Randomized clinical trial of postoperative fondaparinux versus perioperative dalteparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk abdominal surgery

Unlocking the potential of fondaparinux: guideline for optimal usage and clinical suggestions (2023)

Background: Thromboembolic disease is associated with a high rate of disability or death and gravely jeopardizes people's health and places considerable financial pressure on society. The primary treatment for thromboembolic illness is anticoagulant medication. Fondaparinux, a parenteral anticoagulant medicine, is still used but is confusing due to its disparate domestic and international indications and lack of knowledge about its usage. Its off-label drug usage in therapeutic settings and irrational drug use are also common. Objective: The aim of this guideline is to enhance the judicious clinical application of fondaparinux by consolidating the findings of evidence-based research on the drug and offering superior clinical suggestions. Methods: Seventeen clinical questions were developed by 37 clinical pharmacy experts, and recommendations were formulated under the supervision of three methodologists. Through methodical literature searches and the use of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation grading techniques, we gathered evidence. Results: This guideline culminated in 17 recommendations, including the use of fondaparinux for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and treatment, perioperative surgical prophylaxis, specific diseases, special populations, bleeding and overdose management. For different types of VTE, we recommend first assessing thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients and then administering the drug according to the patient's body mass. In surgical patients in the perioperative period, fondaparinux may be used for VTE prophylaxis, but postoperative use usually requires confirmation that adequate hemostasis has been achieved. Fondaparinux may be used for anticoagulation prophylaxis in patients hospitalized for oncological purposes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after resuscitation, in patients with cirrhosis combined with portal vein thrombosis (PVT), in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Fondaparinux should be used with caution in special populations, such as pregnant female patients with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or platelet counts less than 50 × 109/L, pregnant patients with a prethrombotic state (PTS) combined with recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), and children. For bleeding caused by fondaparinux, dialysis may partially remove the drug. Conclusion: The purpose of this guideline is to provide all healthcare providers with high-quality recommendations for the clinical use of fondaparinux and to improve the rational use of the drug in clinical practice. Currently, there is a lack of a dedicated antidote for the management of fondaparinux. The clinical investigation of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFⅦa) as potential reversal agents is still pending. This critical gap necessitates heightened scrutiny and research emphasis, potentially constituting a novel avenue for future inquiries into fondaparinux sodium. A meticulous examination of adverse events and safety profiles associated with the utilization of fondaparinux sodium will contribute significantly to a more comprehensive understanding of its inherent risks and benefits within the clinical milieu.

Safety of postdischarge extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery

BACKGROUND

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery is high. Extended postdischarge prophylaxis in this patient population has been controversial. This study aimed to examine the safety of postdischarge extended VTE prophylaxis in patients at high risk of VTE events after HPB surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients risk stratified as very high risk of VTE who underwent HPB operations between 2014 and 2020 at a quaternary care center were included. Patients were matched 1:2 extended VTE prophylaxis to the control group (patients who did not receive extended prophylaxis). Analyses compared the proportions of adverse bleeding events between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 307 patients were included: 103 in the extended prophylaxis group and 204 in the matched control group. Demographics were similar between groups. More patients in the extended VTE prophylaxis group had a history of VTE (9% vs 3%; P = .045). There was no difference in bleeding events between the extended VTE prophylaxis and the control group (6% vs 2%; P = .091). Of the 6 patients with bleeding events in the VTE prophylaxis group, 5 had gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and 1 had hemarthrosis. Of the 4 patients with bleeding events in the control group, 1 had intra-abdominal bleeding, 2 had GI bleeding, and 1 had intra-abdominal and GI bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Patients discharged with extended VTE prophylaxis after HPB surgery did not experience more adverse bleeding events compared with a matched control group. Routine postdischarge extended VTE prophylaxis is safe in patients at high risk of postoperative VTE after HPB surgery.

