Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. A retrospective multicenter study

An update on the global use of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with medical illnesses from the World Thrombosis Day steering committee: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The majority of VTE events are hospital-associated. In 2008, the Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting (ENDORSE) multinational cross-sectional study reported that only approximately 40% of medical patients at risk of VTE received adequate thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed at providing updated figures concerning the use of thromboprophylaxis globally. We focused on: (a) the frequency of patients with an indication to thromboprophylaxis according with individual models; (b) the use of adequate thromboprophylaxis; and (c) reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. Observational nonrandomized studies or surveys focusing on medically ill patients were considered eligible.

RESULTS

After screening, we included 27 studies from 20 countries for a total of 137 288 patients. Overall, 50.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.9-59.1, I2 99%) of patients had an indication to thromboprophylaxis: of these, 54.5% (95% CI: 46.2-62.6, I2 99%) received adequate thromboprophylaxis. The use of adequate thromboprophylaxis was 66.8% in Europe (95% CI: 50.7-81.1, I2 98%), 44.9% in Africa (95% CI: 31.8-58.4, I2 96%), 37.6% in Asia (95% CI: 25.7-50.3, I2 97%), 58.3% in South America (95% CI: 31.1-83.1, I2 99%), and 68.6% in North America (95% CI: 64.9-72.6, I2 96%). No major differences in adequate thromboprophylaxis use were found across risk assessment models. Bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and renal/hepatic failure were the most frequently reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anticoagulants for VTE prevention has been proven effective and safe, but thromboprophylaxis prescriptions are still unsatisfactory among hospitalized medically ill patients around the globe with marked geographical differences.

Prescribing patterns and outcomes of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical and cancer patients: Observations from the Ottawa Hospital

Guidelines suggest broad use of pharmacologic prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients, however little 'real-world' data exists to support this. Our goal was to describe the use of thromboprophylaxis among general medical and cancer patients admitted to hospital, compare VTE and bleeding outcomes according to use of thromboprophylaxis, and to determine what variables influence prescribing patterns and outcomes. Patients admitted to the general medical and oncology services at The Ottawa Hospital between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed and classified according to whether they received initial, delayed, or no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during their first hospitalization. Patients with an alternate indication for anticoagulation or those admitted with a bleeding event were excluded from analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was any symptomatic VTE during index hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge, and the primary safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding during the index hospitalization. 17,262 patients were included in our final analysis. General medical patients selected to receive no, initial, or delayed thromboprophylaxis had 0.4%, 0.7%, and 2.4% rates of VTE; and 0.2%, 0.7%, and 1.5% rates of clinically relevant bleeding complications, respectively. Cancer patients had significantly higher rates of VTE: 3.3%, 3.9%, and 5.0%; and 0.9%, 0.7%, and 3.0% rates of clinically relevant bleeding among those selected to receive no, initial, or delayed thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Overall, our study suggests that broad use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may be unnecessary in select low-risk general medical patients and may be less effective in cancer patients in whom new studies are indicated.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Risk for Acutely Medically Ill Patients Stratified by Different Ages and Renal Disease Status

The objectives of this study were to examine venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis patterns and risk for VTE events during hospitalization and in the outpatient continuum of care among patients hospitalized for acute illnesses in the United States with stratification by different age groups and renal disease status. Acutely ill hospitalized patients were identified from the MarketScan databases (January 1, 2012-June 30, 2015) and grouped by age (<65, 65-74, ≥75 years old) and whether or not they had a baseline diagnosis of renal disease, separately. Of acutely ill hospitalized patients, 60.1% (n = 10 748) were <65 years old, 15.7% (n = 2803) were 65 to 74 years old, and 24.3% (n = 4344) were ≥75 years old; 32.9% (n = 5892) had baseline renal disease. Among the study cohorts, the majority of patients received no VTE prophylaxis regardless of age or baseline renal status (52.1%-63.6%). Rates of VTE during hospitalization and in the 6 months postdischarge were 4.7%, 4.6%, and 4.5% for patients <65, 65 to 74, and ≥75 years old, respectively, and 6.3% and 3.8% for patients with and without baseline renal disease. The risk for VTE was elevated for 30 to 40 days after index admission regardless of age and renal disease status.

Improvement of appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients with a multiscreen e-alert system: a single-centre experience

PURPOSE

Thromboprophylaxis use among medical inpatients, including cancer patients, is suboptimal. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel multiscreen version (v2.0) of an e-alert system for VTE prevention in hospitalised cancer medical patients compared to the original software.

METHODS

Prospective study including 989 consecutive adult cancer patients with high-risk of VTE. Patients were followed-up 30 days post-discharge. Two periods were defined, according to the operative software.

RESULTS

E-alert v2.0 was associated with an increase in the use of LMWH prophylaxis (65.5% vs. 72.0%); risk difference (95% CI) 0.064 (0.0043-0.12). Only 16% of patients in whom LMWH prophylaxis was not prescribed lacked a contraindication. No significant differences in the rates of VTE (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and major bleeding (2.7% vs. 4.0%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

E-alert v2.0 further increased the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients, although was not associated with a reduction in VTE incidence.

