Extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients with decreased mobility: does it improve outcomes?

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

Cost-effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Hospitalization in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than patients without IBD, with increased risk during hospitalization that persists postdischarge. We determined the cost-effectiveness of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized patients with IBD.

METHODS

A decision tree compared inpatient prophylaxis alone vs 4 weeks of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis with 10 mg/day of rivaroxaban. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2020 $USD), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 VTE and VTE death were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis with rivaroxaban resulted in 1.68-higher QALYs per 1000 persons compared with no postdischarge prophylaxis at an incremental cost of $185,778 per QALY. The NNT to prevent a single VTE was 78, whereas the NNT to prevent a single VTE-related death was 3190. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that higher VTE risk >4.5% and decreased cost of rivaroxaban ≤$280 can reduce the ICER to <$100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored prophylaxis in 28.9% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Four weeks of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis results in higher QALYs compared with inpatient prophylaxis alone and prevents 1 postdischarge VTE among 78 patients with IBD. Although postdischarge VTE prophylaxis for all patients with IBD is not cost-effective, it should be considered in a case-by-case scenario, considering VTE risk profile, costs, and patient preference.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

Extended duration of thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The benefit of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for acute medical illness beyond hospital stay remains controversial.

AIMS

To perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) in order to examine the efficacy and safety of extended-duration anticoagulation for venous-thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in this high-risk population.

METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted to include all RCT comparing between extended-duration versus short-duration prophylactic anticoagulation in medically ill patients. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite events of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic VTE and death from VTE-related causes.

RESULTS

Five RCT were included totalling 40 124 patients, with a mean age of 71 years and 51% were male. In comparison to standard-duration therapy, extended-duration thromboprophylaxis was associated with a significant reduction in the primary efficacy outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.85; P < 0.01), symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84; P < 0.01) and asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences between both groups with regard to VTE-related death (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60-1.10; P = 0.18) or all-cause death (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.08; P = 0.64). In contrast, extended-duration thromboprophylaxis was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR 2.04; 95% CI 1.42-2.91; P < 0.01) and non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.29-2.53; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalised medically ill patients, prolonging venous thromboprophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of composite events of the primary efficacy outcome and increased risk of bleeding with no significant difference in VTE-related death.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common vascular disease. Medical inpatients, long-term care residents, persons with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers are at increased risk.

OBJECTIVE

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

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 approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 19 recommendations for acutely ill and critically ill medical inpatients, people in long-term care facilities, outpatients with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included provision of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in acutely or critically ill inpatients at acceptable bleeding risk, use of mechanical prophylaxis when bleeding risk is unacceptable, against the use of direct oral anticoagulants during hospitalization, and against extending pharmacological prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Conditional recommendations included not to use VTE prophylaxis routinely in long-term care patients or outpatients with minor VTE risk factors. The panel conditionally recommended use of graduated compression stockings or low-molecular-weight heparin in long-distance travelers only if they are at high risk for VTE.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Benefit of Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants Versus Enoxaparin Thromboprophylaxis to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism Among Hospitalized Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal complication of hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis using subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) can result in local irritation, pain, and ecchymoses, leading to nonadherence. Direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an alternative, but their efficacy and safety for short-term inpatient-only use versus LMWH, in medically hospitalized patients, has not been rigorously assessed. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses and exploratory cost effectiveness analysis of Phase III randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs to LMWH for VTE prophylaxis to determine the risk and benefit of each. The primary efficacy end point (composite of total VTE and any-cause mortality) occurred in 1,321 of 10,978 (11.4%) of patients receiving DOAC prophylaxis and 1,084 of 10,600 (10.2%) with LMWH (odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 1.13). The primary safety end point (composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant bleeding) occurred in 519 of 16,131 (3.2%) of patients receiving DOACs and 381 of 14,616 (2.6%) with LMWH (OR 1.12; 95%CI 0.83 to 1.53). Subgroup analyses for efficacy (n = 9,233) and safety (n = 12,584) was conducted on patients randomized to Apixaban or LMWH. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 294 of 4618 (6.4%) patients on Apixaban and 383 of 4615 (8.3%) on Enoxaparin (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.24). Major and clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 157 of 6278 (2.50%) and 185 of 6,306 (2.9%), respectively (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26). Exploratory cost effectiveness analysis suggested that Apixaban compared with Enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis could result in long-term cost savings. In conclusion, this systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis, stratified by type of patients and drug, indicates noninferiority of DOACs in efficacy, safety, and cost for short-term VTE thromboprophylaxis among patients hospitalized for medical illness.

