Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with recent reduced mobility: Methodology for the EXCLAIM study

Update on the Pharmacological Actions of Enoxaparin in Nonsurgical Patients

Low-molecular-weight heparins are a class of drugs derived from the enzymatic depolymerization of unfractionated heparin that includes enoxaparin. Several studies have been performed on enoxaparin in recent years, in particular for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Furthermore, the use of enoxaparin has been extended to other clinical situations that require antithrombotic pharmacological prevention, such as hemodialysis and recurrent abortion. In this review, we report the main clinical experiences of using enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients.

Evidence-based pharmacological prophylaxis recommendations for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Venous thromboembolism is a complex multifactorial disease considered the most common cause of preventable deaths in hospitalized patients. Recommendations about pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients are available in clinical practice guidelines for optimization of healthcare delivery and improvement of patient outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines using ADAPTE to synthesize recommendations for pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients at a medium complexity university hospital. Recommendations for pharmacological prophylaxis were extracted from seven clinical practice guidelines considered of high quality after assessment with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. These recommendations will support discussion with specialists and implementation of practices in the setting of the hospital studied.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for hospitalized adult patients: a survey of US health care providers on attitudes and practices

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable mortality among hospitalized patients, but appropriate risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis remain underutilized or misapplied.

Objectives

We conducted an electronic survey of US health care providers to explore attitudes, practices, and barriers related to thromboprophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients and at discharge.

Results

A total of 607 US respondents completed the survey: 63.1% reported working in an academic hospital, 70.7% identified as physicians, and hospital medicine was the most frequent specialty (52.1%). The majority of respondents agreed that VTE prophylaxis is important (98.8%; 95% CI: 97.6%-99.5%) and that current measures are safe (92.6%; 95% CI: 90.2%-94.5%) and effective (93.8%; 95% CI: 91.6%-95.6%), but only half (52.0%; 95% CI: 47.9%-56.0%) believed that hospitalized patients at their institution are on appropriate VTE prophylaxis almost all the time. One-third (35.4%) reported using a risk assessment model (RAM) to determine VTE prophylaxis need; 44.9% reported unfamiliarity with RAMs. The most common recommendation for improving rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis was to leverage technology. A majority of respondents (84.5%) do not reassess a patient's need for VTE prophylaxis at discharge, and a minority educates patients about the risk (16.2%) or symptoms (18.9%) of VTE at discharge.

Conclusion

Despite guideline recommendations to use RAMs, the majority of providers in our survey do not use them. A majority of respondents believed that technology could help improve VTE prophylaxis rates. A majority of respondents do not reassess the risk of VTE at discharge or educate patients about this risk of VTE at discharge.

Anticoagulants after Discharge in Patients with COVID-19: What we Know at the End of 2021

This review discusses reasons for prolonged use of anticoagulants after discharge of patients with COVID-19 without additional indication for anticoagulation. Data regarding rate of thrombotic and thromboembolic complications in patients with COVID-19 after discharge from the hospital are presented. Large randomized controlled trials EXCLAIM, ADOPT, MAGELLAN, APEX  and MARINER with prolonged use of anticoagulants in patients hospitalized  with acute nonsurgical diseases  before pandemia  of COVID-19 are discussed.  The first prospective  randomized controlled  trial MICHELLE with direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban in a dose 10 mg once daily after discharge of patients with COVID-19 with high risk at least venous thromboembolism are analyzed. It seems that the most relevant approach  for the determination  of indications for prolonged use of anticoagulants in doses dedicated for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism after discharge of patients with COVID-19 without apparent indication for anticoagulation is a modified IMPROVE VTE risk score with the addition of elevated in-hospital D-dimer  level. And the most well-studied approach  for anticoagulation in these patients is a direct peroral anticoagulant rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 35 (and  possibly up to 45) days after discharge.

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent and serious complication in hospitalized medical patients. Pulmonary embolism is the most common preventable cause of hospital death. VTE extends hospitalization, with a higher resource consumption and an increase in healthcare costs. Risk factors for VTE include intrinsic factors and those related to hospitalization. It is important to know and to identify these factors at the moment of hospital admission and during the course of disease. VTE prophylaxis has demonstrated to be an efficient and effective action. Its implementation reduces life-threatening pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and death rate three months after discharge. An individual and detailed assessment of prophylaxis risk-benefit is a priority. In our country, low molecular weight heparins are still the first option for VTE pharmacological prophylaxis. In those patients at high risk of bleeding or in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated mechanical methods could be used.