Insights into venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized cancer patients: Lessons from a prospective study

Hospitalized cancer patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite current recommendations in clinical guidelines, thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is underused. We performed an observational prospective study to analyse factors influencing prophylaxis use, VTE events and mortality in cancer-hospitalized patients. 1072 consecutive adult cancer patients were included in an University Hospital from April 2014 to February 2017, and followed-up for 30 days after discharge. The rate of LMWH prophylaxis was 67.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64.7% to 70.4%), with a 2.8% rate of VTE events (95% CI 1.9% to 3.9%) and 3.5% rate of major bleeding events (95% CI 2.5% to 4.8%). 80% of VTE events occurred despite appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Overall, 30-day mortality rate was 13.2% (95% CI 11.2% to 15.3%). Active chemotherapy treatment, hospital stay ≥ 4 days, and metastatic disease were associated with a higher use of LMWH. On the contrary, patients with hematologic malignancies, anemia or thrombocytopenia were less prone to receive thromboprophylaxis. The main reasons for not prescribing LMWH prophylaxis were thrombocytopenia (23.9%) and active/recent bleeding (21.8%). The PRETEMED score, used for VTE risk stratification, correlated with 30-day mortality. There is room for improvement in thromboprophylaxis use among hospitalized-cancer patients, especially among those with hematologic malignancies. A relevant number of VTE events occurred despite prophylaxis with LMWH. Therefore, identification of risk factors for thromboprophylaxis failure is needed.

Compliance with current VTE prophylaxis guidelines and risk factors linked to complications of VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients: a prospective cohort study in a Spanish internal medicine department

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the degree of compliance with the current guidelines regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in medical patients during admission and to identify risk factors linked to complications of VTE prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Internal Medicine Department of the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (tertiary referral hospital).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 396 hospitalised, elderly patients who did not undergo surgery and had no active or previous oral anticoagulation or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment (during the previous year) and who received VTE prophylaxis during admission.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The degree of compliance with the current guidelines was estimated by calculating PADOVA and IMPROVE indexes in all cases. We analysed the development of the following complications: major and minor bleeding, major and minor haematoma and decrease of platelet count.

RESULTS

We found that VTE prophylaxis was correctly indicated in 88.4% of patients. We found two (0.5%) cases with major bleeding, 17 (4.3%) with minor bleeding, 30 (7.6%) with decreased platelet count, 29 (7.3%) with major haematoma and 82 (20.7%) with minor haematoma. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, the presence of major haematomas was linked to obesity (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.8 to 9.2, p=0.001), concomitant antiplatelet treatment (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5, p=0.03) and enoxaparin use (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 10.9, p=0.029), and the presence of minor haematomas was associated with PADOVA index <4 points (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5 to 6.4, p=0.003) and diabetes mellitus (OR 2; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7, p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Complications during VTE prophylaxis in elderly hospitalised medical patients are frequent even with correct application of current guidelines. The main factors linked to haematomas were obesity and concomitant antiplatelet treatment, the presence of which should lead physicians to exercise extreme caution. The use of tinzaparin for VTE prophylaxis in these patients could have a better safety profile.

Concordance among venous thromboembolism risk assessment models

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are a lot of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models with the aim of predicting the individual risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), although most have not been externally validated. The objective of our study was to analyse the concordance among the Padua, PRETEMED, IMPROVE and MEDENOX scores.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Observational cohort study with 602 patients admitted to Medical Services of the Hospital Universitario Santa Lucía. Concordance was calculated using the kappa index (KI) between the four risk prediction scales and the VTE occurring within 90 days of hospitalisation.

RESULTS

Patients considered were those with a high risk of VTE, 78%, 56%, 69% and 59% according to Padua, PRETEMED, IMPROVE and MEDENOX scores respectively. A KI=0.60 was observed among Padua-IMPROVE scores; KI=0.44 among IMPROVE-PRETEMED, KI=0.43 among PRETEMED-MEDENOX, KI=0.33 among Padua-PRETEMED, KI=0.27 among IMPROVE-MEDENOX and a KI=0.24 among Padua-MEDENOX. During follow-up, nine cases of VTE (1.5%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The highest degree of agreement was observed among the Padua and IMPROVE scores. There is no good agreement between any of the predictive risk scales for VTE in medical patients. The Padua score was the best predictor of VTE episodes at 90 days among high risk patients.