VTE primary prevention, including hospitalised medical and orthopaedic surgical patients

Primary prevention is the key to managing a significant proportion of the burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). This is because VTE may lead to sudden death or are often misdiagnosed and therefore treatment is not feasible. Primary prevention usually commences in hospital as VTE following hospitalisation adds to the significant disease burden worldwide. Numerous medical, surgical and other risk factors have been recognised and studied as indications for prophylaxis. The risk of VTE continues following admission to hospital with a medical or surgical condition, usually long after discharge and therefore prolonged primary prophylaxis is often recommended. Clinical and observational studies in surgical patients show this risk extends for months and perhaps more than one year, for medical patients the risk extends for at least several weeks. For the specific groups of patients at higher risk of developing VTE primary prevention, either pharmaceutical or mechanical, is recommended. The aim of this review is to describe the population at risk, the main related risk factors and the approach to thromboprophylaxis in different populations.

Efficacy and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Compelling evidence suggests that the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) persists after hospital discharge in acutely-ill medical patients. However, no studies consistently supported the routine use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (ET) in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of ET in acutely-ill medical patients. Efficacy outcome was defined by the prevention of symptomatic DVT, PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and VTE-related mortality. Safety outcome was the occurrence of major bleeding (MB) and fatal bleeding (FB). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) were calculated for each outcome using a random effects model. Four RCTs for a total of 28,105 acutely-ill medical patients were included. ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of DVT (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, OR 0.504, 95 %CI: 0.287-0.885) and VTE (0.5 % vs 1.0 %, OR: 0.544, 95 %CI: 0.297-0.997); a non-significantly lower risk of PE (0.3 % vs 0.4 %, OR 0.633, 95 %CI: 0.388-1.034) and of VTE-related mortality (0.2 % vs 0.3 %, OR 0.687, 95 %CI: 0.445-1.059) and with a significantly higher risk of MB (0.8 % vs 0.4 %, OR 2.095, 95 %CI: 1.333-3.295). No difference in FB was found (0.06 % vs 0.03 %, OR 1.79, 95 %CI: 0.384-8.325). The risk benefit analysis showed that the NNT for DVT was 339, for VTE was 239, and the NNH for MB was 247. Results of our meta-analyses focused on clinical important outcomes did not support a general use of antithrombotic prophylaxis beyond the period of hospitalization in acutely-ill medical patients.

The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical and critically ill patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) acquired during hospitalization is common, yet preventable by the proper implementation of thromboprophylaxis which remains to be underutilized worldwide. As a result of an initiative by the Saudi Ministry of Health to improve medical practices in the country, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo Embolism (SAVTE; a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) with the methodological guidance of the McMaster University Guideline working group, produced this clinical practice guideline to assist healthcare providers in VTE prevention. The expert part panel issued ten recommendations addressing 10 prioritized questions in the following areas: thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (Recommendations 1-5), thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical patients (Recommendations 6-9), and thromboprophylaxis in chronically ill patients (Recommendation 10). The corresponding recommendations were generated following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

Venous thromboembolism in medical patients during hospitalisation and 3 months after hospitalisation: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to assess the incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a cohort of medical patients both during the period of hospitalisation and following discharge.

DESIGN

This was a prospective observational study to document the risk profile and incidence of VTE posthospitalisation among all medical patients admitted to our institution during the trial period.

SETTINGS

Primary healthcare. Single tertiary referral centre, Tasmania, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 986 patients admitted to the medical ward between January 2012 and September 2012 were included in the study with male to female ratio of 497:489. The mean age of patients was 68 years (range 17-112, SD 16).