Fondaparinux Sodium: Recent Advances in the Management of Thrombosis

Fondaparinux sodium is a chemically synthesized selective factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events, that is, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and superficial vein thrombosis, in acutely ill (including those affected by COVID-19 or cancer patients) and those undergoing surgeries. Since its approval in 2002, the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux is well demonstrated by many clinical studies, establishing the value of fondaparinux in clinical practice. Some of the advantages with fondaparinux are its chemical nature of synthesis, minimal risk of contamination, 100% absolute bioavailability subcutaneously, instant onset of action, a long half-life, direct renal excretion, fewer adverse reactions when compared with direct oral anticoagulants, and being an ideal alternative in conditions where oral anticoagulants are not approved for use or in patients intolerant to low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). In the last decade, the real-world use of fondaparinux has been explored in other conditions such as acute coronary syndromes, bariatric surgery, in patients developing vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and in pregnant women with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), or those intolerant to LMWH. The emerging data from these studies have culminated in recent updates in the guidelines that recommend the use of fondaparinux under various conditions. This paper aims to review the recent data and the subsequent updates in the recommendations of various guidelines on the use of fondaparinux sodium.

AHPBA guidelines for managing VTE prophylaxis and anticoagulation for pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Major abdominal surgery and malignancy lead to a hypercoagulable state, with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of approximately 3% after pancreatic surgery. No guidelines exist to assist surgeons in managing VTE prophylaxis or anticoagulation in patients undergoing elective pancreatic surgery for malignancy or premalignant lesions. A systematic review specific to VTE prophylaxis and anticoagulation after resectional pancreatic surgery is herein provided.

METHODS

Six topic areas are reviewed: pre- and perioperative VTE prophylaxis, early postoperative VTE prophylaxis, extended outpatient VTE prophylaxis, management of chronic anticoagulation, anti-coagulation after vascular reconstruction, and treatment of VTE. A Medline and PubMED search was completed with systematic medical literature review for each topic. Level of evidence was graded and strength of recommendation ranked according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for practice guidelines.

RESULTS

Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations are presented.

DISCUSSION

While strong data exist to guide management of chronic anticoagulation and treatment of VTE, data for anticoagulation after reconstruction is inconclusive and support for perioperative chemoprophylaxis with pancreatic surgery is similarly limited. The risk of post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage often exceeds that of thrombosis. The role of universal chemoprophylaxis must therefore be examined critically, particularly in the preoperative setting.

Clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation, incidence of major bleeding and mortality: a multi-centre cohort study using the French national health data system

PURPOSE

Low-dose parenteral anticoagulation has demonstrated its efficacy for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in randomized trials. However, current practice is not widely documented. In ambulatory settings, we aimed to provide an overview of the clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation in France and to assess the incidence of major bleeding and death rates.

METHODS

A population-based prospective cohort study using the French national health data system (SNIIRAM) identified 142,815 adults living in five well-defined geographical areas who had a course of low-dose parenteral anticoagulants (a total of 150,389 courses) in the period 2013-2015. The main outcome measures were the types of low-dose parenteral anticoagulant, the duration and the clinical context. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) were derived from Poisson models.

RESULTS

Enoxaparin was the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant (58.9%) followed by tinzaparin (27.3%) and fondaparinux (10.9%). Patients receiving unfractionated heparin (N = 766, 0.53%) were older, more frequently had renal disease (48.75%) and had a higher modified HAS-B(L)ED score (≥ 3 in 61.6%) than patients receiving low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Surgical thrombo-prophylaxis was the most frequent indication (47.6%), followed by medical prophylaxis (29.9%). Course durations were in line with regulatory agency specifications. Only 43 (0.028%) major bleeding events and 478 (0.32%) deaths were observed. Adjusted IRRs for major bleeding or death were not significantly different for dalteparin/nadroparin, tinzaparin or fondaparinux compared to enoxaparin.

CONCLUSION

Very low incidence rates of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were observed. Our study confirms the safety of LMWHs and fondaparinux in thrombo-prophylaxis in ambulatory settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02886533.

Guideline No. 417: Prevention of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Gynaecological Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide gynaecologists with an algorithm and evidence to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis in gynaecological surgery.

TARGET POPULATION

All patients undergoing gynaecological surgery for benign or malignant indications.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The implementation of this guideline will benefit patients undergoing gynaecological surgery and provide physicians with a standard algorithm for the use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis.

