Benefits of deep-vein thrombosis prophylaxis in the nonsurgical patient: The MEDENOX trial

Screening Protocol and Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) induces endothelial damage and sustained hypoxia and facilitates immobilization as factors of hypercoagulability.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to assess the prevalence of venous thromboembolic disease (VTD) in COVID-19 patients and the usefulness of VTD screening based on age-adjusted D-dimer and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS).

PATIENTS/METHODS

We conducted a single cohort, prospective observational study in 102 consecutive hospitalized patients.

RESULTS

A total of 102 POCUS and 39 pulmonary computed tomography angiography (PCTA) were performed diagnosing 27 VTD (26.5%): 17 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (16.6% positive POCUS) and 18 pulmonary embolism (PE) (46.2% positive PCTA). COVID-19 patients with VTD were older (P < .030), had higher D-dimer (P < .001), higher International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis score (P < .001), and higher mortality (P = .025). However, there were no differences in inflammatory laboratory parameters neither in the cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) development. The ROC curve for D-dimer showed an AUC of 0.91. We have evidenced that patients with D-dimer between 2000 and 6000 ng/mL could benefit from a screening strategy with POCUS given the high sensitivity and specificity of the test. Furthermore, patients with D-dimer ≥6000 ng/mL should undergo POCUS and PCTA to rule out DVT and PE, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, 26.5% of the patients presented VTD. Screening strategy based on age-adjusted D-dimer and POCUS proved high sensitivity and specificity. Future trials focused on screening strategies are necessary to early detect the presence of DVT and PE and determine thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Low–Molecular Weight Heparin for Ambulatory Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Outcomes From the CONKO-004 Trial

Purpose

Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), in addition to its high mortality, accounts for the highest rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Enoxaparin, a low–molecular weight heparin, is effective in prevention and treatment of VTEs. Some small studies have indicated that this benefit might extend to patients with cancer.

Patients and Methods

Patients with histologically proven APC were randomly assigned to ambulant first-line chemotherapy and prophylactic use of enoxaparin or chemotherapy alone to investigate the probable reduction in symptomatic VTEs and the impact on survival.

Results

A total of 312 patients were recruited as one of the protocol end points was reached. Within the first 3 months, the numbers of symptomatic VTEs were as follows: 15 of 152 patients in the observation group and two of 160 patients in the enoxaparin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.52; χ2 P = .001). The numbers of major bleeding events were as follows: five of 152 patients in the observation arm and seven of 160 patients in the enoxaparin arm (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.72; χ2 P = 1.0). Overall cumulative incidence rates of symptomatic VTEs were 15.1% (observation) and 6.4% (enoxaparin; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83; P = .01). Progression-free (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.32; P = .64) and overall survival (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.38; P = .44) did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the high efficacy and feasibility of primary pharmacologic prevention of symptomatic VTEs in outpatients with APC. Treatment efficacy was not affected by simultaneous treatment with enoxaparin in this trial setting.

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.

Thromboembolism in lung cancer - an area of urgent unmet need

INTRODUCTION

Thromboembolism is common in lung cancer. Current thromboprophylaxis guidelines lack specific recommendations for appropriate strategies in this high thrombotic risk patient cohort. We profiled lung cancer patients receiving anti-cancer therapy. Thromboembolism incidence and thromboembolism-related mortality rates are reported and we explored patient, disease, and treatment-related risk factors associated with higher thrombotic rates.

METHODS

Retrospective review of lung cancer patients referred to a Comprehensive Cancer Centre between 01/07/2011 and 30/06/2012 for anti-cancer therapy. Data were collected from medical, pharmacy, pathology and diagnostic imaging electronic records.

RESULTS

After a median follow up of 10 months (range: 0.03-32 months), 24/222 patients (10.8%) had developed radiologically confirmed thromboembolism; 131 events per 1000 person-years (95%CI 87-195). Thromboembolism occurred equally in patients with non-small cell and small cell lung cancer (10.8% and 10.5% respectively), and more frequently among patients with adenocarcinoma compared to squamous cell carcinoma (14.7% and 5.3% respectively). Chemotherapy-treated patients experienced thromboembolism more often than patients who did not receive chemotherapy (HR 5.7 95%CI 2.2-14.8). Radiotherapy was also associated with more frequent thromboembolism (HR 5.2 95%CI 2.0-13.2). New lung cancer diagnosis, presence of metastatic disease, second primary malignancy and Charlson Index ≥ 5 were also associated with higher rates of thromboembolism. Importantly, pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (P-TP) was not routinely or systematically prescribed for ambulant lung cancer patients during any treatment phase, at this institution. The majority (83%) of thromboembolic events occurred in the ambulatory care setting.

