Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis

The role of monocytes in thrombotic diseases: a review

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are the number one killer threatening people's life and health, among which cardiovascular thrombotic events are the most common. As the cause of particularly serious cardiovascular events, thrombosis can trigger fatal crises such as acute coronary syndrome (myocardial infarction and unstable angina), cerebral infarction and so on. Circulating monocytes are an important part of innate immunity. Their main physiological functions are phagocytosis, removal of injured and senescent cells and their debris, and development into macrophages and dendritic cells. At the same time, they also participate in the pathophysiological processes of pro-coagulation and anticoagulation. According to recent studies, monocytes have been found to play a significant role in thrombosis and thrombotic diseases of the immune system. In this manuscript, we review the relationship between monocyte subsets and cardiovascular thrombotic events and analyze the role of monocytes in arterial thrombosis and their involvement in intravenous thrombolysis. Finally, we summarize the mechanism and therapeutic regimen of monocyte and thrombosis in hypertension, antiphospholipid syndrome, atherosclerosis, rheumatic heart disease, lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, and diabetic nephropathy.

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.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) complicates ∼1.2 of every 1000 deliveries. Despite these low absolute risks, pregnancy-associated VTE is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and others in decisions about the prevention and management of pregnancy-associated 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 patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 31 recommendations related to the treatment of VTE and superficial vein thrombosis, diagnosis of VTE, and thrombosis prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a strong recommendation for low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) over unfractionated heparin for acute VTE. Most recommendations were conditional, including those for either twice-per-day or once-per-day LMWH dosing for the treatment of acute VTE and initial outpatient therapy over hospital admission with low-risk acute VTE, as well as against routine anti-factor Xa (FXa) monitoring to guide dosing with LMWH for VTE treatment. There was a strong recommendation (low certainty in evidence) for antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis with a history of unprovoked or hormonally associated VTE and a conditional recommendation against antepartum anticoagulant prophylaxis with prior VTE associated with a resolved nonhormonal provoking risk factor.

Position paper of the Italian Society of Internal Medicine (SIMI) on prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Cancer patients are at high risk of developing thrombotic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) [deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], and arterial thrombosis. DVT and PE represent the second leading cause of death in cancer patients; moreover, the development of thromboembolic events in cancer patients is linked to a greater need of hospitalization and frequency of side effects during treatment, in particular bleeding, and to an increased risk of recurrence during and following antithrombotic therapy. The thromboembolic risk may be different in different subgroups of cancer population, being highest in patients with metastatic disease, patients with pancreas, stomach, kidney or primary brain cancer, or during therapeutic interventions or surgery. This document focuses on several relevant topics including the epidemiology and pathogenesis of cancer-associated VTE, the current and future strategies of primary prevention and anticoagulant treatment, and the management of bleeding complications. The main literature data are discussed in detail, including, when available, evidence from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, international guidelines statements, the results of recently published trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low molecular weight heparin, and the design and aims of ongoing trials on prevention/treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

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.

Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow through a vein, which can occur after surgery, after trauma, or when a person has been immobile for a long time. Clots can dislodge and block blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism (PE)), causing death. DVT and PE are known by the term venous thromboembolism (VTE). Heparin (in the form of unfractionated heparin (UFH)) is a blood-thinning drug used during the first three to five days of DVT treatment. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) allow people with DVT to receive their initial treatment at home instead of in hospital. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence and complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated at home versus patients treated with standard in-patient hospital regimens. Secondary objectives included assessment of patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched 16 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and trials registries. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining home versus hospital treatment for DVT, in which DVT was clinically confirmed and was treated with LMWHs or UFH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected material for inclusion, and another reviewed the selection of trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Primary outcomes included combined VTE events (PE and recurrent DVT), gangrene, heparin complications, and death. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and cost implications. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review seven RCTs involving 1839 randomised participants with comparable treatment arms. All seven had fundamental problems including high exclusion rates, partial hospital treatment of many in the home treatment arms, and comparison of UFH in hospital versus LMWH at home. These trials showed that patients treated at home with LMWH were less likely to have recurrence of VTE events than those given hospital treatment with UFH or LMWH (fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.86; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.007; low-quality evidence). No clear difference was seen between groups for major bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.27; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence), or mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence). The included studies reported no cases of venous gangrene. We could not combine patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis owing to heterogeneity of reporting, but two of three studies found evidence that home treatment led to greater improvement in quality of life compared with in-patient treatment at some point during follow-up, and the third study reported that a large number of participants chose to switch from in-patient care to home-based care for social and personal reasons, suggesting it is the patient's preferred option (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies included in this review carried out a full cost-effectiveness analysis. However, a small randomised economic evaluation of the two alternative treatment settings involving 131 participants found that direct costs were higher for those in the in-patient group. These findings were supported by three other studies that reported on their costs (very low-quality evidence).Quality of evidence for data from meta-analyses was low to very low. This was due to risk of bias, as many of the included studies used unclear randomisation techniques, and blinding was a concern for many. Also, indirectness was a concern, as most studies included a large number of participants randomised to the home (LMWH) treatment group who were treated in hospital for some or all of the treatment period. A further issue for some outcomes was heterogeneity that was evident in measurement and reporting of outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that patients treated at home with LMWH are less likely to have recurrence of VTE than those treated in hospital. However, data show no clear differences in major or minor bleeding, nor in mortality (low-quality evidence), indicating that home treatment is no worse than in-patient treatment for these outcomes. Because most healthcare systems are moving towards more LMWH usage in the home setting it is unlikely that additional large trials will be undertaken to compare these treatments. Therefore, home treatment is likely to become the norm, and further research will be directed towards resolving practical issues by devising local guidelines that include clinical prediction rules, developing biomarkers and imaging that can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity, and providing training for community healthcare workers who administer treatment and monitor treatment progress.

The Saudi Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Outpatient versus inpatient management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. After diagnosis, its management frequently carries significant challenges to the clinical practitioner. Treatment of VTE with the inappropriate modality and/or in the inappropriate setting may lead to serious complications and have life-threatening consequences. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University Guideline working group, this clinical practice guideline was produced to assist health care providers in VTE management. Two questions were identified and were related to the inpatient versus outpatient treatment of acute DVT, and the early versus standard discharge from hospital for patients with acute PE. The corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

Guidance for the practical management of the heparin anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. Despite the changing landscape of VTE treatment with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants many uncertainties remain regarding the optimal use of traditional parenteral agents. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. This specific chapter addresses the practical management of heparins including low molecular weight heparins and fondaparinux. For each anticoagulant a list of the most common practice related questions were created. Each question was addressed using a brief focused literature review followed by a multidisciplinary consensus guidance recommendation. Issues addressed included initial anticoagulant dosing recommendations, recommended baseline laboratory monitoring, managing dose adjustments, evidence to support a relationship between laboratory tests and meaningful clinical outcomes, special patient populations including extremes of weight and renal impairment, duration of necessary parenteral therapy during the transition to oral therapy, candidates for outpatient treatment where appropriate and management of over-anticoagulation and adverse effects including bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. This article concludes with a concise table of clinical management questions and guidance recommendations to provide a quick reference for the practical management of heparin, low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux.

Immediate Discharge and Home Treatment With Rivaroxaban of Low-risk Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosed in Two U.S. Emergency Departments: A One-year Preplanned Analysis

Objectives

The study hypothesis was that a target‐specific anticoagulant would allow successful home treatment of selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed in two urban emergency departments (EDs).

Methods

A protocol was established for treating low‐risk DVT or PE patients with rivaroxaban and clinic, follow‐up at both 2 to 5 weeks, and 3 to 6 months. Patients were determined to be low‐risk by using a modified version of the Hestia criteria, supplemented by additional criteria for patients with active cancer. Acceptable outcome rates were defined as venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence ≤ 2.1% or bleeding ≤ 9.4% during treatment. VTE recurrence required positive imaging of any VTE. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis definition of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was used.