EVIDENCE

The following search terms were entered into MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane in 2017 and 2018: VTE, PE, DVT, thromboprophylaxis, gynaecological surgery, heparin, graduated compression stocking, intermittent pneumatic stocking, obesity, pediatrics, minimally invasive surgery, heparin induced thrombocytopenia, regional anesthesia). Articles included were randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. Additional publications were identified from the reference lists of these articles. There were no date limits, but search results were limited to English language articles only. Searches were updated and incorporated into the guideline up to September 2018.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists and other members of the surgical team. RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE RATINGS IN PARENTHESES).

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.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through an antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), with no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted comprehensive searches on 14 June 2021, following the original electronic searches performed in February 2016 (last major search). We electronically searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase. In addition, we handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in ambulatory people with cancer (i.e., not hospital inpatients during the time of their participation in trials) These people are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, two review authors independently extracted data on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 12,620 identified citations, 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in six of these RCTs, and a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in the remaining four RCTs (three studies used apixaban; one used rivaroxaban). The comparator was either placebo or no prophylaxis. Compared to no prophylaxis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) probably reduce mortality at six months slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 22 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 72 fewer to 41 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably reduce mortality at 12 months slightly (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate-certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of a VKA compared to no prophylaxis on thrombosis; the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of VKA compared to no VKA on pulmonary embolism and symptomatic DVT (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low-certainty evidence; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 37 fewer to 16 more; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). Also, VKAs probably increase major and minor bleeding at 12 months (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate-certainty evidence for major bleeding, and RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate-certainty evidence for minor bleeding). Compared to no prophylaxis, at three to six months, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.38, RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 67 fewer to 70 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism slightly compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.98; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 1 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence), probably reduce symptomatic DVT slightly (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.15; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 8 more; moderate-certainty evidence), probably do not increase major bleeding (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.80; RD 9 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 40 more; moderate-certainty evidence), and may increase minor bleeding (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.55 to 23.44; RD 55 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 482 more; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy (either alone or in combination), the current evidence on VKA thromboprophylaxis suggests that the harm of major bleeding might outweigh the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolism. With DOACs, the benefit of reduction in venous thromboembolic events outweighs the risk of major bleeding. Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the 'What's new' section in the  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Fondaparinux vs Enoxaparin in a Population of Indian Patients with Symptomatic Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Retrospective Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Fondaparinux is the first approved anticoagulant drug among factor Xa inhibitors, with proven effectiveness and safety in preventing deep vein thrombosis. However, limited data are available supporting the benefit-risk profile of fondaparinux vs enoxaparin in a real-world group of Indian patients with deep vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of fondaparinux vs enoxaparin in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in a long-term real-world setting.

METHODS

Data from the electronic medical records of adult patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis prescribed fondaparinux (n = 503) or enoxaparin (n = 508) as monotherapy were analyzed. Effectiveness was analyzed in terms of recurrence, duration, and type of deep vein thrombosis event, and tolerability as bleeding events at initial hospitalization and follow-up visits up to 3 months duration. Appropriate statistical methods were used to determine the significance (p < 0.05) between the two groups.

RESULTS

The deep vein thrombosis recurrence in the fondaparinux group was non-inferior (2.78%) when compared with enoxaparin (3.76%), with a mean duration of 47 and 48 days, respectively. The number of events and mean duration of events (in days) were not significant (p > 0.05). Major bleeding events were higher in the enoxaparin group at 3.17% than the fondaparinux group at 2.19%, and the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The weight-based, once-daily subcutaneous fondaparinux dose showed non-inferior effectiveness and a comparable tolerability profile when compared with the twice-daily enoxaparin dose for the management of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis.

Liver Injury Among Japanese Patients Treated Using Prophylactic Enoxaparin After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enoxaparin, a low molecular weight heparin, has been used to prevent thrombotic events during major surgery without increasing the rate of hemorrhage. On the other hand, it was reported to cause liver injury, but the details of liver injury induced by prophylactic enoxaparin after abdominal surgery remain unclear.