Anticoagulation in Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients: Potential Impact of NOACs

While substantial evidence supports the use of standard-duration injectable anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, consensus is mixed about which agents may be preferred in acutely ill patients with ongoing need of VTE prophylaxis past the first 10-day duration of hospital stay and post-discharge. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) provide Factor Xa inhibition to prevent the thrombin generation essential in thromboembolism development, but evidence for the efficacy and safety of most NOACs is conflicting regarding extended-duration prophylaxis. Enoxaparin, a preferred injectable anticoagulant in standard-duration VTE prophylaxis, has shown an increased risk of major bleeding events when used in extended-duration prophylaxis, which outweighs its benefit. Rivaroxaban has demonstrated efficacy in extended-duration prophylaxis, but both rivaroxaban and apixaban have shown increased risks of major bleeding. Betrixaban remains the only NOAC approved in the USA for extended-duration VTE prophylaxis, and it demonstrates efficacy, with fewer adverse effects than other NOACs. This review evaluates the appropriateness of different NOAC agents compared with current therapies for the extended-duration VTE prophylaxis setting in medically ill populations.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Management. Where Do We Stand in 2019?

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now widely used for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that now includes cancer-associated thrombosis. This review summarizes recent data on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, new challenges, guidelines, and updates as well as the current place for DOACs on the emerging cancer-associated VTE management landscape.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis with Heparins for Arteriovenous Fistula Failure in Pediatric Patients

Background

To reduce the incidence of early arteriovenous fistula failure (AVF) due to thrombosis in pediatric hemodialysis (HD) patients, a primary thromboprophylaxis (PTP) protocol was initiated at author's institution in June 2005. The goal of this study is to report author's experience with this protocol one year later.

Methods and Results

19 AVFs (14 patients, Historical group) and 8 AVFs (7 patients, PTP group) were created prior to and after initiation of PTP respectively. PTP consisted of unfractionated heparin (5–10 units/kg/hr) infusion postoperatively, followed by subcutaneous low molecular weigh heparin (LMWH) until AVF was matured. LMWH dosing was “Prophylactic” (0.5 mg/kg/d, anti-factor Xa levels: peak 0.25–0.5 and trough < 0.3 units/mL) and “Therapeutic” (1 mg/kg/d, anti-factor Xa level: peak 0.5-1 and trough < 0.5 units/mL) based on thrombosis predisposition. In Historical group, 12 AVFs did not receive thromboprophylaxis (No-treatment group), 5 received 81 mg aspirin/day (Aspirin group), and 2 received LMWH. In No-treatment group 10/12 AVFs failed: 9 thromboses and 1 stenosis. In Aspirin group 1/5 AVFs failed due to thrombosis. In PTP group 1/8 AVFs failed due to stenosis; the first 2 AVFs developed hematoma prompting a reduction in LMWH dose and monitoring trough anti-factor Xa levels, one AVF required thrombectomy after LMWH was transiently held. The incidence of thrombosis was less in PTP group (12.5%) when comparing to No-treatment group (83%) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

PTP is a feasible option to prevent early thrombosis at AVF. Close clinical and laboratory monitoring including trough anti-factor Xa levels is required to adjust optimum anticoagulation. Larger studies are needed to clarify safety and efficacy of our PTP protocol.

Impact of age on the efficacy and safety of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in medical patients

The EXCLAIM study enrolled hospitalised acutely ill medical patients with age >40 years and recently-reduced mobility into a trial of extended-duration anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the impact of age on patient outcomes. After completion of open-label therapy with enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily (10 ± 4 days), eligible patients underwent randomisation to receive double-blind therapy of enoxaparin (n=2,975) or placebo (n=2,988) for 28 ± 4 days. During follow-up, the venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk increased with age in both treatment groups. In patients with age >75 years, those who received extended-duration enoxaparin had lower incidence of VTE (2.5% vs 6.7%; absolute difference [AD] [95% confidence interval]: −4.2% [−6.5, −2.0]), proximal deep-vein thrombosis (2.5% vs 6.6%; AD −4.1 % [−6.2, −2.0]), and symptomatic VTE (0.3% vs 1.5%; AD −1.2% [−2.2, −0.3]), in comparison to those who received placebo. In patients with age ≤75 years, those who received enoxaparin had reduced VTE (2.4% vs 2.8%; AD −0.4% [−1.5, 0.7]) and symptomatic VTE (0.2% vs 0.7%; AD −0.6% [−1.0, −0.1]) in comparison to those who received placebo. In both age subgroups, patients who received enoxaparin had increased rates of major bleeding versus those who received placebo: age >75 years (0.6% vs 0.2%; AD +0.3% [−0.2, 0.9], respectively); age ≤75 years (0.7% vs 0.2%; AD +0.5% [0.1, 0.9]). Patients in both age subgroups that received enoxaparin had similar low bleeding rates (0.6% and 0.7%, respectively). VTE risk increased with age, though the bleeding risk did not. Patients with age >75 years had a more favourable benefit-to-harm profile than younger patients.

