this review, we will summarize the available pharmacologic prophylaxis agents and discuss currently used prophylaxis strategies. When available, evidence from the gynecologic oncology patient population will be highlighted.

Pharmacological and Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: a Network Meta-Analysis of 12 Trials

Thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is widely used in critically ill patients. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy and safety of the various thromboprophylaxis techniques, especially mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the overall incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for between unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in critically ill patients. A Bayesian random effects model for multiple treatment comparisons was constructed. The primary outcome measure was the overall incidence of DVT at the longest follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of major bleeding, as defined by the original trials. Our analysis included 8,622 patients from 12 RCTs. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in patients treated with UFH (OR, 0.45; 95% CrI, 0.22-0.83) or LMWH (OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.18-0.72) than in patients in the control group. IPC was associated with a reduced incidence of DVT compared to the control group, but the effect was not statistically significant (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.23). The risk of DVT was similar for patients treated with UFH and LMWH (OR, 1.16; 95% CrI, 0.68-2.11). The risk of major bleeding was similar between the treatment groups in medical critically ill patients and also in critically ill patients with a high risk of bleeding. In critically ill patients, the efficacy of mechanical thromboprophylaxis in reducing the risk of DVT is not as robust as those of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is an update of the review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis versus single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4)). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected trials and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 22 trials (9137 participants) of which 15 were randomized trials (7762 participants). The overall risk of bias was mostly unclear or high due to selection and performance bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and this was downgraded from high to moderate or very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness.The rate of PE in the studies comparing IPC alone with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis was low, underpowering the analyses. The incidence of symptomatic PE was 0.79% with IPC, but ranged between 0.1 to 1% with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.34; 12 studies, 3017 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 4.10% in the IPC group and 2.19% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; 11 studies, 2934 participants, moderate quality evidence). The addition of an anticoagulant to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone; 0.66% (7/1053) in the IPC group and 4.0% (44/1102) in the combined group (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 10.77; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern; 0.1% (1/1053) in the IPC group to 1.5% (17/1102) in the combined group (OR 6.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 23.28; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence).We detected no difference between the type of surgery subgroups such as orthopedic and non-orthopedic participants for DVT incidence (P = 0.16). Tests for differences between type of surgery subgroups were not possible for PE incidence.Compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone, the use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 2.92% to 1.20% (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64; 10 studies, 3544 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 6.2% in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 2.9% in the combined group showing no difference between the combined and pharmacological prophylaxis groups (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.03; 11 studies, 2866 participants, moderate quality evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (bleeding: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.14, very low quality evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, very low quality evidence, 3 studies, 244 participants).No difference was detected between the type of surgery subgroups for PE incidence (P = 0.68) or for DVT incidence (P = 0.10).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence suggests that combining IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis, compared with IPC or pharmacological prophylaxis alone, decreases the incidence of DVT when compared to compression, and incidence of PE when compared to anticoagulation. Moderate quality evidence suggests that there is no difference between combined and single modalities in the incidence of PE when compared with compression alone and DVT when compared with anticoagulation alone. The quality of evidence for PE or DVT was downgraded to moderate due to imprecision or risk of bias in study methodology, highlighting the need for further research. Moderate quality evidence suggests the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed for IPC when added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low quality evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The quality of evidence for bleeding was downgraded to moderate due to indirectness or very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, indirectness and imprecision highlighting the need for further research. Nevertheless, the results of the current review agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised patients (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed.

Acute transverse myelitis arising after combined general and thoracic epidural anesthesia

Acute transverse myelitis after surgery is a rare condition, but this complication is devastating. The relationship between anesthetic procedures and acute transverse myelitis is controversial. A 46-year-old woman was scheduled a colostomy closure, and general anesthesia with thoracic epidural anesthesia was performed. Epidural catheter was inserted at the T10–11 interspace, and insertion was smooth, and no blood or cerebrospinal fluid leakage was seen. However, 28 h after the surgery, the patient complained motor, sensory, and autonomic dysfunction. Two days after onset, a magnetic resonance imaging study demonstrated intramedullary hyperintensity, particularly in the gray matter, extending from T5–T9 and then diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis followed by the several examinations. High-dose IV methylprednisolone treatment was initiated and neurologic function restored 2 months after onset. Transverse myelitis may unpredictably occur following surgery. We are not able to determine the pathogenic relationship between anesthesia and myelitis with certainty, but proper diagnostic approach to myelitis may improve the prognosis.