RESULTS

Overall, 54/986 patients (5.5%) had a VTE during the study period. Of these, 40/54 (74.1%) occurred during hospitalisation and 14/54 (25.9%) occurred following discharge. VTE risk factors revealed in multivariate analysis to be associated with a previous diagnosis of VTE (p<0.001, OR=6.63, 95% CI 3.3 to 13.36), the occurrence of surgery within the past 30 days (p<0.001, OR=2.52, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.79) and an admission diagnosis of pulmonary disease (p<0.01, OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.49 to 8.76). Mobility within 24 hours of admission was not associated with an increased risk. There was risk of VTE when the length of stay prolonged (p=0.046, OR=1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03), however it was not sustained with multivariate modelling. VTE-specific prophylaxis was used in 53% of the studied patients. Anticoagulation including antiplatelet agents were administered in 63% of patients who developed VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective observational study found that 5.5% of the studied patients developed VTE. Among those, 25.9% (14/54) of patients had a detected VTE posthospitalisation with this risk being increased if there was a history of VTE, recent surgery and pulmonary conditions. Thromboprophylaxis may be worth considering in these cohorts. Further study to confirm these findings are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12611001255976.

Review article: acute severe ulcerative colitis - evidence-based consensus statements

BACKGROUND

Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a potentially life-threatening complication of ulcerative colitis.

AIM

To develop consensus statements based on a systematic review of the literature of the management of ASUC to improve patient outcome.

METHODS

Following a literature review, the Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements. A steering committee, based in Australia, generated the statements of interest. Three rounds of anonymous voting were carried out to achieve the final results. Acceptance of statements was pre-determined by ≥80% votes in 'complete agreement' or 'agreement with minor reservation'.

RESULTS

Key recommendations include that patients with ASUC should be: hospitalised, undergo unprepared flexible sigmoidoscopy to assess severity and to exclude cytomegalovirus colitis, and be provided with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and intravenous hydrocortisone 100 mg three or four times daily with close monitoring by a multidisciplinary team. Rescue therapy such as infliximab or ciclosporin should be started if insufficient response by day 3, and colectomy considered if no response to 7 days of rescue therapy or earlier if deterioration. With such an approach, it is expected that colectomy rate during admission will be below 30% and mortality less than 1% in specialist centres.

CONCLUSION

These evidenced-based consensus statements on acute severe ulcerative colitis, developed by a multidisciplinary group, provide up-to-date best practice recommendations that improve and harmonise management as well as provide auditable quality assessments.

Thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients: results of a survey among Italian physicians

AIMS

acutely ill medical patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and often require thromboprophylaxis, but patient selection and adequate therapeutic decisions may be difficult due to the heterogeneity and the complexity of this population. We conducted a survey among a large cohort of Italian physicians to assess their approach to some important "grey" areas of VTE prevention in this setting.

METHODS

a questionnaire was distributed during the meeting of a national society of Internal Medicine (FADOI), held in May 2013. Four clinical scenarios describing areas of clinical uncertainty were administered to participants: the first on a patient with acute ischemic stroke; the second on a patient with severe renal insufficiency; the third on the duration of prophylaxis in the post-acute setting; and the last on a patient at high risk of VTE and at moderate risk of bleeding with preserved mobility.

RESULTS

453 questionnaires were returned (participants mean age 48.5 years). About 70% of participants systematically assess VTE and bleeding risk in their clinical practice, but a minority of them use risk assessment models. Prolonged prophylaxis in the post-acute setting was voted by more than eighty percent of participants; replies to the other three clinical scenarios were more heterogeneous with none of the options selected by more than 60% of participant.

CONCLUSION

physicians approach to "grey" areas of antithrombotic prophylaxis in the medical setting is quite heterogeneous and sometimes partially in contrast to recent guidelines, reinforcing the need for educational programs and high quality studies in this setting.

NOACs for thromboprophylaxis in medical patients

The risk of venous thrombosis extends for an indeterminate length of time following admission to hospital with a medical or surgical condition. Observational studies in surgery show this risk extends for months and perhaps more than one year, for medical patients the risk extends for at least several weeks. Large bodies of evidence support the heightened risk status of hospitalised surgical and medical patients, and that prophylactic measures significantly reduce the risk of thrombosis. Extending thromboprophylaxis for 4-6 weeks with anticoagulants both old and new has been shown to be efficacious and safe in surgical patients. However in populations of medical patients although prolonged anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis has been shown to be efficacious it also results in more bleeding and the risk benefit is not clear. Hence no therapies are approved for prolonged thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. In this area there have been one phase III study of low molecular weight heparin and two completed phase III studies of NOACs. This article briefly summarises our understanding of the background to preventing venous thromboembolism in hospitalised medical patients and reviews the details of the studies using NOACs.