Prevalence of deep vein thrombosis in acutely admitted ambulatory non-surgical intensive care unit patients

Background

Data on prevalence rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in different patient populations are scarce. Most studies on this topic focus on older patients or patients with malignancies, immobilization or thrombophilia. Less is known about the VTE risk profile of non-surgical patients presenting with a variety of medical diseases of differing severity. Aim of the present study was to investigate VTE prevalence in a pospective cohort study of ambulatory medical intensive care unit patients within 24 h after acute admission.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of 102 consecutive patients after acute admission to medical intensive care unit. Ultrasound compression sonography, APACHE-II-Scoring and laboratory examination was performed within 24 hours after admission.Possible determinants of a high risk of VTE were examined. In all patients with a confirmed diagnosis of DVT or suspicion of PE thoracic computer tomography (CT) was performed.

Results

VTE was found in 7.8% out of 102 of patients, mean APACHE-II-Score was 14 (mortality risk of about 15%). Thrombus location was femoropopliteal in 5 patients, iliacal in 2 and peroneal in 1 patient. Five VTE patients had concomitant PE (62.5% of VTE, 4.9% of all patients). No predictors of prevalent VTE were identified from univariable regression analysis although relative risk was high in patients with a history of smoking (RR 3.40), immobility (RR 2.50), and elevated D-Dimer levels (RR 3.49).

Conclusions

Prevalent VTE and concomitant PE were frequent in acutely admitted ICU patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Benefits and Risks of Preventing Thromboembolism With Enoxaparin in Patients With General Surgery in Real World—The CLEVER Study

Background:

We aimed to document enoxaparin use in real world and identify the risk factors for bleeding complications.

Methods:

Postauthorization study in 448 surgical patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis. Complete compression ultrasound (CCUS) was performed at day 10 ± 3.

Results:

During treatment, 11 of 448 patients had suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) but none confirmed. One patient had symptoms of pulmonary embolism ([PE] 0.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.21-0.66). There were no asymptomatic cases detected upon CCUS. At the 90-day follow-up, 4 (0.9%) of the 440 patients had DVT symptoms (95% CI 0.02-1.80) and none had PE; 5.4% had major and 11.6% any type of bleeding complications. Major bleeding was more frequent in those with kidney disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.53), those who are bedridden (OR 5.49), those with peridural indwelling catheters (OR 4.01), and those on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR 3.33).

Conclusions:

Enoxaparin is effective and safe in surgical patients to prevent venous thromboembolism.

Relevance of immobility and importance of risk assessment management for medically ill patients

Recent or continued immobility is a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical patients. Patients may benefit from thromboprophylaxis; however, its optimal duration remains unclear. The Extended Clinical Prophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical Patients (EXCLAIM) study was the first trial to systematically investigate how the degree of immobilization relates to the risk of developing VTE. EXCLAIM offers insights into the duration of VTE risk associated with reduced mobility and helps identify which patients would benefit most from extended-duration thromboprophylaxis. Further recent studies suggest that extended-duration thromboprophylaxis may be in order in certain high-risk patients to protect the patients from the risk of VTE events occurring, particularly in the posthospitalization period. Baseline d-dimer data and level of mobility could be included in risk assessment. Physicians are recommended to consider the use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis based on individual risk assessment management (RAM) and balance of benefit and harm.