AIMS

This study aimed to clarify the relationship between prophylactic enoxaparin and liver injury after colorectal surgery, and characterize the injury profile.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 732 Japanese patients who underwent elective resection of the colorectum, and compared their clinicopathological background, details of surgery, postoperative complications, including liver injury, and the type of liver injury according to prophylactic use of enoxaparin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for liver injury during the postoperative period.

RESULTS

The rate of liver injury was 8.9% for patients treated by prophylactic enoxaparin and 1.4% for those who did not receive enoxaparin after colorectal surgery (p < 0.0001). The median onset of liver injury among patients receiving enoxaparin was seven days, and the majority demonstrated the hepatocellular pattern. Enoxaparin was one of the independent risk factors for postoperative liver injury by multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 7.63, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of enoxaparin markedly increased the rate of postoperative liver injury in patients who underwent colorectal surgery. Our study confirmed that close monitoring of liver function parameters is essential for patients receiving enoxaparin during the postoperative period.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Gynecologic Surgery: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 232

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are collectively referred to as "venous thromboembolic events" (VTE). Despite advances in prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment, VTE remains a leading cause of cost, disability, and death in postoperative and hospitalized patients (1, 2). Beyond the acute sequelae of leg pain, edema, and respiratory distress, VTE may result in chronic conditions, including postthrombotic syndrome (3), venous insufficiency, and pulmonary hypertension. This Practice Bulletin has been revised to reflect updated literature on the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery and the current surgical thromboprophylaxis guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (4). Discussion of gynecologic surgery and chronic antithrombotic therapy is beyond the scope of this document.

Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Malignancies: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO), the Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH), and the Austrian Society of Hematology and Oncology (ÖGHO)

Patients with cancer, both hematologic and solid malignancies, are at increased risk for thrombosis and thromboembolism. In addition to general risk factors such as immobility and major surgery, shared by non-cancer patients, cancer patients are exposed to specific thrombotic risk factors. These include, among other factors, cancer-induced hypercoagulation, and chemotherapy-mediated endothelial dysfunction as well as tumor-cell-derived microparticles. After an episode of thrombosis in a cancer patient, secondary thromboprophylaxis to prevent recurrent thromboembolism has long been established and is typically continued as long as the cancer is active or actively treated. On the other hand, primary prophylaxis, even though firmly established in hospitalized cancer patients, has only recently been studied in ambulatory patients. This recent change is mostly due to the emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have a shorter half-life than vitamin K antagonists (VKA), and they overcome the need for parenteral application, the latter of which is associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and can be difficult for the patient to endure in the long term. Here, first, we discuss the clinical trials of primary thromboprophylaxis in the population of cancer patients in general, including the use of VKA, LMWH, and DOACs, and the potential drug interactions with pre-existing medications that need to be taken into account. Second, we focus on special situations in cancer patients where primary prophylactic anticoagulation should be considered, including myeloma, major surgery, indwelling catheters, or immobilization, concomitant diseases such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, or thrombophilia, as well as situations with a high bleeding risk, particularly thrombocytopenia, and specific drugs that may require primary thromboprophylaxis. We provide a novel algorithm intended to aid specialists but also family practitioners and nurses who care for cancer patients in the decision process of primary thromboprophylaxis in the individual patient.

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.

Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen.

INTERPRETATION

We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.

Fondaparinux Sodium Compared With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins for Perioperative Surgical Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Fondaparinux sodium has been compared with low‐molecular‐weight heparins (LMWH) in randomized controlled trials for perioperative surgical thromboprophylaxis. However, the results from these studies are inconsistent in terms of efficacy and safety to reach a clinical decision. The objective of this study was to systematically review the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux and LMWH for perioperative surgical thromboprophylaxis.

Methods and Results

Systematic search in various databases was done to identify randomized controlled trials comparing fondaparinux and LMWH published during the years 2000 to 2017. Outcomes of interest in this study included venous thromboembolism up to day 15, all‐cause mortality up to day 90, major bleeding, and minor bleeding during the treatment period. Analyses were performed with the relative odds based on a random‐effects model using Mantel‐Haenszel statistics. Results were presented as odds ratios with their 95% CIs. The assessment of study quality was performed as per Cochrane collaboration. After screening 10 644 articles, 12 randomized controlled trials including 14 906 patients were included in the final analyses. Pooled analyses showed the odds of venous thromboembolism in the fondaparinux group were 0.49 times the odds in LMWH group (OR=0.49 [0.38–0.64]). However, the odds of major bleeding in the fondaparinux group were 1.48 times the odds in the LMWH group (OR=1.48 [1.15–1.90]).

