Home therapy for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cancer patients

[Translation into French and republication of: "Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism"]

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Discharge from the emergency department and outpatient clinic in cancer patients with acute symptomatic and incidental pulmonary embolism: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how often cancer patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are discharged from the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic and whether direct discharge is safe. We assessed treatment setting and early safety outcomes in cancer patients with acute symptomatic and incidental PE.

METHODS

Cancer patients diagnosed with PE at the ED or outpatient clinic between August 2017 and May 2021 were included in Four Cities VTE Cancer, a Dutch multicenter retrospective cohort study. The main outcome was direct discharge versus hospitalization. Safety outcomes were cumulative 14-day mortality and PE-related readmission incidences.

RESULTS

We included 602 patients (median age 71 years; 49.5 % female) of whom 285 (47.3 %) were discharged directly and 317 (52.7 %) were hospitalized. The cumulative 14-day mortality incidence was 0.7 % (95 % CI, 0.1-2.4 %) in patients discharged directly and 9.0 % (95 % CI, 6.2-12.5 %) in those hospitalized. The cumulative 14-day PE-related readmission incidence was 1.8 % (95 % CI, 0.7-3.9 %) and 1.4 % (95 % CI, 0.5-3.3 %) in directly discharged and hospitalized patients, respectively. Of the 220 patients with incidental PE, 180 (81.8 %) were discharged directly compared to 105 of 382 (27.5 %) patients with symptomatic PE (P < 0.001). Mortality and readmission incidences in symptomatic and incidental PE were consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

About 28 % and 82 % of cancer patients with symptomatic or incidental PE, respectively, were discharged directly, with low 14-day mortality and PE-related readmission incidences. These data underline the need for PE risk stratification in oncological populations and suggest that clinicians successfully identify a proportion of patients in whom direct discharge is safe.

Bilateral Emboli and Highest Heart Rate Predict Hospitalization of Emergency Department Patients With Acute, Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Some patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) will suffer adverse clinical outcomes despite being low risk by clinical decision rules. Emergency physician decisionmaking processes regarding which low-risk patients require hospitalization are unclear. Higher heart rate (HR) or embolic burden may increase short-term mortality risk, and we hypothesized that these variables would be associated with an increased likelihood of hospitalization for patients designated as low risk by the PE Severity Index.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 461 adult emergency department (ED) patients with a PE Severity Index score of fewer than 86 points. Primary exposures were the highest observed ED HR, most proximal embolus location (proximal vs distal), and embolism laterality (bilateral vs unilateral PE). The primary outcome was hospitalization.

RESULTS

Of 461 patients meeting inclusion criteria, most (57.5%) were hospitalized, 2 patients (0.4%) died within 30 days, and 142 (30.8%) patients were at elevated risk by other criteria (Hestia criteria or biochemical/radiographic right ventricular dysfunction). Variablesassociated with an increased likelihood of admission were highest observed ED HR of ≥110 beats/minute (vs HR <90 beats/min) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 9.57), highest ED HR 90 to 109 (aOR 2.03; 95% CI 1.18-3.50) and bilateral PE (aOR 1.92; 95% CI 1.13 to 3.27). Proximal embolus location was not associated with the likelihood of hospitalization (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.71 to 2.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were hospitalized, often with recognizable high-risk characteristics not accounted for by the PE Severity Index. Highest ED HR of ≥90 beats/min and bilateral PE were associated with a physician's decision for hospitalization.

Prediction of serious complications in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism and solid cancer: Validation of the EPIPHANY Index in a prospective cohort of patients from the PERSEO study

INTRODUCTION

There is currently no validated score capable of classifying cancer-associated pulmonary embolism (PE) in its full spectrum of severity. This study has validated the EPIPHANY Index, a new tool to predict serious complications in cancer patients with suspected or unsuspected PE.

METHOD

The PERSEO Study prospectively recruited individuals with PE and active cancer or receiving antineoplastic therapy from 22 Spanish hospitals. The estimation of the relative frequency θ of complications based on the EPIPHANY Index categories was made using the Bayesian alternative for the binomial test.

RESULTS

A total of 900 patients, who were diagnosed with PE between October 2017 and January 2020, were enrolled. The rate of serious complications at 15 days was 11.8%, 95% highest density interval [HDI], 9.8-14.1%. Of the EPIPHANY low-risk patients, 2.4% (95% HDI, 0.8-4.6%) had serious complications, as did 5.5% (95% HDI, 2.9-8.7%) of the moderate-risk participants and 21.0% (95% HDI, 17.0-24.0%) of those with high-risk episodes. The EPIPHANY Index was associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with different risk levels: median OS was 16.5, 14.4, and 4.4 months for those at low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. Both the EPIPHANY Index and the Hestia criteria exhibited greater negative predictive value and a lower negative likelihood ratio than the remaining models. The incidence of bleeding at 6 months was 6.2% (95% HDI, 2.9-9.5%) in low/moderate-risk vs 12.7% (95% HDI, 10.1-15.4%) in high-risk (p-value = 0.037) episodes. Of the outpatients, serious complications at 15 days were recorded in 2.1% (95% HDI, 0.7-4.0%) of the cases with EPIPHANY low/intermediate-risk vs 5.3% (95% HDI, 1.7-11.8%) in high-risk cases.