Heparin in the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism and other thrombotic diseases

In this chapter, we discuss the key-role of heparin in the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and other thrombotic disorders. Heparin exerts its antithrombotic effects by facilitating the ability of antithrombin (AT), a plasma serum protease inhibitor, to inhibit thrombin (factor IIa) and factor Xa. Different heparin formulations can be used for the prophylaxis of thrombosis and treatment, going from unfractionated heparin (UFH), different low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) preparations, to the recently introduced synthetic pentasaccharide fondaparinux. All heparin formulations can be administrated only by the parenteral route, including the intravenous (iv) and the subcutaneous (sc) route. We will overview the clinical evidence for the use of different heparin formulations in the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism, of superficial vein thrombosis and of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Special issues, like the use of heparins in pregnancy or in children, will also be discussed. Although heparin is an almost one century-old drug it remains a cornerstone of antithrombotic treatment.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with heart failure

This review is focussed on the problem of venous thromboembolism in patients with heart failure (HF). The results of the major clinical trials of antithrombotic therapy in HF patients are presented. The authors discuss comparative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of unfractionated heparins, low molecular weight heparins, and fondaparinux. The results of the two trials, MAGELLAN and ADOPT, are expected to clarify the clinical potential of such oral anticoagulants as rivaroxaban and apixaban (Factor Xa inhibitors). The problem of low rates e of preventive antithrombotic administration is emphasized.

[Incidence and distribution of venous thrombosis of the lower limbs diagnosed by duplex ultrasonography after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, and hip fracture surgery. Results from 5981 exams and 2123 cases of venous thrombosis over 10 years]

AIM

To determine the incidence and distribution of lower limb venous thrombosis diagnosed by duplex ultrasonography, including calf exploration, after total hip or knee replacement or hip fracture, and to compare them with the venographic results reported by recent randomized control trials testing new antithrombotic drugs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2009, 30,510 standardized report forms incremented a database from which files corresponding to major orthopaedic surgery were selected: 1652 after total hip replacement (THR), 1440 after total knee replacement (TKR) and 2889 after hip fracture (HF). Base-line characteristics, incidence and anatomic distribution of venous thrombosis were analysed in the three populations.

RESULTS

Systematic screening was applied for 95.1% of the exams (n=5689). Incidence of total and proximal venous thrombosis was, respectively, 27.8% (n=460) and 2.8% (n=46) for THR, 32.5% (n=939) and 4.4% (n=126) for HF, and 50.3% (n=724) and 3.8% (n=55) for TKR. Venous thrombosis was distal in 89.3% (n=1896). More than half (n=1014) of distal venous thromboses were strictly muscular soleal locations. Ilio-caval thrombosis incidence was 0.18% (n=11), and superficial venous thrombosis incidence was 1.5% (n=89).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that incidence and distribution of venous thromboses diagnosed with a complete and standardized duplex ultrasonographic screening are very close to the rates published with venographic screening in recent trials.

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

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

Venous thromboembolism risk stratification in medically-ill hospitalized cancer patients. A comprehensive cancer center experience

Cancer and its treatment are recognized risk factors for VTE. Compliance rate with published VTE prophylaxis guidelines is low. Decision on when to offer prophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients is difficult to make. This paper describes current clinical practice in offering VTE prophylaxis to hospitalized cancer patients. Prophylaxis rate and rate of VTE will be correlated with the risk level. We prospectively followed all consecutive adult cancer patients admitted to medical units over a 5-month period. Caprini risk assessment model, with some modifications, was utilized to determine risk of VTE. Six hundred and six patients (51% males, median age 52 years, range 18-91) were included. Reasons for admission included infections (25%), chemotherapy (22%) and palliative care (10%). In addition to cancer, the most frequently encountered risk factors for VTE were: Immobilization (35%), age > 60 years (31%) and body mass index > 30 in (20%). Patients were grouped according to their total risk score: low (9%), moderate (44%) and high risk (47%). VTE prophylaxis rate was 55.1% for the whole study group. Following discharge, patients were followed for 60 days. The incidence of VTE was 3.4% in the moderate and 4.2% in the high risk groups, while none in the low risk group developed VTE. Many additional risk factors for VTE are usually encountered in hospitalized cancer patients. Cancer alone may not be an enough reason for VTE prophylaxis. Risk assessment model able to stratify patients into different risk categories will simplify decision making and enhance VTE prophylaxis rate.

A randomized, double-blind study of certoparin vs. unfractionated heparin to prevent venous thromboembolic events in acutely ill, non-surgical patients: CERTIFY Study

BACKGROUND

In medically ill patients, no contemporary double-blind head-to-head evaluation of low molecular weight heparin vs. unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events is available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of certoparin with those of UFH.

