Effect of anticoagulant treatment on pain in distal deep vein thrombosis: an ancillary analysis from the cactus trial

Management of isolated distal deep vein thrombosis

Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) represents up to 50% of all lower limb DVT in ultrasound series and is a frequent medical condition, which management is not well established. Data arising from registries and non-randomized studies suggest that most distal DVTs do not extend to the proximal veins and have an uneventful follow-up when left untreated. This data had some impact on international recommendations like the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), whose last version stated that ultrasound surveillance might be an option for selected low-risk patients. However, robust data arising from randomized studies are scarce. Indeed, only seven randomized trials assessing the need for anticoagulation for calf DVT have been published. Many of these trials had an open-label design and were affected by methodological limitations. When considering randomized placebo-controlled trials, one included low-risk patients and was hampered by a limited statistical power (CACTUS study). Nevertheless, data from this trial tend to confirm that the use of therapeutic anticoagulation in low-risk patients with symptomatic calf DVT is not superior to placebo in reducing VTE but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding. A second randomized placebo-controlled trial did not assess the necessity of anticoagulant treatment but rather the long-term risk of recurrence and compared 6 weeks versus 12 weeks of treatment with rivaroxaban (RIDTS study). Finally, the last available randomized trial compared a 3-month versus a 12-month edoxaban treatment in patients with cancer and mainly asymptomatic distal DVT, detected by systematic compression ultrasonography. Overall, available data suggest that the use of therapeutic anticoagulation in low-risk patients with symptomatic calf DVT is not superior to placebo in reducing VTE. High risk patients (previous VTE, active cancer, inpatients) might benefit from a course of anticoagulant treatment. However, the optimal anticoagulant intensity and duration are uncertain and further studies are needed.

Two Weeks of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Isolated Symptomatic Distal Vein Thrombosis (TWISTER study)

BACKGROUND

Treatment of low-risk patients with isolated symptomatic distal deep vein thrombi (IDDVT) is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

assess whether two weeks of therapeutic anticoagulation is efficacious/safe for IDDVT.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

symptomatic three-month venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence in the two-week anticoagulation group. Secondary outcomes included post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and bleeding.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre cohort study. Consecutive low-risk IDDVT patients enrolled within 72 h of diagnosis and treated with therapeutic dose enoxaparin or rivaroxaban. At two weeks, patients had repeat complete whole leg compression ultrasound (CUS)/clinical review. If resolution of leg symptoms AND no radiological evidence of thrombus extension, anticoagulation was stopped. If ongoing symptoms and/or radiographic extension within distal veins, anticoagulation was continued for four more weeks. Patients with extension into the popliteal vein on two-week ultrasound were treated off-study. Patients were reviewed at three and six months.

FINDINGS/INTERPRETATION

241 eligible patients received ≥2 weeks anticoagulation. 167/241 (69%) were assigned to the 2-week anticoagulation group; 71/241 (30%) to the six-week anticoagulation group; 3/241 patients (1%) had extension into the popliteal vein on two-week CUS. Two patients in the two-week anticoagulation group had symptomatic IDDVT recurrence in ≤3 months; VTE recurrence 2/156; 1.3%(95% CI 0.05-4.85%). 69% of patients had complete resolution of symptoms within two weeks. Six-month PTS rates were 8/184, 4.4%(95% CI 2.1-8.5%). No major bleeding was reported. Our findings suggest it's safe/efficacious to stop therapeutic anticoagulation at two weeks in low-risk IDDVT patients with resolution of symptoms/no extension on ultrasound. This could replace 6-12 weeks of anticoagulation for ambulatory, low-risk IDDVT patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01252420.

Venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism, comprising both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a chronic illness that affects nearly 10 million people every year worldwide. Strong provoking risk factors for venous thromboembolism include major surgery and active cancer, but most events are unprovoked. Diagnosis requires a sequential work-up that combines assessment of clinical pretest probability for venous thromboembolism using a clinical score (eg, Wells score), D-dimer testing, and imaging. Venous thromboembolism can be considered excluded in patients with both a non-high clinical pretest probability and normal D-dimer concentrations. When required, ultrasonography should be done for a suspected deep vein thrombosis and CT or ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy for a suspected pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line treatment for almost all patients with venous thromboembolism (including those with cancer). After completing 3-6 months of initial treatment, anticoagulation can be discontinued in patients with venous thromboembolism provoked by a major transient risk factor. Patients whose long-term risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism outweighs the long-term risk of major bleeding, such as those with active cancer or men with unprovoked venous thromboembolism, should receive indefinite anticoagulant treatment. Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is generally warranted in patients undergoing major orthopaedic or cancer surgery. Ongoing research is focused on improving diagnostic strategies for suspected deep vein thrombosis, comparing different DOACs, developing safer anticoagulants, and further individualising approaches for the prevention and management of venous thromboembolism.

