A meta-analysis of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with brain tumors receiving therapeutic anticoagulation

Essentials Clinicians may be hesitant to administer anticoagulation in the setting of brain metastases or glioma. In this meta-analysis, we identified nine retrospective cohort studies that met inclusion criteria. Anticoagulation did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in brain metastasis. In the setting of glioma, anticoagulation resulted in 3.8-fold increase in intracranial hemorrhage.

SUMMARY

Background Venous thromboembolism commonly occurs in patients with brain tumors. Because of the high rate of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the safety of therapeutic anticoagulation is commonly questioned. Objective We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate whether therapeutic anticoagulation is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with brain tumors. Patients/Methods A systematic literature search strategy was conducted. Summary statistics for ICH were obtained by calculating the odds ratio using a random effects model and heterogeneity across studies was estimated by the I(2) statistic. Results A total of nine retrospective cohort studies met the criteria for inclusion. The odds ratio (OR) for ICH in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation versus those who did not receive anticoagulation was 2.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-4.56; I(2) = 46%). In studies evaluating anticoagulation in patients with brain metastases, there was no apparent increased risk of ICH (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88; I(2) = 0%). However, in patients with glioma there was an increase in risk of ICH associated with the administration of anticoagulation (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.42-9.95; I(2) = 33%). Conclusions The risk of ICH in patients with brain tumors receiving therapeutic anticoagulation depends on the diagnosis of primary or metastatic brain tumors. Although anticoagulation was not associated with an increased risk of ICH in the setting of brain metastasis, its use resulted in a greater than 3-fold increased risk of ICH in patients with glioma.

[Multiple myeloma and venous thrombosis. Which thromboprophylaxis should be given?]

Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cells dyscrasia that mainly affects patients older than 65 years. These patients are at a higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) because of cancer status, intrinsic risk factors, and exposure to prothrombotic therapies. The risk for VTE appears higher during the first months of myeloma treatment and decreases over time. Exposure to immunomodulatory drugs (IMIDs) such as thalidomide or lenalidomide in association with high doses of dexamethasone or anthracyclin-based chemotherapy is associated with a four-fold increased risk for VTE. Low-dose aspirin, preventive-dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or vitamin K antagonists were tested for primary prevention of VTE in myeloma patients receiving chemotherapy. The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) suggests stratifying VTE risk to decide which patients should receive VTE prevention. Then, the IMWG suggests giving low-dose aspirin to low VTE risk patients and LMWH or vitamin K antagonists to patients at high risk for VTE. For daily practice, it seems reasonable to start preventive doses of LMWH for 3 to 6 months in ambulatory myeloma patients receiving combined therapy with IMID and in all myeloma patients admitted to hospital.

Is it useful to also image the asymptomatic leg in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis?

BACKGROUND

Venous ultrasonography is the cornerstone of the diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Significant variations exist in clinical practice between centers and/or countries, e.g. proximal vs. whole-leg ultrasound, serial tests vs. single test, and combination with clinical probability and D-dimer testing. Fewer data exist on the need for bilateral leg imaging.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the yield of bilateral leg ultrasonography in patients with suspected DVT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with clinically suspected DVT. A single whole-leg ultrasound scan was performed in all patients. We extracted information on demographics, risk factors, clinical signs, pretest probability, side of clinical suspicion, and ultrasound results.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Among the 2804 included patients, 609 (21.8%) patients had a positive ultrasound finding. A total of 20 patients (0.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-1.2%) had a thrombus diagnosed in both the symptomatic leg and asymptomatic leg. Moreover, five patients (0.2%; 95% CI 0.1-0.5%) did not have a thrombus in the symptomatic leg but had a thrombus in the asymptomatic leg. Two of 2540 patients with unilateral symptoms had no proximal DVT in the symptomatic leg and a proximal DVT in the asymptomatic leg (0.08%; 95% CI 0.0-0.3%). In summary, systematic imaging of both legs in patients with suspected DVT has a very low yield, and therefore does not appear to be justified.

Clinical challenges in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis: Canadian expert consensus recommendations

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication in cancer patients, and thromboembolism is the second most common cause of death after cancer progression. A number of clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis. However, the guidelines lack recommendations covering commonly encountered clinical challenges (for example, thrombocytopenia, recurrent venous thromboembolism, etc.) for which little or no evidence exists. Accordingly, recommendations were developed to provide expert guidance to medical oncologists and other health care professionals caring for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. The current expert consensus was developed by a team of 21 clinical experts. For each identified clinical challenge, the literature in medline, embase, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews was systematically reviewed. The quality of the evidence was assessed, summarized, and graded. Consensus statements were generated, and the experts voted anonymously using a modified Delphi process on their level of agreement with the various statements. Statements were progressively revised through separate voting iterations and were then finalized. Clinicians using these recommendations and suggestions should tailor patient management according to the risks and benefits of the treatment options, patient values and preferences, and local cost and resource allocations.