A randomized, open-label trial of edoxaban in Japanese patients with severe renal impairment undergoing lower-limb orthopedic surgery

Background

Edoxaban is an oral, direct, factor Xa inhibitor approved in Japan for thromboembolic prophylaxis after lower-limb orthopedic surgery (LLOS), but contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment (SRI; creatinine clearance [CL_CR] ≥15 to <30 mL/min).

Methods

This open-label study compared the safety of edoxaban 15 mg once daily in Japanese patients with SRI to that of edoxaban 30 mg in patients with mild renal impairment (MiRI; CL_CR ≥50 to ≤80 mL/min; N = 30) undergoing LLOS. Patients with CL_CR ≥20 to <30 mL/min were randomized to receive edoxaban 15 mg (N = 22) or subcutaneous fondaparinux 1.5 mg once daily (N = 21). All patients with CL_CR ≥15 to <20 mL/min received edoxaban 15 mg (N = 7). Treatment was administered for 11 to 14 days.

Results

Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 6.7%, 3.4%, and 5.0% of patients in the MiRI edoxaban 30-mg, SRI edoxaban 15-mg, and SRI fondaparinux groups, respectively; there were no major bleeding events. No thromboembolic events occurred. At all time points assessed, edoxaban plasma concentrations and changes in coagulation biomarkers were similar between the SRI and MiRI groups.

Conclusions

These results suggest edoxaban 15 mg once daily is well tolerated in Japanese patients with SRI undergoing LLOS.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01857583.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12959-014-0034-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Different types of intermittent pneumatic compression devices for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients after total hip replacement

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) is an effective treatment for reducing pain and improving function and quality of life in patients with hip disorders. While this operation is very successful, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are significant complications after THR. Different types of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices have been used for thrombosis prophylaxis in patients following THR. Available devices differ in compression garments, location of air bladders, patterns of pump pressure cycles, compression profiles, cycle length, duration of inflation time and deflation time, or cycling mode such as automatic or constant cycling devices. Despite the widely accepted use of IPC for the treatment of arterial and venous diseases, the relative effectiveness of different types of IPC systems as prophylaxis against thrombosis after THR is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of different IPC devices with respect to the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients after THR.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Coordinator searched the Specialised Register (November 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10). Clinical trial databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. Reference lists of relevant articles were also screened. There were no limits imposed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or, if necessary, referred to a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one quasi-randomized controlled study with 121 study participants comparing two types of IPC devices met the inclusion criteria. The authors found no cases of symptomatic DVT or PE in either the calf-thigh compression group or the plantar compression group during the first three weeks after the THR. The calf-thigh pneumatic compression was more effective than plantar compression for reducing thigh swelling during the early postoperative stage. The strength of the evidence in this review is weak as only one trial was included and it was classified as having a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials to make an informed choice of IPC device for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) following total hip replacement. More research is urgently required, ideally a multicenter, properly designed RCT including a sufficient number of participants. Clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality, imaging-diagnosed asymptomatic VTE and major complications must be considered.

Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols reduces complication rates, accelerates recovery and shortens hospital stay. Presently, there are no comprehensive guidelines for perioperative care for gastrectomy.

METHODS

An international working group within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society assembled an evidence-based comprehensive framework for optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and were discussed until consensus was reached within the group. The quality of evidence was rated 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low'. Recommendations were graded as 'strong' or 'weak'.

RESULTS

The available evidence has been summarized and recommendations are given for 25 items, eight of which contain procedure-specific evidence. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The present evidence-based framework provides comprehensive advice on optimal perioperative care for the patient undergoing gastrectomy and facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomized trials for further research.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can occur after major general surgery. Pulmonary embolism is recognized as the most common identifiable cause of death in hospitalized patients in the United States. The risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is higher in colorectal surgical procedures compared with general surgical procedures. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in this population is estimated to be 0.2 to 0.3%. Prevention of VTE is considered a patient-safety measure in most mandated quality initiatives. The measures for prevention of VTE include mechanical methods (graduated compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression devices) and pharmacologic agents. A combination of mechanical and pharmacologic methods produces the best results. Patients undergoing surgery should be stratified according to their risk of VTE based on patient risk factors, disease-related risk factors, and procedure-related risk factors. The type of prophylaxis should be commensurate with the risk of VTE based on the composite risk profile.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing combined compression and anticoagulation with either modality alone for prevention of venous thromboembolism after surgery

Background

Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality, there is still no consensus on the optimal strategy for VTE prevention after major surgery. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and risks of thromboprophylaxis with both compression and anticoagulation, compared with either modality alone.