CONCLUSION

We have validated the EPIPHANY Index in patients with incidental or symptomatic cancer-related PE. This model can contribute to standardize decision-making in a scenario lacking quality evidence.

Risk stratification for clinical severity of pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: a narrative review and MASCC clinical guidance for daily care

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The clinical presentation and outcomes of PE range from an acute life-threatening condition requiring intensive care to a mild symptomatic condition associated with favorable outcomes and potentially candidate for early hospital discharge. The wide clinical spectrum of PE has led to the development of risk stratification models aimed at the triage of patients in emergency care departments and optimizing the utilization of health care resources. Incidental or unsuspected PE (UPE), detected during routine staging computed tomography scans, make up a significant proportion of this cohort among the oncology population. The present narrative review is aimed at examining the currently available PE risk assessment models developed for the general population and for patients with cancer including UPE. We include general recommendations for the daily care of patients with cancer-related PE and hypothesize on the factors that would potentially favor hospitalization with early discharge or ambulatory management in this setting.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map

Background

By 2030, the global population of people older than 60 years is expected to be higher than the number of children under 10 years, resulting in major health and social care system implications worldwide. Without a supportive environment, whether social or built, diminished functional ability may arise in older people. Functional ability comprises an individual's intrinsic capacity and people's interaction with their environment enabling them to be and do what they value.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map aims to identify primary studies and systematic reviews of health and social support services as well as assistive devices designed to support functional ability among older adults living at home or in other places of residence.

Search Methods

We systematically searched from inception to August 2018 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AgeLine, Campbell Library, ASSIA, Social Science Citation Index and Social Policy & Practice. We conducted a focused search for grey literature and protocols of studies (e.g., ProQuest Theses and Dissertation Global, conference abstract databases, Help Age, PROSPERO, Cochrane and Campbell libraries and ClinicalTrials.gov).

Selection Criteria

Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate according to our intervention and outcome framework. We included completed and on-going systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of effectiveness on health and social support services provided at home, assistive products and technology for personal indoor and outdoor mobility and transportation as well as design, construction and building products and technology of buildings for private use such as wheelchairs, and ramps.

Data Collection and Analysis

We coded interventions and outcomes, and the number of studies that assessed health inequities across equity factors. We mapped outcomes based on the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) adapted categories: intrinsic capacities (body function and structures) and functional abilities (activities). We assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR II checklist.

Main Results

After de-duplication, 10,783 records were screened. The map includes 548 studies (120 systematic reviews and 428 randomized controlled trials). Interventions and outcomes were classified using domains from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Most systematic reviews (n = 71, 59%) were rated low or critically low for methodological quality.The most common interventions were home-based rehabilitation for older adults (n = 276) and home-based health services for disease prevention (n = 233), mostly delivered by visiting healthcare professionals (n = 474). There was a relative paucity of studies on personal mobility, building adaptations, family support, personal support and befriending or friendly visits. The most measured intrinsic capacity domains were mental function (n = 269) and neuromusculoskeletal function (n = 164). The most measured outcomes for functional ability were basic needs (n = 277) and mobility (n = 160). There were few studies which evaluated outcome domains of social participation, financial security, ability to maintain relationships and communication.There was a lack of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and a gap in the assessment of health equity issues.

Authors' Conclusions

There is substantial evidence for interventions to promote functional ability in older adults at home including mostly home-based rehabilitation for older adults and home-based health services for disease prevention. Remotely delivered home-based services are of greater importance to policy-makers and practitioners in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This map of studies published prior to the pandemic provides an initial resource to identify relevant home-based services which may be of interest for policy-makers and practitioners, such as home-based rehabilitation and social support, although these interventions would likely require further adaptation for online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to strengthen assessment of social support and mobility interventions and outcomes related to making decisions, building relationships, financial security, and communication in future studies. More studies are needed to assess LMIC contexts and health equity issues.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary care program for the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients is challenging due to higher risk of VTE recurrence or bleeding under anticoagulants. We assessed the effectiveness of a dedicated "Allo-Thrombosis Cancer" multidisciplinary care program (AlloTC-MCP) that incorporated individualized care, regular follow-ups, telephone counselling, and a patient education program.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From September 2017 to October 2019, 100 consecutive cancer patients with new VTE onset were enrolled in this observational single-center prospective pilot study and received standard (control group, n = first 50 patients enrolled) or AlloTC-MCP care (n = next 50 patients enrolled) over a 6-month VTE treatment follow-up period. Primary end-point was the percentage of adherence to the International Clinical Practice Guidelines (ITAC-CPGs) at 6 (M6) month follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients with different cancer types (22% genitourinary, 19% breast, 16% gastrointestinal, 15% lymphoma, 11% lung and 17% others), 51 patients (61%) had metastatic disease and 31 (31%) received chemotherapy alone. Main baseline cancer and VTE clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Adherence rates to ITAC-CPGs was significantly higher in the AlloTC-MCP group (100% (M0), 72% (M3) and 68% (M6)) compared with the control group (84% (M0), 8% (M3) and 16% (M6)). Quality of Life (QoL) was significantly improved in the AlloTC-MCP group 6 months after inclusion.