Results

From March 2013 through April 2014, a total of 106 patients were treated. Seventy‐one (68%) had DVT, 30 (28%) had PE, and five (3%) had both, representing 51% of all DVTs and 27% of all PEs diagnosed in both EDs during the period of study. The 106 patients have been followed for a mean (±SD) of 389 (±111) days (range = 213 to 594 days). No patient had VTE recurrence, and no patient had a major or clinically relevant bleeding event while on therapy (none of the 106, 0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 3.4%). However, three patients 2.8% (95% CI = 1% to 8%) had recurrent DVT after cessation of therapy.

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with VTE and immediately discharged from the ED while treated with rivaroxaban had a low rate of VTE recurrence and bleeding.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people per year. Outpatient treatment instead of traditional inpatient treatment in selected non-high-risk patients with acute PE might provide several advantages, such as reduction of hospitalizations, substantial cost saving and an improvement in health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; and adverse events such as hemodynamic instability, recurrence of PE and patients' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 9). The TSC also searched clinical trials databases. The review authors searched LILACS (last searched November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in people diagnosed with acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analyzed data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one study, involving 339 participants. We ranked the quality of the evidence as very low due to not blinding the outcome assessors, the small number of events with imprecision in the confidential interval (CI), the small sample size and it was not possible to verify publication bias. For all outcomes, the CIs were wide and included clinically significant treatment effects in both directions: short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30) and 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.14, P = 0.20), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51) and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.30). PE-related mortality, minor bleeding, and adverse course such as hemodynamic instability and compliance were not assessed by the single included study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current very low quality evidence from one published randomized controlled trial did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE adequately. Further well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

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.

Intentional overdose with tinzaparin: management dilemmas

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is increasingly being prescribed for prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. Despite the fact that its therapeutic use is considered to be safe, it can be complicated by major hemorrhage and, in contrast to unfractionated heparin, it can only partially be neutralized by protamine. Recent reports of LMWH overdose illustrate the need for a consensus on its management.

OBJECTIVES

To describe a case of self-poisoning with a very large dose of tinzaparin and discuss management options in patients with LMWH overdose.

CASE REPORT

A 69-year-old woman was brought to the Emergency Department 2 h after injecting herself with 280,000 IU of tinzaparin subcutaneously in an attempt to commit suicide. Despite an unrecordable activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT > 180 s) and prolonged prothrombin time, there was no evidence of active bleeding. She was given an intravenous infusion of 100 mg protamine sulfate and was admitted to the intensive care unit, where further infusions of protamine were administered. Normalization of the APTT occurred 40-50 h post admission, reflecting normal tinzaparin clearance rather than neutralization by protamine. No hemorrhagic complications occurred during her hospitalization except for prolonged bleeding from venipuncture sites.

CONCLUSION

In this case of massive tinzaparin overdose, conventional doses of protamine failed to rapidly normalize the deranged coagulation parameters. The favorable clinical outcome suggests that, regardless of the LMWH amount injected, no active treatment is needed in the absence of hemorrhage. This is in accordance with the limited published data concerning cases of overdose with other LMWHs.

A review on state-of-the-art data regarding safe early discharge following admission for pulmonary embolism: what do we know?

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remain hospitalized during initial therapy, some may be suitable for partial or complete outpatient management, which may have a significant impact on healthcare costs.

HYPOTHESIS

This article reviews the state-of-the-art data regarding recognition of very-low-risk PE patients who are potentially eligible for outpatient treatment, along with the safety, management, and cost-effectiveness of this strategy. We propose an algorithm based on collected data that may be useful/practical for identifying patients truly eligible for early discharge.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of scientific data collected from the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Studies selected based on potential scientific interest. Qualitative information extracted regarding feasibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness of outpatient treatment, postdischarge management, and selection of truly low-risk patients.