Methods

A systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible randomized trials. The literature search and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. Outcomes of interest were deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, bleeding, limb injury and mortality.

Results

Twenty-five studies were eligible for inclusion. Adding compression to anticoagulation decreased the risk of DVT by 49 per cent (risk ratio (RR) 0·51, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·36 to 0·73). The corresponding funnel plot suggested publication bias and, overall, the evidence for this comparison was judged to be of low quality. Adding anticoagulation to compression decreased the risk of DVT by 44 per cent (RR 0·56, 0·45 to 0·69) while increasing the risk of bleeding (RR 1·74, 1·29 to 2·34). There was no suggestion of publication bias and the evidence for this comparison was judged to be of moderate quality.

Conclusion

Combined compression and anticoagulation is more effective at preventing postoperative DVT than either modality alone. However, adding anticoagulation to compression increases the risk of bleeding, and the evidence that adding compression to anticoagulation reduces VTE risk is of low quality.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Changing Trends

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been identified as an immediate threat to patients undergoing major orthopedic procedures such as total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given the known dangers of VTE, arthroplasty surgeons are sensitive to the need for VTE thromboprophylaxis. However, the modalities of thromboprophylaxis used to minimize the risks to patients have been variable. Clinical practice guidelines have been published by several professional organizations, while some hospitals have established their own protocols. The 2 most popular guidelines are those published by the Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), both from North America. Prior to 2012, these recommendations varied depending on underlying definitions, methodology, and goals of the 2 groups. For the first time, both groups have similar recommendations that focus on minimizing symptomatic VTE and bleeding complications. The key to determining the appropriate chemoprophylaxis for patients is to balance efficacy of a prophylactic agent, while being safe in regards to bleeding complications. However, a multimodal approach that focuses on early postoperative mobilization and the use of mechanical prophylaxis, in addition to chemoprophylaxis, is essential.

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

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth and are at increased risk of VTE on the incidence of VTE and adverse effects of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2013). 

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

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials, at an overall moderate risk of bias, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Only 16 trials, involving 2592 women, assessing a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data to the review. Six trials compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: heparin versus no treatment/placebo (two trials), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (four trials). Nine trials assessed prophylaxis after caesarean section: four compared heparin with placebo; three compared LMWH with UFH; one compared hydroxyethyl starch (HES) with UFH; and one compared five-day versus 10-day LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis with UFH in the postnatal period (including following vaginal births).For antenatal prophylaxis, none of the included trials reported on maternal mortality, and no differences were detected for the other primary outcomes of symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo or when LMWH was compared with UFH. The risk ratios (RR) for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: antenatal LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99 (two trials, 56 women); and antenatal LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49 (four trials, 404 women). No differences were shown when antenatal LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo for any secondary outcomes. Antenatal LMWH was associated with fewer adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; two trials, 226 women), and fewer fetal losses (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; three trials, 343 women) when compared with UFH. In two trials, antenatal LMWH compared with UFH was associated with fewer bleeding episodes (defined in one trial of 121 women as bruises > 1 inch (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.36); and in one trial of 105 women as injection site haematomas of ≥ 2 cm, bleeding during delivery or other bleeding (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53)), however in a further trial of 117 women no difference between groups was shown for bleeding at delivery. The results for these secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution, being derived from small trials that were not of high methodological quality.For post-caesarean/postnatal prophylaxis, only one trial comparing five-day versus 10-day LMWH after caesarean section reported on maternal mortality, observing no deaths. No differences were seen across any of the comparisons for the other primary outcomes (symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT). The RRs for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: post-caesarean LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27 (four trials, 840 women); post-caesarean LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99 (three trials, 217 women); post-caesarean five-day versus 10-day LMWH, RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78 (one trial, 646 women); postnatal UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36 (one trial, 210 women). For prophylaxis after caesarean section, in one trial (of 580 women), women receiving UFH and physiotherapy were more likely to have bleeding complications ('complications hémorragiques') than women receiving physiotherapy alone (RR 5.03; 95% CI 2.49 to 10.18). In two additional trials, that compared LMWH with placebo, no difference between groups in bleeding episodes (major bleeding; major bruising; bleeding/bruising reported at discharge) were detected. No other differences in secondary outcomes were shown when LMWH was compared with UFH post-caesarean, nor when post-caesarean HES was compared with UFH, post-caesarean five-day LMWH was compared with 10-day LMWH, or when UFH was compared to no heparin postnatally.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period, with the small number of differences detected in this review being largely derived from trials that were not of high methodological quality. Large scale, high-quality randomised trials of currently used interventions are warranted.