CONCLUSION

Morbidity and mortality from thromboembolism occurs frequently in lung cancer. Thromboprophylaxis guidelines should be developed for the ambulatory care setting.

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.

[Venous thromboembolism and cancer]

Cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE), VTE and cancer: there is a close bond between these two diseases. On the one hand, a cancer patient runs a high risk of developing VTE. Certain cancer-specific factors, such as its metastatic nature increase this risk. The means involved in the care of cancer (insertion of a venous catheter, chemotherapy, etc.) also increase the probability of a thromboembolism. On the other hand, VTE, especially if it is idiopathic, may be the harbinger of a neoplasm. The present paper involves the dual nature of this relationship, first dealing with several points specific to the occurrence of VTE in a cancer patient, before dealing with the specific care in a curative and prophylactic situation. VTE is then considered as a clinical manifestation prior to a cancer. Several characteristics evoking an underlying neoplasm are known. However, the benefits of the screening for cancer when confronted with an episode of VTE remains to be debated.

Pharmacological prevention of thromboembolism in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a well recognized problem with an increasingly significant impact on healthcare in the form of congestive heart failure (CHF). Advances in medicine have led to improved survival after myocardial infarction (MI) and as a result, an increased prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction. An increased incidence of thromboembolism, especially stroke, in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction is also well recognized. Pharmacological strategies to prevent stroke have been proposed in numerous studies. For example, anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure has been shown to reduce mortality rates and the incidence of stroke; however, its role in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and normal sinus rhythm is unclear and utilization of anticoagulation in these patients varies widely. The role of aspirin to prevent thromboembolism in patients with CHF is controversial. The relatively new pharmacological agent ximelagatran, which has an advantage of unmonitored oral administration has the potential to change the anticoagulation strategy in patients with heart failure. Important trials to define optimal therapy for reducing the risk of thromboembolism and death in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and sinus rhythm include the recently reported WATCH (Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart failure) trial and the WARCEF (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction) trial, which is currently underway. The WATCH trial failed to outline significant differences between aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), warfarin, and clopidogrel in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. Combined data from WATCH and WARCEF may provide sufficient statistical power to clarify outcomes such as stroke and death in patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction. The pooled data may also help define optimal preventative measures for thromboembolism in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and sinus rhythm.

Risk factors for venous thrombosis in medical inpatients: validation of a thrombosis risk score

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The occurrence of and risk factors for venous thrombosis (VT) complicating hospital admission in unselected medical inpatients have not been widely studied.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a 400-bed teaching hospital we identified all cases of VT complicating hospital admission between September 2000 and September 2002 using discharge codes and chart review. Controls were randomly selected adult inpatients frequency matched to cases for medical service.

RESULTS

The incidence of VT complicating hospital admission was 7.6 per 1000 admissions. On average, VT was diagnosed on the fifth hospital day. The median age of the 65 cases and 123 controls was 68 years and 45% were men. Cases had a 4-fold higher death rate than controls [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9, 8.8]. At admission, trauma within 3 months, leg edema, pneumonia, platelet count > 350 x 10(3) mm(-3) and certain cancers were associated with risk of VT. Age, body mass index, and acute myocardial infarction were not associated with VT risk. One of three published VT risk models was able to risk stratify patients and was associated with a 2.6-fold increased risk of VT (95% CI 1.3, 5.5). Use of VT prophylaxis did not differ in cases and controls; prophylaxis was used < 1/3 of hospital days in 52% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

VT was common among medical inpatients. Of the risk factors identified, elevated platelet count has not been previously reported. Only one of three published risk scores was associated with risk of inpatient VT. Future study should improve upon risk prediction models for in-hospital VT among medical patients.