CONCLUSION

The "AlloTC-MCP" was associated with improved adherence to ITAC-CPGs and merits further expansion.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Prognosis in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: Comparison of the RIETE-VTE and modified Ottawa score

BACKGROUND

The RIETE-VTE score was derived to risk-stratify patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT).

OBJECTIVES

To externally validate the RIETE-VTE score and to compare its prognostic performance with the modified Ottawa score.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We studied 178 elderly patients with CAT in a prospective multicenter cohort and assessed 30-day all-cause mortality, 90-day overall complications (mortality, major bleeding, or venous thromboembolism [VTE] recurrence), and 6-month VTE recurrence. Patients were stratified into RIETE-VTE and modified Ottawa score risk classes (low, intermediate, high). We compared the discriminative power (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve) to predict mortality, overall complications, and VTE recurrence.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (8.4%) died within 30 days, 42 (23.6%) experienced an overall complication by day 90, and 6 (3.4%) had recurrent VTE within 6 months. The RIETE-VTE and the modified Ottawa score classified similar proportions of patients as low risk (35.4% versus 31.5%; P = .37). No low-risk patient died within 30 days. Low-risk patients identified by the RIETE-VTE and modified Ottawa score had similar rates of overall complications (7.9% versus 8.9%) and VTE recurrence (1.6% versus 1.8%). The modified Ottawa score and the RIETE-VTE score had similar areas under the ROC curve for predicting all-cause mortality (0.84 versus 0.75; P = .21), overall complications (0.74 versus 0.68; P = .26), and VTE recurrence (0.67 versus 0.64; P = .78).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the RIETE-VTE and modified Ottawa score accurately identified elderly patients with CAT who are at low risk for short-term mortality and who are potential candidates for outpatient care.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

Home vs hospital treatment of low-risk venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Increasing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of managing low-risk deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) in outpatient settings. We performed a systematic review to assess safety and effectiveness of managing patients with DVT or PE at home compared with the hospital. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective cohort studies. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts of identified citations and extracted data from relevant full-text papers. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Seven RCTs (1922 patients) were included in meta-analyses on managing patients with DVT. Pooled estimates indicated decreased risk of PE (RR = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.93) and recurrent DVT (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90) for home management, both with moderate certainty of the evidence. Reductions in mortality and major bleeding were not significant, both with low certainty of the evidence. Two RCTs (445 patients) were included in meta-analyses on home management of low-risk patients with PE. Pooled estimates indicated no significant difference in all-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding, all with low certainty of the evidence. Results of pooled estimates from 3 prospective cohort studies (234 patients) on home management of PE showed similar results. Our findings indicate that low-risk DVT patients had similar or lower risk of patient-important outcomes with home treatment compared with hospital treatment. In patients with low-risk PE, there was important uncertainty about a difference between home and hospital treatment.

External validation of three risk stratification rules in patients presenting with pulmonary embolism and cancer

Numerous risk stratification rules exist to predict post-pulmonary embolism (PE) mortality; however, few were designed for use in cancer patients. In the EPIPHANY registry, adapted versions of common rules (the Hestia criteria, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI], and simplified PESI [sPESI]) displayed high sensitivity for prognosticating mortality in PE patients with cancer. These adapted rules have yet to be externally validated. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the performance of an adapted Hestia criteria, PESI, and sPESI for predicting 30-day post-PE mortality in patients with cancer. We identified consecutive, adults presenting with objectively confirmed PE and cancer to our institution (November 2010 to January 2014). The proportion of patients categorized as low or high risk by these three risk stratification rules was calculated, and each rule's accuracy for predicting 30-day all-cause mortality was determined. Of the 124 patients with PE and active cancer identified, 25 (20%) experienced mortality at 30 days. The adapted Hestia criteria categorized 23 (19%) patients as low risk, while exhibiting a sensitivity of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68-97%), a negative predictive value NPV of 87% (95% CI = 65-97%), and a specificity of 20% (95% CI = 13-30%). A total of 38 (31%) and 30 (24%) patients were low risk by the adapted PESI and sPESI, with both displaying sensitivities of 92% and NPVs > 93%. Specificities were 36% (95% CI = 27-47%) and 28% (95% CI = 20-38%) for PESI and sPESI. In our external validation, the adapted Hestia, PESI, and sPESI demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for 30-day PE mortality in patients with cancer. Larger, prospective trials are needed to optimize strategies for risk stratification in this population.

[Cancer and venous thromboembolism recurrence: The keys for an optimal management]

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) are to date the standard for 3-to-6-month treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as they are consistently recommended by international clinical practice guidelines. Despite the high risk of VTE recurrence and death in patients with cancer and the favorable benefit-risk profile of LMWH demonstrated in randomized-control studies, the implementation of treatment guidelines remains insufficient in the clinical practice. A systematic review of observational studies, registries and surveys reveals that approximately only 50% of patients with CAT are treated according to practice guidelines while both physicians and patients may be accountable for this situation. Based on the few available published data, we have observed differences between guidelines and clinical practice and we have identified factors influencing patient's management with the perspective to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines in patients with CAT. Improving the implementation of clinical practice guidelines requires a better knowledge of physician and patient-related factors that influence therapeutic decisions. A global approach of patients with CAT is warranted to optimize the therapeutic management of cancer-associated VTE.