Risk factors for inpatient venous thromboembolism despite thromboprophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the hospital. Adequate thromboprophylaxis has reduced the rate of hospital-acquired VTE substantially; however, some inpatients still develop VTE even when they are prescribed thromboprophylaxis. Predictors associated with thromboprophylaxis failure are unclear. In this study, we aimed to identify risk factors for inpatient VTE despite thromboprophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a case-control study to identify independent predictors for inpatient VTE. Among patients discharged from the BJC HealthCare system between January 2010 and May 2011, we matched 94 cases who developed in-hospital VTE while taking thromboprophylaxis to 272 controls who did not develop VTE. Matching was done by hospital, patient age, month and year of discharge. We used multivariate conditional logistic regression to develop a VTE prediction model.

RESULTS

We identified five independent risk factors for in-hospital VTE despite thromboprophylaxis: hospitalization for cranial surgery, intensive care unit admission, admission leukocyte count >13,000/mm(3), presence of an indwelling central venous catheter, and admission from a long-term care facility.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified five risk factors associated with the development of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis in the hospital setting. By recognizing these high-risk patients, clinicians can prescribe aggressive VTE prophylaxis judiciously and remain vigilant for signs or symptoms of VTE.

Prevention of VTE in patients having major orthopedic surgery

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious risk after major orthopedic surgery (MOS) including total knee replacement, total hip replacement and hip fracture surgery. This risk can be reduced with several pharmacologic and mechanical prophylactic approaches, and the choice among them depends on their ability to reduce VTE with an acceptable increase in adverse events, especially major bleeding complications. Improvements in medical and surgical care have led to a progressive decrease in the risk of VTE after MOS with an estimated baseline risk with contemporary practice of approximately 4.3 % up to day 39 after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin is the most thoroughly studied thromboprophylactic agent following MOS and demonstrates good effectiveness with an acceptable rate of bleeding complications. Warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban have all been studied in large trials in comparison with low-molecular-weight heparin and also show an acceptable benefit: risk ratio. Mechanical approaches including graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression and venous foot pump also offer protection against VTE, but there is less evidence is available regarding their effectiveness and risks. Combination therapy consisting of an antithrombotic agent and mechanical device is probably more effective than either alone. The appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis after MOS results in reduced VTE with acceptable bleeding risks.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can occur after major general surgery. Pulmonary embolism is recognized as the most common identifiable cause of death in hospitalized patients in the United States. The risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is higher in colorectal surgical procedures compared with general surgical procedures. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in this population is estimated to be 0.2 to 0.3%. Prevention of VTE is considered a patient-safety measure in most mandated quality initiatives. The measures for prevention of VTE include mechanical methods (graduated compression stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression devices) and pharmacologic agents. A combination of mechanical and pharmacologic methods produces the best results. Patients undergoing surgery should be stratified according to their risk of VTE based on patient risk factors, disease-related risk factors, and procedure-related risk factors. The type of prophylaxis should be commensurate with the risk of VTE based on the composite risk profile.

[The new guidelines for deep venous thromboembolic disease prophylaxis in elective hip and knee replacement surgery. Are we nearer or further away from a consensus?]

