Venous thromboembolic disease management of the nonsurgical moderate- and high-risk patient

Outcome of patients with pulmonary embolism admitted to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND:

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is an important cause of in-hospital mortality. Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) either due to hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia. Few reports have addressed the outcome of patients with PE; however, none were from ICUs in the Middle East.

OBJECTIVES:

To describe the demographics, clinical presentation, risk factors and outcome of patients with PE admitted to the medical ICU and to identify possible factors associated with poor prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Data were collected retrospectively by reviewing the records of patients admitted to the medical ICU with primary diagnosis of PE between January 2001 and June 2007. Demographic, clinical, radiological and therapeutic data were collected on admission to ICU.

RESULTS:

Fifty-six patients (43% females) with PE were admitted to the ICU during the study period. Their mean age was 40.6 ± 10.6 years. Seven patients (12.5%) had massive PE with hemodynamic instability and 15 (26.8%) had submassive PE. The remaining patients were admitted due to severe hypoxemia. Recent surgery followed by obesity were the most common risk factors (55.4 and 28.6%, respectively). Four patients with massive PE received thrombolysis because the remaining three had absolute contraindications. Fatal gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in one patient post thrombolysis. Additionally, two patients with massive PE and five with submassive PE died within 72 h of admission to the ICU, resulting in an overall mortality rate of 14%. Nonsurvivors were older and had a higher prevalence of immobility and cerebrovascular diseases compared with survivors.

CONCLUSIONS:

The mortality rate of patients with PE admitted to the ICU in our center was comparable to other published studies. Older age, immobility as well as coexistent cerebrovascular diseases were associated with a worse outcome.

WITHDRAWN: Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction)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

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 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.

Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of the anticoagulant fondaparinux in older acute medical inpatients at moderate to high risk of venous thromboembolism.

DESIGN

Double blind randomised placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

35 centres in eight countries.

PARTICIPANTS

849 medical patients aged 60 or more admitted to hospital for congestive heart failure, acute respiratory illness in the presence of chronic lung disease, or acute infectious or inflammatory disease and expected to remain in bed for at least four days.

INTERVENTIONS

2.5 mg fondaparinux or placebo subcutaneously once daily for six to 14 days.

OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism detected by routine bilateral venography along with symptomatic venous thromboembolism up to day 15. Secondary outcomes were bleeding and death. Patients were followed up at one month.

RESULTS

425 patients in the fondaparinux group and 414 patients in the placebo group were evaluable for safety analysis (10 were not treated). 644 patients (75.9%) were available for the primary efficacy analysis. Venous thrombembolism was detected in 5.6% (18/321) of patients treated with fondaparinux and 10.5% (34/323) of patients given placebo, a relative risk reduction of 46.7% (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 69.3%). Symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in five patients in the placebo group and none in the fondaparinux group (P = 0.029). Major bleeding occurred in one patient (0.2%) in each group. At the end of follow-up, 14 patients in the fondaparinux group (3.3%) and 25 in the placebo group (6.0%) had died.

CONCLUSION

Fondaparinux is effective in the prevention of asymptomatic and symptomatic venous thromboembolic events in older acute medical patients. The frequency of major bleeding was similar for both fondaparinux and placebo treated patients.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Seventh American College of Chest Physicians Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence-Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following. We recommend against the use of aspirin alone as thromboprophylaxis for any patient group (Grade 1A). For moderate-risk general surgery patients, we recommend prophylaxis with low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) (5,000 U bid) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [< or = 3,400 U once daily] (both Grade 1A). For higher risk general surgery patients, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with LDUH (5,000 U tid) or LMWH (> 3,400 U daily) [both Grade 1A]. For high-risk general surgery patients with multiple risk factors, we recommend combining pharmacologic methods (LDUH three times daily or LMWH, > 3,400 U daily) with the use of graduated compression stockings and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices (Grade 1C+). We recommend that thromboprophylaxis be used in all patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery (Grade 1A) or major, open urologic procedures, and we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH two times or three times daily (Grade 1A). For patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty, we recommend one of the following three anticoagulant agents: LMWH, fondaparinux, or adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [international normalized ratio (INR) target, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0] (all Grade 1A). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS), we recommend the routine use of fondaparinux (Grade 1A), LMWH (Grade 1C+), VKA (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 2B], or LDUH (Grade 1B). We recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, or HFS receive thromboprophylaxis for at least 10 days (Grade 1A). We recommend that all trauma patients with at least one risk factor for VTE receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A). In acutely ill medical patients who have been admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure or severe respiratory disease, or who are confined to bed and have one or more additional risk factors, we recommend prophylaxis with LDUH (Grade 1A) or LMWH (Grade 1A). We recommend, on admission to the intensive care unit, all patients be assessed for their risk of VTE. Accordingly, most patients should receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A).