PATIENTS/METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, acutely ill, non-surgical patients aged > or = 70 years were randomized to certoparin (3000 U of anti-factor Xa once daily) or to UFH (5000 IU t.i.d.). The primary endpoint was the composite of proximal deep vein thrombosis as assessed by bilateral compression ultrasonography, symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolism-related death, and was assessed by a blinded central adjudication committee. Non-inferiority margins were set at 1.8 for the odds ratio (OR) and 3.45% for the absolute difference.

RESULTS

Three thousand two hundred and thirty-nine patients aged 78.8 + or - 6.3 years were treated for 9.1 + or - 3.4 days. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 3.94% in the certoparin group and 4.52% in the UFH group, with a difference in proportions of - 0.59% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.09 to 0.92; P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority], and an OR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.60-1.26; P = 0.0001 for non-inferiority). Major bleeding occurred in 0.43% of certoparin-treated patients and 0.62% of UFH-treated patients (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26-1.83). Any bleeding occurred at 3.20% in certoparin-treated patients vs. 4.58% in UFH-treated patients (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.99; P < 0.05), and 5.73% of certoparin-treated patients and 6.63% of UFH-treated patients experienced serious adverse events. All-cause mortality was 1.27% in certoparin-treated patients and 1.36% in UFH-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In acutely ill, non-surgical elderly patients, thromboprophylaxis with certoparin (3000 U of anti-FXa once daily) was non-inferior to 5000 IU of UFH t.i.d., with a favorable safety profile.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of heparin thromboprophylaxis in general medical patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 24 April 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 2, 2009)We handsearched meeting abstracts, and consulted with colleagues and investigators as well as the manufacturers of the various LMWH preparations to identify unpublished or missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified possible trials, and the other author confirmed eligibility for inclusion in the review. Both authors extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed the meta-analysis as a fixed-effect model with relative risks.

MAIN RESULTS

A significant risk reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by 60% (relative risk (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval CI 0.31 to 0.53; P < 0.00001) and pulmonary embolism (PE) by 42% (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; P = 0.0007) was observed with heparin compared with placebo or no treatment. However, heparin resulted in a significant increase in major haemorrhage (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; P = 0.004) and minor haemorrhage (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.41; P = 0.0008). There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between LMWH and UFH. There was a statistically significant 72% risk reduction in major bleeding when LMWH was compared with UFH (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.78; P = 0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from this review support the use of heparin thromboprophylaixs in medical patients presenting with an acute medical illness. Although the analysis found no significant difference in efficacy between LMWH and UFH, it did note differences in the incidence of DVT and clinical PE with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding in favour of LMWH.

[Prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis with enoxaparin 40 mg in outpatients compared to hospitalized medically ill patients]

PURPOSE

The efficacy and safety of enoxaparin 40 mg in the prevention of thromboembolic events have been examined in immobilized nonsurgical hospitalized patients as well as in the outpatient setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

800 outpatients from 275 sites and 381 patients from 80 hospitals with an acute medical illness leading to a reduced physical activity were enrolled in a national, multicenter, noninterventional, observational study. The primary endpoint included all clinical signs of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism during the prophylaxis and up to 48 h after discontinuation. The patients were treated 9-14 days on average.

RESULTS

There were few differences between the inpatients and the outpatients with respect to reduced mobility. However, the proportion of patients with infectious diseases was much higher in outpatients (53.8%) than in hospitalized patients (37.5%). The incidences of diseases of the musculoskeletal system (outpatients 20.9% vs. inpatients 7.3%) and acute congestive heart failure (outpatients 16.5% vs. inpatients 25.1%) were not balanced. During the observational period, primary endpoints were detected as clinical signs of a DVT in two outpatients aged > 65 years (0.3%) and were confirmed by ultrasound. Major bleedings were reported as secondary endpoints in only two hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSION

The results of this noninterventional study show that a primary prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg in nonsurgical outpatients shows a similar safety profile compared to hospitalized medically ill patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of heparin thromboprophylaxis in general medical patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 24 April 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 2, 2009)We handsearched meeting abstracts, and consulted with colleagues and investigators as well as the manufacturers of the various LMWH preparations to identify unpublished or missed studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One author identified possible trials, and the other author confirmed eligibility for inclusion in the review. Both authors extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed the meta-analysis as a fixed-effect model with relative risks.