Post-thrombotic Syndrome: Preventative and Risk Reduction Strategies Following Deep Vein Thrombosis

Venous disease is common in the general population, with chronic venous disorders affecting 50–85% of the western population and consuming 2–3% of healthcare funding. It, therefore, represents a significant socioeconomic, physical and psychological burden. Acute deep vein thrombosis, although a well-recognised cause of death through pulmonary embolism, can more commonly lead to post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). This article summarises the pathophysiology and risk factor profile of PTS, and highlights various strategies that may reduce the risk of PTS, and the endovenous management of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. The authors summarise the advances in PTS risk reduction strategies and present the latest evidence for discussion.

Treatment of distal deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of distal (below the knee) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is not clearly established. Distal DVT can either be treated with anticoagulation, or monitored with close follow-up to detect progression to the proximal veins (above the knee), which requires anticoagulation. Proponents of this monitoring strategy base their decision to withhold anticoagulation on the fact that progression is rare and most people can be spared from potential bleeding and other adverse effects of anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different treatment interventions for people with distal (below the knee) deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 12 February 2019. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of distal DVT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), DVT and major bleeding and follow up ranged from three months to two years. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with risk ratio (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs reporting on 1239 participants. Five trials randomised participants to anticoagulation for up to three months versus no anticoagulation. Three trials compared anticoagulation treatment for different time periods. Anticoagulant compared to no intervention or placebo for distal DVT treatment Anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) reduced the risk of recurrent VTE during follow-up compared with participants receiving no anticoagulation (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.77; 5 studies, 496 participants; I² = 3%; high-certainty evidence), and reduced the risk of recurrence of DVT (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.67; 5 studies, 496 participants; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). There was no clear effect on risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.59; 4 studies, 480 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in major bleeding with anticoagulation compared to placebo (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.62; 4 studies, 480 participants; I² = 26%; low-certainty evidence). There was an increase in clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in the group treated with anticoagulants (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.07 to 10.46; 2 studies, 322 participants; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). There was one death, not related to PE or major bleeding, in the anticoagulation group. Anticoagulation for three months or more compared to anticoagulation for six weeks for distal DVT treatment Three RCTs of 736 participants compared three or more months of anticoagulation with six weeks of anticoagulation. Anticoagulation with a VKA for three months or more reduced the incidence of recurrent VTE to 5.8% compared with 13.9% in participants treated for six weeks (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68; 3 studies, 736 participants; I² = 50%; high-certainty evidence). The risk for recurrence of DVT was also reduced (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.64; 2 studies, 389 participants; I² = 48%; high-certainty evidence), but there was probably little or no difference in PE (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.88; 2 studies, 389 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in major bleeding events (RR 3.42, 95% CI 0.36 to 32.35; 2 studies, 389 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.42; 2 studies, 389 participants; I² = 1%; low-certainty evidence) between three months or more of treatment and six weeks of treatment. There were no reports for overall mortality or PE and major bleeding-related deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review found a benefit for people with distal DVT treated with anticoagulation therapy using VKA with little or no difference in major bleeding events although there was an increase in clinically relevant non-major bleeding when compared to no intervention or placebo. The small number of participants in this meta-analysis and strength of evidence prompts a call for more research regarding the treatment of distal DVT. RCTs comparing different treatments and different treatment periods with placebo or compression therapy, are required.

Prevention and Management of the Post-Thrombotic Syndrome

The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a form of chronic venous insufficiency secondary to prior deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It affects up to 50% of patients after proximal DVT. There is no effective treatment of established PTS and its management lies in its prevention after DVT. Optimal anticoagulation is key for PTS prevention. Among anticoagulants, low-molecular-weight heparins have anti-inflammatory properties, and have a particularly attractive profile. Elastic compression stockings (ECS) may be helpful for treating acute DVT symptoms but their benefits for PTS prevention are debated. Catheter-directed techniques reduce acute DVT symptoms and might reduce the risk of moderate-severe PTS in the long term in patients with ilio-femoral DVT at low risk of bleeding. Statins may decrease the risk of PTS, but current evidence is lacking. Treatment of PTS is based on the use of ECS and lifestyle measures such as leg elevation, weight loss and exercise. Venoactive medications may be helpful and research is ongoing. Interventional techniques to treat PTS should be reserved for highly selected patients with chronic iliac obstruction or greater saphenous vein reflux, but have not yet been assessed by robust clinical trials.

Avoiding disease mongering: A checklist for vascular physicians and researchers

Disease mongering is an expression created in 1992 by a medical journalist, Lynn Payer, to qualify the "selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments". This interesting concept led us to question whether, as researchers with publication and career interests in superficial vein thrombosis, we were not shaping a benign condition into a disease. Since the publication of the CALISTO trial in 2010, anticoagulant management of superficial vein thrombosis remains debated. Issues raised, such as the cost-effectiveness of the treatment strategy, the use of a composite endpoint including death, the low event rate without mortality reduction and conflict of interest due to industrial funding. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of science, and Opengrey databases to review all aspects about disease mongering raised in the literature and created a checklist with seventeen items. We used this checklist as support for a narrative review, questioning known literature on superficial vein thrombosis. The main issues pointing towards disease mongering concerned definition and promotion; whereas management seemed rather spared. Many arguments could be counterbalanced, but researchers should pay particular attention to three major points: exaggeration of the severity of the disease and potential adverse outcomes without treatment, promotion by opinion leaders, and an openly declared, yet undoubtedly present, conflict of interest situation.