Conclusions

Fondaparinux was associated with a superior efficacy in terms of reduction of venous thromboembolism in this meta‐analysis. However, it was also associated with increased odds of major bleeding.

Prophylaxis in nonorthopaedic surgery

Surgery increases the risk (by 20-fold) of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but there are prophylaxis methods (mechanical, pharmaceutical or combined) that safely reduce the incidence rate of VTE. The administration of prophylaxis requires a prior assessment of the risks associated with the patient and with the type of surgery. The Caprini and Rogers scales classify patients into four VTE risk categories (very low, low, moderate and high). In pharmacological prophylaxis, the risk of bleeding should also be assessed. At this time, the recommendation is to administer prophylaxis to all patients: mechanical prophylaxis for low, moderate or high risk with contraindications for the administration of heparin; combined with heparin for very high risk; and with drugs such as low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin and fondaparinux for moderate to high risk. These measurements should be kept until full ambulation, discharge, or at least seven days (for major oncologic and bariatric surgery, maintain for four weeks).

Low-molecular weight heparin prevents portal vein system thrombosis after splenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low‐molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in the prevention of portal vein system thrombosis (PVST) after splenectomy.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Springer and Cochrane Library databases to screen out studies comparing the prognoses between post‐splenectomy patients treated with and without LMWH. The incidences of PVST and bleeding complications were used as parameters to assess the effect of LMWH.

Results

Six articles met the selection criteria and were included in this study. A total of 740 patients were involved in these six articles, including 336 patients treated with LMWH (LMWH group) and 385 patients not treated with LMWH (control group). The incidence of PVST in the LMWH group was significantly lower than that in the control group (relative risk 1.782 (1.449–2.192); P = 0.285; I² = 19.7%), while the incidence of post‐operative bleeding in the LMWH group was significantly higher (relative risk 0.592 (0.195–1.799); P = 0.817; I² = 0.0%).

Conclusion

LMWH might decrease the incidence of PVST after splenectomy without a potential risk of bleeding.

[Treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients]

Oncological patients are a high-risk group for venous thromboembolic complications. These complications significantly impair the outcome of antitumor treatment and take a leading place in the structure of mortality. Treatment of venous thromboembolic complications in oncological patients is a serious challenge. When selecting an anticoagulant, the physician should consider its efficacy and safety and possible drug interactions. Based on results of multiple studies presented in this article, physicians will be able to choose an optimum therapeutic tactics and secondary prevention of thromboembolic complications for this group of patients.

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism in Japanese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) during laparoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, which is unknown in Japanese patients.

METHODS

We conducted this randomized controlled trial at nine institutions in Japan from 2011 to 2015. It included 302 eligible patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for CRC. Patients were randomly assigned to an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) therapy group or to an IPC + anticoagulation therapy group. Anticoagulation therapy comprised fondaparinux or enoxaparin for postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Postoperative VTE was diagnosed based on enhanced multi-detector helical computed tomography. The primary endpoint was VTE incidence, including asymptomatic cases, the secondary endpoint was incidence of major bleeding, and we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered in UMINCTR (UMIN000008435).

RESULTS

Postoperative VTE incidence was 5.10% with IPC therapy (n = 157) and 2.76% with IPC + anticoagulant therapy (n = 145; P = .293). We identified no symptomatic VTE cases. The major bleeding rates were 1.27% with IPC alone and 1.38% with the combination (P = .936). The overall bleeding rates were 7.69% for enoxaparin and 13.6% for fondaparinux (P = .500), and there were no bleeding-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulant prophylaxis did not reduce the incidence of VTE and the incidence of major bleeding was comparable between the two groups. Usefulness of perioperative anticoagulation was not demonstrated in this study. Pharmacological prophylaxis must be restricted in Japanese patients with higher risk of VTE.