Clinical prediction rules for mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism and cancer to guide outpatient management: a meta-analysis

Essentials Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can stratify patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and cancer. A meta-analysis was done to assess prognostic accuracy in CPRs for mortality in these patients. Eight studies evaluating ten CPRs were included in this study. CPRs should continue to be used with other patient factors for mortality risk stratification.

SUMMARY

Background Cancer treatment is commonly complicated by pulmonary embolism (PE), which remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Some guidelines recommend the use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) to help clinicians identify patients at low risk of mortality and therefore guide care. Objective To determine and compare the accuracy of available CPRs for identifying cancer patients with PE at low risk of mortality. Methods A literature search of Medline and Scopus (January 2000 to August 2017) was performed. Studies deriving/validating ≥ 1 CPR for early post-PE all-cause mortality were included. A bivariate, random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates for each CPR. Traditional random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the weighted proportion of patients deemed at low risk of early mortality, mortality in low risk patients and odds ratios for death compared with higher-risk patients. Results Eight studies evaluating 10 CPRs were included. The highest sensitivities were observed with Hestia (98.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.6-99.9%) and the EPIPHANY index (97.4%, 95% CI = 93.2-99.0%); sensitivities of remaining rules ranged from 59.9 to 96.6%. Of the six CPRs with sensitivities ≥ 95%, none had specificities > 33%. Random-effects meta-analysis suggested that 6.6-51.6% of cancer patients with PE were at low risk of mortality, 0-14.3% of low-risk patients died and low-risk patients had a 43-94% lower odds of death compared with those at higher risk. Conclusions Because of the limited total body of evidence regarding CPRs, their results, in conjunction with other pertinent patient-specific clinical factors, should continue to be used in identifying appropriate management for PE in patients with cancer.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Key points to optimizing management and research on cancer-associated thrombosis

Despite the fact that thromboembolism is relatively common in oncology patients and that the interrelationship between thrombotic risk and specific mechanisms of tumorigenesis has long been known, many cardinal elements of prevention and treatment remain unresolved. Among the existing knowledge gaps, the need to validate the Ay scale and compare it to the Khorana index, develop, and standardize the use of predictive biomarkers for thrombotic risk, conduct clinical trials in thromboprophylaxis adapted to thrombotic risk, evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct anticoagulants, select patients who can benefit from anticoagulants for antitumor treatment, validate the EPIPHANY study decision tree to choose patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and accumulate more practical experience in special situations (rethrombosis, prolonged therapy beyond 6 months, etc.) are especially remarkable. These gray areas surrounding cancer-related thromboembolism explain why it continues to be a relatively common cause of serious events, at times interfering significantly with the development of new tumor-fighting strategies.

Predicting serious complications in patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism using decision tree modelling: the EPIPHANY Index

Background:

Our objective was to develop a prognostic stratification tool that enables patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE), whether incidental or symptomatic, to be classified according to the risk of serious complications within 15 days.

Methods:

The sample comprised cases from a national registry of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with cancer (1075 patients from 14 Spanish centres). Diagnosis was incidental in 53.5% of the events in this registry. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis was applied with 10-fold cross-validation to predict development of serious complications following PE diagnosis.

Results:

About 208 patients (19.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 17.1–21.8%) developed a serious complication after PE diagnosis. The 15-day mortality rate was 10.1%, (95% CI, 8.4–12.1%). The decision tree detected six explanatory covariates: Hestia-like clinical decision rule (any risk criterion present vs none), Eastern Cooperative Group performance scale (ECOG-PS; <2 vs ⩾2), O₂ saturation (<90 vs ⩾90%), presence of PE-specific symptoms, tumour response (progression, unknown, or not evaluated vs others), and primary tumour resection. Three risk classes were created (low, intermediate, and high risk). The risk of serious complications within 15 days increases according to the group: 1.6, 9.4, 30.6% P<0.0001. Fifteen-day mortality rates also rise progressively in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients: 0.3, 6.1, and 17.1% P<0.0001. The cross-validated risk estimate is 0.191 (s.e.=0.012). The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve is 0.779 (95% CI, 0.717–0.840).

Conclusions:

We have developed and internally validated a prognostic index to predict serious complications with the potential to impact decision-making in patients with cancer and PE.

Factors influencing adherence to clinical guidelines in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis

International academic and regulatory guidelines consistently recommend the long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) as the standard for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). However, both physicians and patients are reluctant to follow established guidelines. Insufficient compliance with treatment recommendations among care physicians represents a loss of opportunity for patients at very high risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and death. Few data are available regarding adherence to CAT clinical practice guidelines. Based on published data, we aimed to review the gap between guidelines and practice to draw a more precise picture of current practice in order to precisely identify the extent to which patient management is currently lacking with respect to treatment guidelines. Published observational studies, registries and surveys on cancer-associated VTE treatment were reviewed. In spite of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing the usefulness of long-term LMWH, only approximately 50% of patients are managed according to established guideline recommendations. Patient profiles and co-morbidities influence compliance with standard guidelines. A better knowledge of physician and patient-related factors that influence therapeutic decisions may improve the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Efficient awareness programs including a multidisciplinary approach are necessary to implement guidelines aimed at optimizing the therapeutic management of cancer-associated VTE.