Venous thromboembolism events (VTE) prophylaxis after elective hip or knee replacement surgery is a subject of controversy. Three sets of guidelines (NICE, ACCP and AAOS) on this topic have recently been updated. The guidelines have points in common: prophylaxis is necessary, it is recommended to combine mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in patients who have suffered a previous VTE, isolated mechanical measures and low molecular weight heparins are effective, the new oral anticoagulants and fondaparinux are effective drugs. There is some consensus in recommending regional anaesthesia, in advising against echography studies in asymptomatic patients, and in the promotion of early mobilisation of the patient. There is controversy over the most suitable pharmacological treatment and the time of starting, and the duration of this, as well as on vena cava filters, antiplatelet drugs, and VTE or bleeding risk factors.

Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The incidence varies according to the method used to measure the DVT and the location of the thrombosis. Due to prolonged rest and coagulation abnormalities, trauma patients are at increased risk of thrombus formation. Thromboprohylaxis, either mechanical or pharmacological, may decrease mortality and morbidity in trauma patients who survive beyond the first day in hospital, by decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.A previous systematic review did not find evidence of effectiveness for either pharmacological or mechanical interventions. However, this systematic review was conducted 10 years ago and most of the included studies were of poor quality. Since then new trials have been conducted. Although current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients, there has not been a comprehensive and updated systematic review since the one published.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients on mortality and incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. To compare the effects of different thromboprophylaxis interventions and their effects according to the type of trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched April 30 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2009, issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to April (week 3) 2009, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to (week 17) April 2009, PubMed (searched 29 April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled clinical trials involving people of any age with major trauma defined by one or more of the following criteria: physiological: penetrating or blunt trauma with more than two organs and unstable vital signs, anatomical: people with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) higher than 9, mechanism: people who are involved in a 'high energy' event with a risk for severe injury despite stable or normal vital signs. We excluded trials that only recruited outpatients, trials that recruited people with hip fractures only, or people with acute spinal injuries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors, in pairs (LB and CM, EF and RC), independently examined the titles and the abstracts, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the trials and analysed the data. PP resolved any disagreement between the authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included (n=3005). Four trials compared the effect of any type (mechanical and/or pharmacological) of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT in people with trauma (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84). Mechanical prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.73). Pharmacological prophylaxis was more effective than mechanical methods at reducing the risk of DVT (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95). LMWH appeared to reduce the risk of DVT compared to UH (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). People who received both mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis had a lower risk of DVT (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that thromboprophylaxis reduces mortality or PE in any of the comparisons assessed. However, we found some evidence that thromboprophylaxis prevents DVT. Although the strength of the evidence was not high, taking into account existing information from other related conditions such as surgery, we recommend the use of any DVT prophylactic method for people with severe trauma.

Evidence-based review for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence for different interventions in the preoperative, perioperative and post-operative care for people undergoing elective total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement surgery.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary working group comprising consumers, managers and clinicians from the areas of orthopaedics, rheumatology, aged care and rehabilitation evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews/meta-analyses concerning aspects of preoperative, perioperative and post-operative clinical care periods for THR/TKR through systematic searching of Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from May 2007 to April 2011. Multiple reviewers determined study eligibility and one or more members extracted primary study findings. The body of evidence were assessed and specific recommendations made according to NHMRC guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-five aspects were identified for review. Recommendations for 16 of 25 areas of care were made: impact of waiting, multidisciplinary preparation, preoperative exercise, smoking cessation, interventions for comorbid conditions, predictors of outcome, clinical pathways, implementation of a blood management programme, antibiotic prophylaxis, regional anaesthesia and analgesia, use of a tourniquet in knee replacement, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, early post-operative cryotherapy, early mobilization and continuous passive motion. In the post-operative period, study heterogeneity across all aspects of care precluded specific recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a deficiency in the quality of the evidence supporting key aspects of the continuum of care for primary THR/TKR surgery. Consequently, recommendations were limited. Prioritization and funding for research into areas likely to impact clinical practice and patient outcomes after elective joint replacement surgery are the next important steps.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Different types of intermittent pneumatic compression devices for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients after total hip replacement