The impact of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and disease-stage on postoperative bleeding following colorectal cancer surgery

Background

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery is internationally recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors of postoperative bleeding after elective surgery for patients with primary CRC receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis of fondaparinux or enoxaparin.

Methods

We experienced consecutive 266 patients who underwent elective surgery for CRC during the study period. Finally, the medical records of 218 patients with CRC administrated fondaparinux or enoxaparin following surgery were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate symptomatic VTE until 28 days and postoperative bleeding comparing perioperative D-dimer levels.

Results

The significant differences in TNM classification staging and type of thromboprophylaxis were observed between postoperative bleeding-negative and bleeding-positive group. There was no statistical significance among other backgrounds of patients between the two groups. One case (0.46%) of symptomatic VTE and total 11 cases (5%) of postoperative bleeding were observed. In the univariate analysis, fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis and early disease-stage CRC (stages 0 and I) were associated with risk for postoperative bleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed that fondaparinux thromboprophylaxis was identified as an independent risk factor of postoperative bleeding. Moreover, preoperative levels of D-dimer in patients with stage IV CRC were significantly higher than those with the other stages. The significant elevation in preoperative D-dimer was also observed in patients with stage II CRC compared to those with stage I CRC. Perioperative levels of D-dimer in patients with advanced disease-stage CRC (stages II, III, and IV) were significantly higher than those in patients with early disease-stage CRC.

Conclusions

Fondaparinux administration and early disease-stage CRC appeared to be risk factors for postoperative bleeding in patients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis undergoing surgical treatment for CRC. Patients’ hypercoagulative condition depending on disease progression of CRC might be related to the occurrence of postoperative bleeding following CRC surgery.

What has changed in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for hospitalized patients over recent decades: review article

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease with high rates of morbidity and mortality and is considered the number one cause of avoidable mortality among hospitalized patients. Although VTE incidence is extremely high in all countries and there is ample evidence that thromboprophylaxis inexpensively reduces the rate of thromboembolic complications in both clinical and surgical patients, a great deal of doubt remains with respect to patient safety with this type of intervention and in relation to the ideal thromboprophylaxis methods. Countless studies and evidence-based recommendations confirm the efficacy of prophylaxis for prevention of VTE and/or patient deaths, but it remains underutilized to this day. This article presents a wide-ranging review of existing prophylaxis methods up to the present, from guidelines and national and international studies of thromboprophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery: Incidence, risk factors, and prophylaxis

Colorectal surgery is associated with a high risk of perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE), and this risk is especially high following colorectal cancer resection and surgery for inflammatory bowel disease. Previous analyses of large databases have reported the incidence of postoperative VTE in this population to be approximately 1.1%-2.5%. Therefore, to minimize this risk, patients should be offered appropriate prophylaxis, which may involve a combination of mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis with low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin as recommended by several guidelines. Prior to initiation of treatment, appropriate risk stratification should be performed according to the patients' basic and disease-related as well as procedure-related risk factors, and post-operative factors. Furthermore, a risk-benefit calculation that takes into account patients' VTE and bleeding risk should be performed prior to starting pharmacologic prophylaxis and to help determine the duration of treatment.

Appropriateness of Pharmacologic Prophylaxis against Deep Vein Thrombosis in Medical Wards of an Ethiopian Referral Hospital

BACKGROUND

Most of hospitalized patents are at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The use of pharmacological prophylaxis significantly reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events in high risk patients. The aim of this study was to assess appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients in an Ethiopian referral hospital.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study design was employed. Patients with a diagnosis of DVT, taking anticoagulant therapy, and those who refused to participate were excluded from the study. Two hundred and six patients were included in the study using simple random sampling method. Modified Padua Risk Assessment Model was used to determine the risk of thromboembolism. SPSS (version 21) was used for analysis.