National Trends in Home Treatment of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism has evolved from obligatory hospitalization to home treatment of carefully selected low-risk patients. The purpose of this investigation is to determine national trends in the prevalence of home treatment of pulmonary embolism.

METHODS

The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample was used to determine the number of patients seen in emergency departments throughout the United States with a primary (first-listed) diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and the proportion hospitalized according to age, from 2007 to 2012. The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was used to determine in-hospital all-cause mortality and length of stay of hospitalized patients. Patients were adults (≥18 years) of both genders and all races from all regions of the United States. Excluded patients were those in shock or on ventilator support. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify patients and comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

Home treatment was selected for 54 494 (6.0%) of 915 702 stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism. The proportion of patients treated at home was age-dependent, highest in those aged 30 years or younger, 12.1%, and lowest in those >80 years, 2.9%. Most patients treated at home, 66.8%, and had no comorbid conditions. In-hospital all-cause deaths were 2.6%. Deaths were ≤0.9% in those ≤40 years and 4.8% in those >80 years. Length of stay was 6 days or longer in 37.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

In view of the lower death rate among younger patients, they might be a group in whom home treatment would be more advantageous than in elderly patients.

Home Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Novel Oral Anticoagulants

BACKGROUND

Outpatient therapy of patients with acute pulmonary embolism has been shown to be safe in carefully selected patients. Problems related to the injection of low-molecular-weight heparin at home can be overcome by use of novel oral anticoagulants. The purpose of this investigation is to assess the prevalence of home treatment in the era of novel oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with acute pulmonary embolism seen in 5 emergency departments from January 2013 to December 2014.

RESULTS

Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 983 patients. Among these, 237 were considered ineligible for home treatment because of instability or hypoxia. Home treatment was selected for 13 of 746 (1.7%) patients who were potentially eligible. Anticoagulant treatment for those treated at home was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 9 (69.2%) and novel oral anticoagulants in 4 (30.8%). Hospitalization was chosen for 733 of 746 (98.3%). Discharge in ≤2 days was in 119 patients (16.2%). Treatment of these patients was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 76 (63.9%), novel oral anticoagulants in 34 (28.6%), and in 9 (7.6%), anticoagulants were not given because of metastatic cancer or treatment was not known.

CONCLUSION

Even in the era of novel oral anticoagulants, the vast majority of patients with acute pulmonary embolism were hospitalized, and only a small proportion were discharged in ≤2 days. Although home treatment has been found to be safe in carefully selected patients, and scoring systems have been derived to identify those at low risk of adverse events, home treatment was infrequently selected.

Impact of relative contraindications to home management in emergency department patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism

RATIONALE

Studies of adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) suggest that those who are low risk on the PE Severity Index (classes I and II) can be managed safely without hospitalization. However, the impact of relative contraindications to home management on outcomes has not been described.

OBJECTIVES

To compare 5-day and 30-day adverse event rates among low-risk ED patients with acute PE without and with outpatient ineligibility criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults presenting to the ED with acute low-risk PE between 2010 and 2012. We evaluated the association between outpatient treatment eligibility criteria based on a comprehensive list of relative contraindications and 5-day adverse events and 30-day outcomes, including major hemorrhage, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 423 adults with acute low-risk PE, 271 (64.1%) had no relative contraindications to outpatient treatment (outpatient eligible), whereas 152 (35.9%) had at least one contraindication (outpatient ineligible). Relative contraindications were categorized as PE-related factors (n = 112; 26.5%), comorbid illness (n = 42; 9.9%), and psychosocial barriers (n = 19; 4.5%). There were no 5-day events in the outpatient-eligible group (95% upper confidence limit, 1.7%) and two events (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-5.0%) in the outpatient-ineligible group (P = 0.13). At 30 days, there were five events (two recurrent venous thromboemboli and three major bleeding events) in the outpatient-eligible group (1.8%; 95% CI, 0.7-4.4%) compared with nine in the ineligible group (5.9%; 95% CI, 2.7-10.9%; P < 0.05). This difference remained significant when controlling for PE severity class.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly two-thirds of adults presenting to the ED with low-risk PE were potentially eligible for outpatient therapy. Relative contraindications to outpatient management were associated with an increased frequency of adverse events at 30 days among adults with low-risk PE.

Is the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Being Routinely Used in Clinical Practice?

Background. The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score can risk-stratify patients with PE but its widespread use is uncertain. With the PESI, we compared length of hospital stay between low, moderate, and high risk PE patients and determined the number of low risk PE patients who were discharged early. Methods. PE patients admitted to St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital from January 2005 to August 2010 were screened. PESI score stratified acute PE patients into low (<85), moderate (86–105), and high (>105) risk categories and their length of hospital stay was compared. Patients with low risk PE discharged early (≤3 days) were calculated. Results. Among 315 PE patients, 51.7% were at low risk. No significant difference in hospital stay between low (7.11 ± 3 d) and moderate (6.88 ± 2.9 d) risk, p > 0.05, as well as low and high risk (7.28 ± 3.0 d), p > 0.05, was found. 9% of low risk patients were discharged ≤ 3 days. Conclusions. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between low and high risk groups and only a small number of low risk patients were discharged from the hospital early suggesting that risk tools like PESI may not have a widespread use.