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) is an effective treatment for reducing pain and improving function and quality of life in patients with hip disorders. While this operation is very successful, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are significant complications after THR. Different types of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices have been used for thrombosis prophylaxis in patients following THR. Available devices differ in compression garments, location of air bladders, patterns of pump pressure cycles, compression profiles, cycle length, duration of inflation time and deflation time, or cycling mode such as automatic or constant cycling devices. Despite the widely accepted use of IPC for the treatment of arterial and venous diseases, the relative effectiveness of different types of IPC systems as prophylaxis against thrombosis after THR is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of different IPC devices with respect to the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients after THR.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Coordinator searched the Specialised Register (May 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (April Week 3 2012) and EMBASE (Week 17 2012). Clinical trial databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. Reference lists of obtained articles were also screened. There were no limits imposed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or, if necessary, referred to a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one quasi-randomized controlled study with 121 study participants comparing two types of IPC devices met the inclusion criteria. The authors found no cases of symptomatic DVT or PE in either the calf-thigh compression group or the plantar compression group during the first three weeks after the THR. The calf-thigh pneumatic compression was more effective than plantar compression for reducing thigh swelling during the early postoperative stage. The strength of the evidence in this review is weak as only one trial was included and it was classified as having a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials to make an informed choice of IPC device for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) following total hip replacement. More research is urgently required, ideally a multicenter, properly designed RCT including a sufficient number of participants. Clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality, imaging-diagnosed asymptomatic VTE and major complications must be considered.

Venous Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: Prevention and Management

Cancer is an important risk factor for venous thrombosis. Venous thromboembolism is one of the most common complications of cancer and the second leading cause of death in these patients. Recent research has given insight into mechanism and various risk factors in cancer patients which predispose to thromboembolism. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on the prophylaxis, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism in these patients.

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

BACKGROUND

VTE is a serious, but decreasing complication following major orthopedic surgery. This guideline focuses on optimal prophylaxis to reduce postoperative pulmonary embolism and DVT.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow those 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

In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, we recommend the use of one of the following rather than no antithrombotic prophylaxis: low-molecular-weight heparin; fondaparinux; dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban (total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty but not hip fracture surgery); low-dose unfractionated heparin; adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist; aspirin (all Grade 1B); or an intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCD) (Grade 1C) for a minimum of 10 to 14 days. We suggest the use of low-molecular-weight heparin in preference to the other agents we have recommended as alternatives (Grade 2C/2B), and in patients receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, we suggest adding an IPCD during the hospital stay (Grade 2C). We suggest extending thromboprophylaxis for up to 35 days (Grade 2B). In patients at increased bleeding risk, we suggest an IPCD or no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). In patients who decline injections, we recommend using apixaban or dabigatran (all Grade 1B). We suggest against using inferior vena cava filter placement for primary prevention in patients with contraindications to both pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). We recommend against Doppler (or duplex) ultrasonography screening before hospital discharge (Grade 1B). For patients with isolated lower-extremity injuries requiring leg immobilization, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B). For patients undergoing knee arthroscopy without a history of VTE, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal strategies for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery include pharmacologic and mechanical approaches.

Coagulation Day 2010: an Austrian survey on the routine of thromboprophylaxis in intensive care

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but often overlooked life-threatening complication of critical illness. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to assess current practice of thromboprophylaxis as well as adherence to international guidelines.

METHODS

After ethics committee approval, all intensive care units in Austrian hospitals treating adult patients were invited to participate in this web-based survey. Anonymized data on each patient treated at the participating intensive care units on Coagulation Day 2010 were collected using an electronic case report form. Risk assessment, choice and monitoring of anticoagulants, means of mechanical prophylaxis, and demographic data were recorded.

RESULTS

Data from 325 critically ill patients were collected. Patients had a median of four risk factors for thrombosis and 6 % suffered from VTE. Of the 325 patients, 80 % received low molecular weight heparins subcutaneously, 10 % received unfractionated heparin intravenously, 1 % received alternative anticoagulants and 9 % received no pharmacological prophylaxis. Mechanical prophylaxis was used in 49 % with a predominant use of graduated compression stockings. In 39 % a combination of pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis was applied and 5 % received no prophylaxis at all. Overall guideline adherence was 40 % on Coagulation Day 2010.

CONCLUSION

Current practice of thromboprophylaxis is predominantly based on the administration of low molecular weight heparins prescribed at rather arbitrary doses without a discernible relationship to drug monitoring, thromboembolic risk factors, vasopressor use or fluid balance. The use of mechanical prophylaxis, evaluation of risk scores and overall guideline adherence must be further encouraged by education, training and communication.

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.