RESULT

The total risk score for the study subjects ranged from 0 to 11 with a mean score of 3.41 ± 2.55. Nearly half (47.6%) of study participants had high risk to develop thromboembolism. Thrombocytopenia (platelets < 50 billion/L) or coagulopathy, active hemorrhage, and end stage liver disease (INR > 1.5) were the frequently observed absolute contraindications that potentially prevent patients from receiving thromboprophylaxis. Thromboprophylaxis use in nearly one-third (31.6%) of patients admitted in the medical ward of UoGRH was irrational. Patients who had high risk for thromboembolism are more likely to be inappropriately managed for their risk of thromboembolism and patients with thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy were more likely to be managed appropriately.

CONCLUSION

There is underutilization of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in medical ward patients. Physicians working there should be aware of risk factors for DVT and indications for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and should adhere to guideline recommendations.

Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis for people with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of different anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a comprehensive literature search conducted on 14 June 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and assessed the effects of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or to fondaparinux on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia.

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 interest included all-cause mortality, PE, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, health related quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 7670 identified unique citations, we included 20 RCTs with 9771 randomized people with cancer receiving preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified seven reports for seven new RCTs for this update.The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.07; risk difference (RD) 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 4 more; moderate-certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 3 more; moderate-certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.69; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 7 more; moderate-certainty evidence), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 23 fewer to 4 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 15 more; moderate-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.33; RD 1 more per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence), reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; RD 4 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 26 more; moderate-certainty evidence), intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) -35.36 mL, 95% CI -253.19 to 182.47; low-certainty evidence), postoperative transfusion (MD 190.03 mL, 95% CI -23.65 to 403.72; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.33; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 82 more; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92; RD 26 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 39 fewer to 7 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses found the following additional results: outcomes intraoperative blood loss (MD -6.75 mL, 95% CI -85.49 to 71.99; moderate-certainty evidence); and postoperative drain volume (MD 30.18 mL, 95% CI -36.26 to 96.62; moderate-certainty evidence).In addition, the meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with Fondaparinux for the following outcomes: any VTE (DVT or PE, or both; RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.03; RD 57 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 228 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.05; RD 8fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 20 fewer to 48 more; low-certainty evidence), any PE (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.64; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and postoperative drain volume (MD -20.00 mL, 95% CI -114.34 to 74.34; low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH and LMWH compared with fondaparinux in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in people with cancer. There was a lower incidence of wound hematoma with LMWH compared to UFH.

Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a literature search including a major electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long-term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs or VKAs in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15,785 citations, including 7602 unique citations, 16 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 5167 people with cancer and VTE.Low molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonistsEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low-certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta-analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate-certainty evidence).Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonistsFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low-certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis.Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparinsTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low-certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low-certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low-certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis.Idraparinux versus vitamin K antagonistsOne RCT with 284 participants compared once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate-certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low-certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the long-term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in people with cancer. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis-related morbidity and mortality. This is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer with a CVC.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in May 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), or fondaparinux or comparing the effects of two of these anticoagulants in people with cancer and a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic catheter-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, catheter-related infection, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (Balshem 2011).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (23 papers) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 3420 participants. Seven RCTs compared LMWH to no LMWH (six in adults and one in children), six RCTs compared VKA to no VKA (five in adults and one in children), and three RCTs compared LMWH to VKA in adults.LMWH versus no LMWHSix RCTs (1537 participants) compared LMWH to no LMWH in adults. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably decreased the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related VTE up to three months of follow-up compared to no LMWH (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.81; risk difference (RD) 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 52 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the analysis did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH on mortality at three months of follow-up (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.26; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 36 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.06 to 36.28; RD 0 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 35 more; very low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.92; RD 14 more per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 79 more; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.33; RD 5 more per 1000, 95% CI 35 fewer to 58 more; low-certainty evidence).VKA versus no VKAFive RCTs (1599 participants) compared low-dose VKA to no VKA in adults. The meta-analyses did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of low-dose VKA compared to no VKA on mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.64; RD 31 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 51 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 57.78; RD 12 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 110 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.26; RD 15 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 13 more; low-certainty evidence), premature catheter removal (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 114 fewer to 202 more; low-certainty evidence), and catheter-related infection (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.85; RD 71 more per 1000, 95% CI 109 fewer to 356; low-certainty evidence).LMWH versus VKAThree RCTs (641 participants) compared LMWH to VKA in adults. The available evidence did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of LMWH relative to VKA on mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59; RD 6 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 41 fewer to 56 more; low-certainty evidence), symptomatic catheter-related VTE (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.61; RD 15 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 122 more; very low-certainty evidence), PE (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.92; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 13 fewer to 144 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.11; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 72 more; very low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.61; RD 1 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 95 more; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses showed that LMWH probably increased the risk of thrombocytopenia compared to VKA at three months of follow-up (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.39; RD 149 more per 1000, 95% CI 43 fewer to 300 more; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was not conclusive for the effect of LMWH on mortality, the effect of VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE, and the effect of LMWH compared to VKA on mortality and catheter-related VTE. We found moderate-certainty evidence that LMWH reduces catheter-related VTE compared to no LMWH. People with cancer with CVCs considering anticoagulation should balance the possible benefit of reduced thromboembolic complications with the possible harms and burden of anticoagulants.