The prognostic value of undetectable highly sensitive cardiac troponin I in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Elevated cardiac troponin levels have been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, few data address the management implications of undetectable cardiac troponin I (cTnI) using a highly sensitive assay. We hypothesized that undetectable cTnI predicts very low in-hospital adverse event rates.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we classified patients with confirmed acute PE according to cTnI detectability into cTnI+ (≥ 0.012 ng/mL) and cTnI- (< 0.012 ng/mL) groups. The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) was used for clinical risk determination. The primary outcome was a composite of hard events defined as in-hospital death, CPR, or thrombolytic therapy. The secondary outcome was a composite of soft events defined as ICU admission or inferior vena cava filter placement.

RESULTS

Among 298 consecutive patients with confirmed acute PE, 161 (55%) were cTnI+ and 137 (45%) cTnI-. No deaths occurred in the cTnI- group vs nine (6%) in the cTnI+ group (P = .004). No hard events were observed in the cTnI- group vs 15 (9%) in the cTnI+ group (P < .001). Soft events were observed at a lower rate in the cTnI- group (21[15%] vs 69 [43%], P < .001). Patients in the cTnI- group had a higher survival rate free of hard (P = .001) or soft (P < .001) events, irrespective of clinical risk. Furthermore, cTnI provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical, ECG, and imaging data (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Highly sensitive cTnI assay provides an excellent prognostic negative predictive value; thus, it plays a role in identifying candidates for out-of-hospital treatment of acute PE.

Value of Cardiac Troponin and sPESI in Treatment of Pulmonary Thromboembolism at Outpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

Currently, guidelines do not recommend any standard approach for treatment of pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) at outpatient setting. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a 90-day anticoagulant treatment of outpatients diagnosed with PTE who had negative troponin levels and low-risk simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI) at presentation.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included a total of 206 patients with objectively confirmed acute symptomatic PTE. Any troponin negative (cTn-) and low sPESI patients (as classified Group-1) were treated in outpatient setting. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during the first 90 days, and the secondary endpoint included non-fatal symptomatic recurrent PTE or non-fatal major bleeding. Presence of cancer was excluded from sPESI score.

RESULTS

Fifty-two of 206 patients were eligible for had Group-1, and 31 were treated at outpatients settings. The 90-day all-cause mortality rate was 3.2 % among patients who received outpatient treatment. Otherwise cTn+ and high-risk sPESI 90-day mortality rate was 43.7 %. No difference was found in terms of secondary endpoints between the patients who received outpatient treatment and those who received inpatient treatment in Group-1 (p = NS). In our study, cancer was present in 16 (51.6 %) of the 31 outpatients.

CONCLUSION

We observed that patients with acute PTE, low-risk sPESI, and negative troponin levels can be safely treated in the outpatient settings. Also the presence of cancer alone does not necessitate hospitalization.

Cancer-associated thrombosis: an overview

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in patients with malignant disease. Emerging data have enhanced our understanding of cancer-associated thrombosis, a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. In addition to VTE, arterial occlusion with stroke and anginal symptoms is relatively common among cancer patients, and is possibly related to genetic predisposition. Several risk factors for developing venous thrombosis usually coexist in cancer patients including surgery, hospital admissions and immobilization, the presence of an indwelling central catheter, chemotherapy, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and new molecular-targeted therapies such as antiangiogenic agents. Effective prophylaxis and treatment of VTE reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved quality of life. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is preferred as an effective and safe means for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE. It has largely replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Recently, the development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that directly inhibit factor Xa or thrombin is a milestone achievement in the prevention and treatment of VTE. This review will focus on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis, risk factors, and new predictive biomarkers for VTE as well as discuss novel prevention and management regimens of VTE in cancer according to published guidelines.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodologic quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63), or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

What are the pharmacotherapy options for treating venous thromboembolism in cancer patients?

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with malignancies. The treatment of VTE disorders in cancer patients remains a difficult clinical task.

AREAS COVERED

Current evidence on the most appropriate initial and long-term treatment of cancer patients with VTE was addressed, as was the management of recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation, the management of incidentally detected isolated pulmonary embolism (PE), the potential role of the novel direct oral anticoagulants and the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on cancer evolution.

EXPERT OPINION

LMWHs are the cornerstone of VTE treatment in cancer patients. The intensity and duration of treatment are dependent on several factors that need to be individually evaluated. The novel oral anticoagulants should be investigated more carefully before being routinely implemented in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Incidentally detected isolated sub-segmental PE is unlikely to require systematic full-dose anticoagulation. Evidence favoring an impact of LMWH on survival in cancer patients is weak.

Developing a complex intervention for the outpatient management of incidentally diagnosed pulmonary embolism in cancer patients

Background

Most patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) spend 5–7 days in hospital even though only 4.5% will develop serious complications during this time. In particular, the group of patients with incidentally diagnosed PE (i-PE) includes many patients with low risk features potentially ideal for outpatient management; however the evidence for their optimal management is lacking hence relative practices may vary considerably. We describe the development process, components, links and function of a nurse-led service for the management of patients with i-PE, developed in accordance to the UK Medical Research Council complex intervention guidance.