Combined assessment of thrombotic and haemorrhagic risk in acute medical patients

Acute medical patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). Unfortunately, the fear of bleeding complications limits the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis in this setting. To stratify the VTE and haemorrhagic risk, two clinical scores (PADUA, IMPROVE) have recently been developed. However, it is not clear how many patients have a concomitant high VTE and haemorrhagic risk and what is the use of prophylaxis in this situation. To clarify these issues we performed a prospective cohort study enrolling consecutive patients admitted to internal medicine. Patients admitted to internal medicine (January to December 2013) were included. VTE and haemorrhagic risk were evaluated in all the included patients. Use and type of anti-thrombotic prophylaxis was recorded. A total of 1761 patients (mean age 77.6 years) were enrolled; 76.8 % (95 % CI 74.7–78.7) were at high VTE risk and 11.9 % (95 % CI 10.4–13.5) were at high haemorrhagic risk. Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis was used in 80.5 % of patients at high VTE risk and in 6.5 % at low VTE risk (p< 0.001), and in 16.6 % at high haemorrhagic risk and in 72.5 % at low haemorrhagic risk (p< 0.001). Prophylaxis was used in 20.4 % at both high VTE and haemorrhagic risk and in 88.9 % at high VTE risk but low haemor-rhagic risk. At multivariate-analysis, use of prophylaxis appeared highly influenced by the VTE risk (OR 68.2, 95 % CI 43.1 - 108.0). In conclusion, many patients admitted to internal medicine were at high risk of VTE. Since almost 90 % of them were at low haemorrhagic risk, pharmacological prophylaxis may be safely prescribed in most of these patients.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Transitions in the Prophylaxis, Treatment and Care of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Patients experience numerous transitions, including changes in clinical status, pharmacologic treatment and prophylaxis, and progression through the physical locations of their healthcare setting as they advance through a venous thromboembolism (VTE) clinical experience. This review provides an overview of these transitions and highlights how they can impact clinical care.

METHODS

Major public resources (PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar) were searched using various combinations of the terms: "venous thromboembolism", "deep vein thromboses", "pulmonary embolism", "transitions in care", and "hospital protocols" to identify narrative reviews, professional guidelines, or primary manuscripts reporting protocol development strategies and/or clinical data, published in English from 2010 through January 2015. The studies included in this review were selected on the basis of extensive reading of the literature and the author's clinical expertise.

RESULTS

VTE treatment and prophylaxis is a dynamic process requiring ongoing patient assessments and adjustments to therapeutic strategies as the patient progresses through various hospital and outpatient settings. Throughout these transitions in care, physicians need to be vigilant of any changes in the patient's clinical condition which may impact the patient's risk of VTE, and re-evaluate the intervention(s) employed when such changes occur. A standardized, interdisciplinary VTE clinical pathway developed for medical patients with acute VTE resulted in decreased utilization of hospital resources and healthcare costs, suggesting that further research is warranted in this area.

CONCLUSION

The prevention and management of VTE can be optimized by the development and local implementation of standardized evidence-based clinical pathways.

A Survey of the Knowledge of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis among the Medical Staff of Intensive Care Units in North China

Background

Guideline concordance for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) varies across different countries.

Objective

To explore how the medical staff of ICUs in China comprehend and practice VTE prophylaxis.

Method

Questionnaires comprising 39 questions and including 4 dimensions of thromboprophylaxis were administered in ICUs in North China.

Results

In all, 52 ICUs at 23 tertiary hospitals in 7 Chinese provinces and municipalities were surveyed. A total of 2500 questionnaires were sent, and 1861 were returned, corresponding to a response rate of approximately 74.4%. Of all surveyed medical staff, 36.5% of physicians and 22.2% of nurses were aware of the guidelines in China, and 19.0% of physicians and 9.5% of nurses comprehended the 9^th edition of the guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Additionally, 37.6% of the medical staff chose a prophylaxis method based on the related guidelines, and 10.3% could demonstrate the exact indication for mechanical pattern application. Worries about skin injury, difficulty with removal and discomfort during mechanical thromboprophylaxis were cited by more than 30% of nurses, which was significantly more frequent than for physicians (graduated compression stockings: 54.3% VS 34.1%, 60.7% VS 49%, and 59.4% VS 54%, p = 0.000; intermittent pneumatic compression: 31% VS 22.2%, 19.2% VS 13.9%, and 37.8% VS 27.2%, p = 0.000).

Conclusions and Relevance

The knowledge of VTE prophylaxis among the medical staff of ICUs in North China remains limited, which may lead to a lack of standardization of VTE prophylaxis. Strengthened, standardized training may help medical staff to improve their comprehension of the relevant guidelines and may finally reduce the occurrence of VTE in ICUs and improve the prognosis of critically ill patients with VTE.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis on a Cardiology In-Patient Unit: A Surprising Result?

To determine whether a guideline-based protocol improves compliance with venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines, 10 single-day audits of a cardiology inpatient unit were performed. All patients at high risk for VTE were included (n = 420; male/female = 282/138; median age, 66 ± 14 years). Before the protocol, 36% of patients were not receiving VTE prophylaxis; after the protocol, 26% did not receive prophylaxis (P = 0.024). In conclusion, there is a high rate of noncompliance with accepted guidelines for the prevention of VTE. The introduction of a guideline-based protocol significantly increased compliance, but a substantial proportion of patients still did not receive VTE prophylaxis despite meriting such therapy.