RESULTS

Early discharge of low-risk patients seems feasible, safe, and particularly cost-effective. Several risk scores have been developed and/or tested as prediction tools for the recognition of low-risk individuals: the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI, Hestia criteria, Geneva score, the Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Decision rule, and the Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events, among others. PESI is the most well-validated model, offering the safest approach at the current time, especially when combined with additional parameters such as troponin I, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic markers of right-ventricular dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of truly low-risk patients entitled to early hospital discharge and outpatient treatment is possible with current risk-stratification schemes along with selected prognostic parameters, and it may have a colossal impact on healthcare costs.

Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease.

METHODS

We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence.

RESULTS

For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSION

Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 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 low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological 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 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (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 methodological 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 death (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 to tinzaparin did not find a 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.

Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care

The decision to admit a patient to the hospital after an emergency department (ED) visit is expensive, frequently not evidence-based, and variable. Outpatient critical pathways are a promising approach to reduce hospital admission after emergency care. Critical pathways exist to risk stratify patients for potentially serious diagnoses (e.g., acute myocardial infarction [AMI]) or evaluate response to therapy (e.g., community-acquired pneumonia) within a short time period (i.e., less than 36 hours), to determine if further hospital-based acute care is needed. Yet, such pathways are variably used while many patients are admitted for conditions for which they could be treated as outpatients. In this article, the authors propose a model of post-ED critical pathways, describe their role in emergency care, list common diagnoses that are amenable to critical pathways in the outpatient setting, and propose a research agenda to address barriers and solutions to increase the use of outpatient critical pathways. If emergency providers are to routinely conduct rapid evaluations in outpatient or observation settings, they must have several conditions at their disposal: 1) evidence-based tools to accurately risk stratify patients for protocolized care, 2) systems of care that reliably facilitate workup in the outpatient setting, and 3) a medical environment conducive to noninpatient pathways, with aligned risks and incentives among patients, providers, and payers. Increased use of critical pathways after emergency care is a potential way to improve the value of emergency care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 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 low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological 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 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (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 methodological 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 death (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 to tinzaparin did not find a 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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 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 low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological 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 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (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 methodological 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 death (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 to tinzaparin did not find a 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.

Modest response in translation to home management of deep venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND

years may elapse between the publication of results of rigorous randomized trials and changes in clinical practice. It is not often that a definitive time interval can be identified that shows the time taken for published clinical trials to affect clinical practice. In the present study, we track the timelines of evidence for home treatment of deep venous thrombosis and its eventual impact on hospitalizations and early discharge.

METHODS

the number of patients discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States between 1979 and 2006 with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and the proportion discharged in ≤ 2 days was determined from The National Hospital Discharge Survey. We also attempted to identify all published articles that reported home treatment of deep venous thrombosis in unselected populations.

RESULTS

eleven years after demonstration of the safety and efficacy of home treatment, there was only a 21% decrease in the population-based incidence of hospitalizations of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. The proportion of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis who were discharged in ≤ 2 days began to increase prominently after the 1996 publication of trials showing the safety and efficacy of home treatment, and continued to increase through 2006. However, the proportion discharged early remained modest (21% to 25%).

CONCLUSIONS

whether the slow implementation of home treatment reflects a cautious approach accompanied by a gradual testing of shortened hospitalization for deep venous thrombosis or other factors is uncertain.

Drug use problems with self-injected low-molecular-weight heparins in primary care

PURPOSE

Outpatient subcutaneous therapies are becoming increasingly common. A literature search failed to find produced any studies on application problems pertaining to the self-injection of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in a heterogeneous outpatient population under daily-life conditions. We therefore designed a study with the aim of recording drug use problems, patient satisfaction, compliance, problems arising from the injection site (abdomen vs. thigh), and residual drug volumes in pre-filled syringes used in self-injection therapy.

METHODS

Patients were recruited in community pharmacies by 95 trained Master's students in pharmacy. Data were collected during recruitment and by means of structured questionnaire-based telephone interviews that were carried out at the beginning and the end of the LMWH treatment.

