Efficacy of standard dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in morbidly obese and non-morbidly obese critically Ill patients

Effectiveness, safety, and costs of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in inpatients with obesity

Background

Obesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown.

Objective

This study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)---------related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period).

Results

Among 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p < 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods.

Conclusions

Among adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs.

Good practice statements for antithrombotic therapy in the management of COVID-19: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Despite the emergence of high quality randomized trial data with the use of antithrombotic agents to reduce the risk of thromboembolism, end-organ failure, and possibly mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), questions still remain as to optimal patient selection for these strategies, the use of antithrombotics in outpatient settings and in-hospital settings (including critical care units), thromboprophylaxis in special patient populations, and the management of acute thrombosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In October 2021, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) formed a multidisciplinary and international panel of content experts, two patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on treatment with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for COVID-19 patients. The ISTH Guideline panel discussed additional topics to be well suited to a non-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for Good Practice Statements (GPS) to support good clinical care in the antithrombotic management of COVID-19 patients in various clinical settings. The GPS panel agreed on 17 GPS: 3 in the outpatient (pre-hospital) setting, 12 in the hospital setting both in non-critical care (ward) as well as intensive care unit settings, and 2 in the immediate post-hospital discharge setting based on limited evidence or expert opinion that supports net clinical benefit in enacting the statements provided. The antithrombotic therapies discussed in these GPS should be available in low- and middle-income countries.

ISTH DIC subcommittee communication on anticoagulation in COVID-19

Hypercoagulability is an increasingly recognized complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, anticoagulation has become part and parcel of comprehensive COVID-19 management. However, several uncertainties exist in this area, including the appropriate type and dose of heparin. In addition, special patient populations, including those with high body mass index and renal impairment, require special consideration. Although the current evidence is still insufficient, we provide a pragmatic approach to anticoagulation in COVID-19, but stress the need for further trials in this area.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared to warfarin in morbidly obese patients with acute venous thromboembolism: systematic review and a meta-analysis

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents are becoming the anticoagulation strategy of choice. However, their use in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of > 120 kg or BMI > 40 kg/m²) guarded. This is due to the scarce data supporting their use in this population. As a result, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended against their use in this cohort of patients. New data emerged supporting the use of DOACs in these patients. Hence, we aimed to systematically review the literature exploring the efficacy and safety of these agents compared to warfarin in VTE treatment in morbidly obese patients. A systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE since inception until 01/04/2020. Subsequently, a non-inferiority (NI of 1.75) meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model. Five observational studies (6585 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. DOAC analogs were non-inferior compared to warfarin in reducing the primary efficacy outcome of VTE recurrence (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.23) and the primary safety outcome (major bleeding events) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54-1.17). Our meta-analysis comprising real-world observational data concludes that the use of DOAC analogs in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of > 120 kg or BMI > 40 kg/m²) is non-inferior with regards to efficacy and safety compared to warfarin. This finding helps to resolve the uncertainty associated with the use of DOACs in this cohort. Additionally, it invites for a confirmatory non-inferiority randomized controlled trial testing DOAC vs. Warfarin in this group of patients.

Safety and Efficacy of High-Dose Unfractionated Heparin Versus High-Dose Enoxaparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Morbidly Obese Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients, and morbid obesity increases this risk. Various prophylaxis dosing strategies have been investigated. However, it is unclear if high-fixed dose enoxaparin or high-fixed dose unfractionated heparin thromboprophylaxis is optimal for minimizing the incidence of major bleeding and reducing hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective observational study was conducted in hospitalized patients who were morbidly obese (body mass index ≥40 kg/m²) and who received either high-fixed dose enoxaparin (40 mg every 12 hours) or unfractionated heparin (7500 units every 8 hours) for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Co-primary outcomes included incidence of major bleeding and venous thromboembolism diagnosed during hospitalization. Predictors of major bleeding were evaluated by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

In the 305 patients included (n = 190 unfractionated heparin, n = 115 enoxaparin), the incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the unfractionated heparin group (odds ratio [OR] 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-3.13; P = 0.025), with no significant difference in the incidence of venous thromboembolism diagnosed during hospitalization. The only independent predictors of major bleeding were intensive care acuity (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.91-5.78; P <0.001) and selection of unfractionated heparin rather than enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.22-3.82; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

High-fixed dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may lead to a higher risk of major bleeding events compared with high-fixed dose enoxaparin in patients who are morbidly obese.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODOLOGY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Venous Thromboembolism in Neurocritical Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially life-threatening complication among critically ill patients. Neurocritical care patients are presumed to be at high risk for VTE; however, data regarding risk factors in this population are limited. We designed this study to evaluate the frequency, risk factors, and clinical impact of VTE in neurocritical care patients.

METHODS

We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult patients admitted to neurological intensive care unit (NICU) at Henry Ford Hospital between January 2015 and March 2018. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or both diagnosed by Doppler, chest computed tomography (CT) angiography or ventilation-perfusion scan >24 hours after admission. Patients with ICU length of stay <24 hours or who received therapeutic anticoagulants or were diagnosed with VTE within 24 hours of admission were excluded.

RESULTS

Among 2188 consecutive NICU patients, 63 (2.9%) developed VTE. Prophylactic anticoagulant use was similar in patients with and without VTE (95% vs 92%; P = .482). Venous thromboembolism was associated with higher mortality (24% vs 13%, P = .019), and longer ICU (12 [interquartile range, IQR 5-23] vs 3 [IQR 2-8] days, P < .001) and hospital (22 [IQR 15-36] vs 8 [IQR 5-15] days, P < .001) length of stay. In a multivariable analysis, potentially modifiable predictors of VTE included central venous catheterization (odds ratio [OR] 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-5.38; P < .001) and longer duration of immobilization (Braden activity score <3, OR 1.07 per day; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; P < .001). Nonmodifiable predictors included higher International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) scores (which accounts for age >60, prior VTE, cancer and thrombophilia; OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97; P < .001) and body mass index (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite chemoprophylaxis, VTE still occurred in 2.9% of neurocritical care patients. Longer duration of immobilization and central venous catheterization are potentially modifiable risk factors for VTE in critically ill neurological patients.

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Thromboembolism is a major complication in hospitalized patients. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients have a greater risk of thrombotic events due to additional risk factors such as immobilization, mechanical ventilation, and central catheters. The diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients are challenging and these conditions are associated with high mortality. Medical thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as well as unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been shown to reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events in such patients. For patients with high risk of bleeding, mechanical thromboprophylaxis can be used. Literature database was conducted on Medline for articles published up to 2018 using particular search terms such as thromboprophylaxis and venous thromboembolism in ICU patients. The following review summarizes the existing data regarding thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with special consideration to the use of mechanical prophylaxis and pharmacologic prophylaxis using heparin products.