MAIN RESULTS

A significant risk reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by 60% (relative risk (RR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval CI 0.31 to 0.53; P < 0.00001) and pulmonary embolism (PE) by 42% (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; P = 0.0007) was observed with heparin compared with placebo or no treatment. However, heparin resulted in a significant increase in major haemorrhage (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.72; P = 0.004) and minor haemorrhage (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.41; P = 0.0008). There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between LMWH and UFH. There was a statistically significant 72% risk reduction in major bleeding when LMWH was compared with UFH (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.78; P = 0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data from this review support the use of heparin thromboprophylaixs in medical patients presenting with an acute medical illness. Although the analysis found no significant difference in efficacy between LMWH and UFH, it did note differences in the incidence of DVT and clinical PE with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding in favour of LMWH.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients and outpatients

The majority of fatal cases of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients occur in acutely ill, medically treated patients. Current guidelines, based on a large number of prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in medical patients, now recommend using VTE prophylaxis in this population. Unfortunately, prophylaxis rates in medical patients are unacceptably low, despite efforts to develop strategies for improving implementation of prophylaxis regimens. Studies indicate that a substantial proportion of patients with VTE present after hospital discharge, but no clinical trials evaluating VTE prophylaxis for medical outpatients have yet been published. In this Review, we examine the literature on VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients, and evaluate the available data for the outpatient setting.

Economic and practical aspects of thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins in hospitalized medical patients

Acutely ill medical patients are at significant risk of developing venous thromboembolic (VTE) complications during or after their hospitalization. Venous thromboembolic events, such as proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), place a high and unacceptable burden on health care resources, up to US$1.5 billion annually in the United States. However, the burden of VTE can be reduced by use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Prophylaxis of VTE with either a low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) or a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in medical inpatients is effective, well tolerated and cost-effective, compared with no prophylaxis. Low-molecular-weight heparins have a number of practical benefits over UFH, including once-daily subcutaneous injection and the potential to be used in the outpatient setting. These clinical advantages could translate to improved patient adherence to therapy and provide economic benefits, where LMWHs are more cost-effective compared with UFH.

The prevention of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in the United Kingdom

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the number one safety issue in hospitals and is estimated to cause more preventable deaths than the more publicized hospital-acquired infection. There has been a failure of implementation of thromboprophylaxis (TP), mainly because of lack of awareness among health professionals, despite the large number of evidence-based studies available. The situation in the UK is gradually changing because of tireless campaigning by politicians, a charity and key opinion leaders. In response, the Department of Health has issued a national risk assessment tool, and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the prevention of VTE in all hospitalised patients, which will be available in August 2009. Although NICE guidelines are only applicable in England, it is to be hoped Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland will also follow. Despite this, the consensus of expert opinion is that TP needs mandating to prevent pockets of non-adherence. Low molecular weight heparins are currently the gold standard pharmacological agent for TP; but are likely to be superseded within the next 5 years by new classes of oral anticoagulants, such as dabigatran and rivaroxiban, which are already licensed for TP after orthopaedic surgery.

Epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in cardiorespiratory and infectious disease

Venous thromboembolic complications -- deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism -- occur in a significant proportion of hospitalized medical patients. The incidence in acutely ill medical patients is 10%-40%, equivalent to that seen in general surgical patients. Prophylaxis is effective and well tolerated, yet remains under-prescribed in medical wards. Current recommendations for prophylaxis are generalized and do not specifically address many patient groups. Data on the prevalence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and infectious diseases are limited. However, studies on large numbers of hospitalized patients with these admission diagnoses have provided important information on incidence, and the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. This review summarizes current knowledge of the epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and infectious diseases, and highlights the benefits of, and needs for, appropriate prophylaxis in these groups. Increased awareness of the prevalence of thrombosis in the major subgroups of medical inpatients should improve the prescribing of prophylaxis and prevent potentially avoidable and costly complications.

[Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism]

The recommendations on venous thromboprophylaxis have been updated on the basis of current evidence reviewed by a multidisciplinary team. The problem has been approached with regard to its relevance in both surgical and nonsurgical patients. It should be noted that these recommendations were drawn up for use in Spain and, therefore, should be implemented with the drugs and therapeutic practices authorized and generally accepted in this country.

The top 4 advances in antithrombotic care in the last year

Important clinical data with a significant impact on the clinical management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) were presented at The International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) meeting, held in Geneva, Switzerland in July of 2007. In addition, 2 new guidelines for the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were published in 2007, and will have a significant impact on daily practice. Finally, the approval of new practice-changing, paradigm-shifting oral anticoagulants is on the horizon. This article will review the top 4 advances in antithrombotic care and discuss their impact on the clinical management of VTE.