RESULTS

The median age of the 213 patients enrolled in the study was 54 years [interquartile range (IQR) 39-70 years]; of these, 15.5% had their injections administered by a third person. The rate of self-reported non-compliance was 17.1%. At least one relevant problem was recorded in 85.0% of the cases. At the end of the treatment, 38.9% of the patients stated self-administration of the injections required some effort. The preferred injection site was the thigh (68.5%). An overall mean residual drug volume ≥ 10.0% was detected for 3.9% of the patients. If residual drug was present, a median of 11.2% (IQR 8.6-17.6%) of the total drug volume had not been injected. Patients injecting into the thigh showed a higher risk of leaving residual medication (odds ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.04-4.51).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients had drug use problems, whereas no clear factors were associated with non-compliance, the injection site (apart from residual drug), and discomfort or effort required (apart from prior injection use).

The dental patient on oral anticoagulant medication: a literature review

Specific diseases and medications may considerably influence the delivery of oral care and the course of dental therapy. The purpose of this literature review is to examine the relationship between oral anticoagulant medication and dental treatment. Electronic and manual searches were conducted for clinical studies in the English literature for the years 1988-2010. The review process provided a total of 110 pertinent literature references, out of which 38 studies dealt with oral anticoagulants and dental treatment. Different treatment strategies relative to dental periprocedural anticoagulation regimens have been identified, and their accompanying thromboembolic and bleeding risks are being presented and discussed. Regarding to what extent a safe and successful dental treatment in patients on anticoagulant medication is feasible, the level of evidence is lacking. Until high-level data are provided, an individualised treatment approach after consultation with the physician of the patient is highly recommended.

Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index and troponin testing for the selection of low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

The combination of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and troponin testing could help physicians identify appropriate patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for early hospital discharge.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included a total of 567 patients from a single center registry with objectively confirmed acute symptomatic PE. On the basis of the PESI, each patient was classified into one of five classes (I-V). At the time of hospital admission, patients had troponin I (cTnI) levels measured. The endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality within 30 days after diagnosis. We calculated the mortality rates in four patient groups: group 1, PESI class I-II plus cTnI < 0.1 ng mL(-1); group 2, PESI classes III-V plus cTnI < 0.1 ng mL(-1); group 3, PESI classes I-II plus cTnI > or = 0.1 ng mL(-1); and group 4, PESI classes III-V plus cTnI > or = 0.1 ng mL(-1).

RESULTS

The study cohort had a 30-day mortality of 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6-12.5%]. Mortality rates in the four groups were 1.3%, 14.2%, 0% and 15.4%, respectively. Compared with non-elevated cTnl, the low-risk PESI had a higher negative predictive value (NPV) (98.9% vs. 90.8%) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) (0.1 vs. 0.9) for predicting mortality. The addition of non-elevated cTnI to low-risk PESI did not improve the NPV or the NLR compared with either test alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with cTnl testing, PESI classification more accurately identified patients with PE who are at low risk of all-cause death within 30 days of presentation.

Venothromboembolism

This article focuses on the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of veno-thromboembolism, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), from the perspective of the emergency physician. The discussion is divided into two sections: DVT and PE. Because veno-thromboembolism is a continuum, certain aspects, such as background, incidence, the use of D dimer, and anticoagulation of both DVT and PE, are discussed together. Heavier emphasis is placed on topics germane to the emergency physician, and considerations for special populations are reviewed.

Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in older people

The incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), collectively called venous thromboembolism (VTE), increases with age and has been reported to be higher in males. The annual incidence rates per 1000 for DVT and PE are 1.3 and 1.8, respectively, for people aged between 65 and 69 years, rising to 2.8 and 3.1, respectively, in those aged between 85 and 89 years. Older people are about eight times more likely to develop VTE in hospitals, nursing homes or other chronic care facilities than younger adults. About 1.7% develop PE within one year of treatment for DVT, whilst the one year recurrence rate for PE was 8.0%. About 3% of patients with DVT and 21% of those with PE die in hospital. One year mortality with DVT is 21% and that with PE is 39%.