Methods

Phase 0 (Theoretical underpinning): The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) was selected for patient risk assessment and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for the management of PE in cancer patients (2007) was selected as quality measure. Historical registry and audit data from our centre regarding i-PE incidence and management for the period between 2006 and 2009 illustrating the then current practices were reviewed. Phase 1 (Modelling): Modelling of the pathway included the following: a) Identification of training needs, planning and implementation of training schemes and development of transferable competencies and training materials. b) Mapping patient pathways and flow and c) Production of key documentation and Standard Operating Procedures for the delivery of the service.

Results

Phase 2 (Implementation and testing of the intervention): During the initial 12 months of implementation, remedial action was taken to address identified deficiencies regarding patient referral to the pathway, compliance with treatment protocol, patient follow up, selection challenges from the use of PESI in cancer patients and challenges regarding the “first-pass” identification of i-PE.

Conclusion

We have developed and piloted a complex intervention to manage cancer patients with incidental PE in an outpatient setting. Adherence to evidence- based care, improvement of communication between professionals and patients, and improved quality of data is demonstrated.

Hospital costs of acute pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE

Pulmonary embolism places a heavy economic burden on health care systems, but the components of hospital cost have not been elucidated. We evaluated hospitalized patients with the primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Our goal was to determine the total and component costs associated with their hospital care.

METHODS

We included patients hospitalized at Brigham and Women's Hospital from September 2003 to May 2010. Patient demographics, characteristics, comorbidities, interventions, and treatments were obtained from the electronic medical record. Costs were obtained using the hospital's accounting software and categorized into the areas providing direct patient supplies or care.

RESULTS

We identified 991 hospitalized patients with acute pulmonary embolism. In-hospital mortality was 4.2%, and 90-day mortality after hospital discharge was 13.8%. The median length of hospital stay was 3 days, and the mean length of hospital stay was 4 days. The mean total hospitalization cost per patient was $8764. Nursing costs, which included room and board, were $5102. Pharmacy ($966) and radiology ($963) costs were similar. Pharmacy costs ($966) were dominated by the use of low-molecular-weight heparin ($232). Radiology costs ($963) were dominated by the use of diagnostic imaging examinations ($672). During the observation period, an average of 160 patients with pulmonary embolism were admitted each year, requiring an annual hospital expense ranging from $884,814 to $1,866,489.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary embolism has a high case fatality rate and remains an expensive illness to diagnose and treat. Nursing costs comprise the largest component of costs.

New prospective for the management of low-risk pulmonary embolism: prognostic assessment, early discharge, and single-drug therapy with new oral anticoagulants

Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) can be stratified into two different prognostic categories, based on the presence or absence of shock or sustained arterial hypotension. Some patients with normotensive PE have a low risk of early mortality, defined as <1% at 30 days or during hospital stay. In this paper, we will discuss the new prospective for the optimal management of low-risk PE: prognostic assessment, early discharge, and single-drug therapy with new oral anticoagulants. Several parameters have been proposed and investigated to identify low-risk PE: clinical prediction rules, imaging tests, and laboratory markers of right ventricular dysfunction or injury. Moreover, outpatient management has been suggested for low-risk PE: it may lead to a decrease in unnecessary hospitalizations, acquired infections, death, and costs and to an improvement in health-related quality of life. Finally, the main characteristics of new oral anticoagulant drugs and the most recent published data on phase III trials on PE suggest that the single-drug therapy is a possible suitable option. Oral administration, predictable anticoagulant responses, and few drug-drug interactions of direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors may further simplify PE home therapy avoiding administration of low-molecular-weight heparin.

Excess of health care use in general practice and of comorbid chronic conditions in cancer patients compared to controls

Background

The number of cancer patients and the number of patients surviving initial treatments is expected to rise. Traditionally, follow-up monitoring takes place in secondary care. The contribution of general practice is less visible and not clearly defined.

This study aimed to compare healthcare use in general practice of patients with cancer during the follow-up phase compared with patients without cancer. We also examined the influence of comorbid conditions on healthcare utilisation by these patients in general practice.

Methods

We compared health care use of N=8,703 cancer patients with an age and gender-matched control group of patients without cancer from the same practice. Data originate from the Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (LINH), a representative network consisting of 92 general practices with 350,000 enlisted patients. Health care utilisation was assessed using data on contacts with general practice, prescription and referral rates recorded between 1/1/2001 and 31/12/2007. The existence of additional comorbid chronic conditions (ICPC coded) was taken into account.

Results

Compared to matched controls, cancer patients had more contacts with their GP-practice (19.5 vs. 11.9, p<.01), more consultations with the GP (3.5 vs. 2.7, p<.01), more home visits (1.6 vs. 0.4, p<.01) and they got more medicines prescribed (18.7 vs. 11.6, p<.01) during the follow-up phase. Cancer patients more often had a chronic condition than their matched controls (52% vs. 44%, p<.01). Having a chronic condition increased health care use for both patients with and without cancer. Cancer patients with a comorbid condition had the highest health care use.

Conclusion

We found that cancer patients in the follow-up phase consulted general practice more often and suffered more often from comorbid chronic conditions, compared to patients without cancer. It is expected that the number of cancer patients will rise in the years to come and that primary health care professionals will be more involved in follow-up care. Care for comorbid chronic conditions, communication between specialists and GPs, and coordination of tasks then need special attention.