Rationale and design of a clinical trial of a low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing clinically important venous thromboembolism in medical patients: the prospective evaluation of dalteparin efficacy for prevention of venous thromboembolism in immobilized patients trial (the PREVENT study)

The utility of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease has been examined using the surrogate endpoint of venographically identified thrombi. The largest portion of these thrombi were asymptomatic calf-vein thrombi. The clinical relevance of this observation is a matter of debate. The present study is designed to evaluate the impact of an LMWH on clinically important endpoints. The current study is a randomized, prospective, double-blinded, multicenter, multinational, controlled clinical trial comparing dalteparin with placebo in moderately high-risk hospitalized medical patients. A total of 3300 patients will be randomized to receive either 5,000 IU per day of dalteparin or placebo for 14 days. Patients will undergo appropriate evaluation for any symptomatic episodes and all patients will undergo a bilateral compression ultrasound (CUS) on day 21 to search for asymptomatic proximal thrombi. The primary endpoint is the combination of objectively confirmed symptomatic deep vein thrombi (DVT), fatal or non-fatal pulmonary emboli, all proximal DVT, and sudden death. This study will be the first study to examine clinically important endpoints in evaluating the effect of a LMWH in hospitalized medical patients. This study also is the first study to use CUS rather than venography in concordance with contemporary medical practice. This trial is thus designed to address this important question in a clinically relevant manner.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medical inpatients: a retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Most hospitalized patients with a fatal pulmonary embolism are medical patients who do not have a history of recent surgery [BMJ 302 (1991) 709; J. R. Soc. Med. 82 (1989) 198]. There is evidence suggesting that VTE prophylaxis is indicated in many high risk medical patients [Chest 119 (2001) 132S; NEJM 341 (1999) 793]. However, previous studies have shown that only about one third of high risk medical patients receive VTE prophylaxis [Ann. Intern. Med. 115 (1991) 591; Chest 106 (1994) 13; Chest 107 (1995) 296]. The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of use of VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients at two teaching hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients admitted to medical wards at two acute care sites of McMaster University affiliated teaching hospitals between October 10, 2001 and December 11, 2001 was performed. For each patient, demographic data, risk factors for VTE, method of VTE prophylaxis and contraindications to VTE prophylaxis were recorded.

RESULTS

756 patient charts were reviewed and 310 (41%) were excluded because the primary diagnosis required anticoagulation, the patients were being treated with anticoagulation (warfarin or heparin) before admission or the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit. Of the remaining 446 patients, 146 (33%) received some form of VTE prophylaxis. Of the patients receiving prophylaxis, 4% had early ambulation, 9% wore anti-embolic stockings (AES), 1% used intermittent pneumatic compression, 23% used unfractionated heparin and 3% used low molecular weight heparin. Two hundred five (46%) patients had one identifiable VTE risk factor and 63 (14%) had two or more risk factors. Patients with more VTE risk factors were more likely to receive prophylaxis.

INTERPRETATION

One third of medical inpatients at two teaching hospitals in Hamilton received some form of VTE prophylaxis.

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical patients

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical patients is an area where the potential benefits to patients are great. Venous thromboembolism is at least as common among medical as it is among surgical patients. Despite the widespread use of thromboprophylaxis in surgical patients, fatal pulmonary embolism is one of the most common causes of preventable death in the hospital. This may result from underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. The incidence of venous thromboembolism varies, but a history of previous venous thromboembolism, age 40 years and older, immobility, and specific illnesses such as stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cancer put patients at particular risk. Most early studies assessed the use of anticoagulants such as unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and warfarin at reducing the incidence of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients. More recent studies and those currently being carried out are assessing the role of thromboprophylaxis in general medical patients and those with specific medical illnesses. As the evidence accumulates and guidelines are strengthened physicians will be able to tailor the use of thromboprophylaxis to the individual patient's needs.