Cancer-related venous thromboembolic disease: current management and areas of uncertainty

The relationship between cancer and venothromboembolic events is a complex, multifactorial process which is still not fully understood and therefore the use of current generic guidelines may be inadequate. Current management of cancer-related VTE may be suboptimal because of the lack of cancer-specific studies into the role of primary prophylaxis in both ambulant and non-ambulant cancer patients. Further research into developing cancer-specific risk assessment tools and the choice, dose and duration of prophylaxis is required. The management of confirmed symptomatic VTE in cancer patients is outlined but certain controversies remain. Areas for further research include the management of asymptomatic unsuspected VTE events, recurrent VTE events on treatment and the role of IVC filters and other treatment options are required. This paper attempts to cover some of the recent developments and areas of uncertainty surrounding the management of cancer-related VTE.

Outpatient treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: the Hestia Study

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are initially treated in the hospital with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The results of a few small non-randomized studies suggest that, in selected patients with proven PE, outpatient treatment is potentially feasible and safe.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment according to predefined criteria in patients with acute PE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients with objectively proven acute PE was conducted in 12 hospitals in The Netherlands between 2008 and 2010. Patients with acute PE were triaged with the predefined criteria for eligibility for outpatient treatment, with LMWH (nadroparin) followed by vitamin K antagonists. All patients eligible for outpatient treatment were sent home either immediately or within 24 h after PE was objectively diagnosed. Outpatient treatment was evaluated with respect to recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), including PE or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major hemorrhage and total mortality during 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 297 included patients, who all completed the follow-up, six (2.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-4.3) had recurrent VTE (five PE [1.7%] and one DVT [0.3%]). Three patients (1.0%, 95% CI 0.2-2.9) died during the 3 months of follow-up, none of fatal PE. Two patients had a major bleeding event, one of which was fatal intracranial bleeding (0.7%, 95% CI 0.08-2.4).

CONCLUSION

Patients with PE selected for outpatient treatment with predefined criteria can be treated with anticoagulants on an outpatient basis. (Dutch Trial Register No 1319; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp).

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Although practice guidelines recommend outpatient care for selected, haemodynamically stable patients with pulmonary embolism, most treatment is presently inpatient based. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of outpatient care compared with inpatient care.

METHODS

We undertook an open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial at 19 emergency departments in Switzerland, France, Belgium, and the USA. We randomly assigned patients with acute, symptomatic pulmonary embolism and a low risk of death (pulmonary embolism severity index risk classes I or II) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (blocks of 2-4) in a 1:1 ratio to initial outpatient (ie, discharged from hospital ≤24 h after randomisation) or inpatient treatment with subcutaneous enoxaparin (≥5 days) followed by oral anticoagulation (≥90 days). The primary outcome was symptomatic, recurrent venous thromboembolism within 90 days; safety outcomes included major bleeding within 14 or 90 days and mortality within 90 days. We used a non-inferiority margin of 4% for a difference between inpatient and outpatient groups. We included all enrolled patients in the primary analysis, excluding those lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00425542.

FINDINGS

Between February, 2007, and June, 2010, we enrolled 344 eligible patients. In the primary analysis, one (0·6%) of 171 outpatients developed recurrent venous thromboembolism within 90 days compared with none of 168 inpatients (95% upper confidence limit [UCL] 2·7%; p=0·011). Only one (0·6%) patient in each treatment group died within 90 days (95% UCL 2·1%; p=0·005), and two (1·2%) of 171 outpatients and no inpatients had major bleeding within 14 days (95% UCL 3·6%; p=0·031). By 90 days, three (1·8%) outpatients but no inpatients had developed major bleeding (95% UCL 4·5%; p=0·086). Mean length of stay was 0·5 days (SD 1·0) for outpatients and 3·9 days (SD 3·1) for inpatients.

INTERPRETATION

In selected low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism, outpatient care can safely and effectively be used in place of inpatient care.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Sanofi-Aventis provided free drug supply in the participating European centres.

Management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In these patients VTE is associated with substantial morbidity and complicates the clinical management of cancer. Emerging research indicates a probable detrimental effect of VTE on cancer survival. Although VTE may develop at any stage of cancer disease, the risk of VTE is particularly high in association with three clinical settings including surgery for cancer, use of a central vein catheter (CVC) and chemotherapy. Guidelines recommend post-operative prophylaxis (for at least 7-10 days) for patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. A prolonged prophylaxis (for upto four post-operative weeks) is recommended in cancer patients at high risk for VTE. The role of antithrombotic prophylaxis in the prevention of CVC-related thrombosis remains controversial. The PROTECHT study has recently evaluated the benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, showing a statistically significant 50% relative risk reduction in symptomatic thromboembolic events. The international guidelines currently agree in non-recommending routine prophylaxis in ambulatory patients who receive anticancer chemotherapy but suggest an individual risk-based evaluation. To better identify cancer patients at high risk for VTE, simple predictive models have been validated. Further intervention studies are currently on-going to explore the benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in individual high-risk groups of patients. The long-term treatment of cancer-related VTE is based on therapeutic doses of LMWH in preference to warfarin. The optimal duration of antithrombotic treatment in cancer patients remains to be fully defined.