Fondaparinux versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following minimally invasive esophagectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The methodology of thromboprophylaxis post minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unclear. Thus, we compared the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux and nadroparin on the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after MIE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, treatment-controlled study. Consecutive patients undergoing MIE randomly received a single dose of either nadroparin 2850 AxaIU (Group H) or fondaparinux 2.5 mg (Group F) daily. We used ultrasonography to identify deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on postoperative day 7. The coagulation status was examined using thromboelastography (TEG) prior to and at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after the operation. Bleeding events were recorded during anticoagulation therapy and analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned the patients to Group H (n = 57) or Group F (n = 59). Symptomatic or asymptomatic DVT was identified in seven patients in Group H and one patient in Group F (12.28% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.031). Pulmonary embolism developed in one patient in Group H, and the VTE incidence was significantly lower in Group F than Group H (1.69% vs. 14.04%, RR: 0.121, 95% CI: 0.016-0.935, p = 0.016). TEG analysis showed a more inhibited coagulation profile of Group F compared with Group H reflected by the significantly prolonged R time at 48 h and 72 h after operation (6.8 ± 2.2 min vs. 8.4 ± 2.7 min, p = 0.005; 7.1 ± 1.6 min vs. 9.2 ± 3.7 min, p = 0.002). Bleeding events were not recorded in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fondaparinux could provide similar efficacy and safety in postoperative thromboprophylaxis following MIE compared with nadroparin.

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.

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through both an antitumor effect and antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in February 2016 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; a search for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running continual searches and will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory people with cancer. These participants are typically undergoing systemic anticancer therapy, possibly including chemotherapy, target therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, intervention outcomes of interest and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8545 identified citations, including 7668 unique citations, 16 papers reporting on 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 1486 participants. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The meta-analysis of the studies comparing VKA to no VKA did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of VKA on thrombotic outcomes. The study did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in PE when comparing VKA to no VKA (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low certainty evidence), but found that VKA compared to no VKA likely decreases the incidence of DVT (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 38 fewer to 16 more; low certainty evidence). VKA increased both major bleeding (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate certainty evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study assessing the effect of DOAC compared to no DOAC did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at three months (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.56; RD 51 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 104 more; low certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; RD 93 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 32 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 79.68; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 8 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence does not show a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in people with cancer but suggests an increased risk for bleeding.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Venous thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients: Actual relationships between epidemiology, mechanisms, clinical profile and treatment

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are an underestimated health problem in patients with lymphoma. Many factors contribute to the pathogenesis of thromboembolism and the interplay between various mechanisms that provoke VTE is still poorly understood. The identification of parameters that are associated with an increased risk of VTE in lymphoma patients led to the creation of several risk-assessment models. The models that evaluate potential VTE risk in lymphoma patients in particular are quite limited, and have to be validated in larger study populations. Furthermore, the VTE prophylaxis in lymphoma patients is largely underused, despite the incidence of VTE. The lack of adequate guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE in lymphoma patients, together with a cautious approach due to an increased risk of bleeding, demands great efforts to ensure the implementation of current knowledge in order to reduce the incidence and complications of VTE in lymphoma patients.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

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 venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Efficacy and safety of thromboembolism prophylaxis with fondaparinux in Japanese colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A phase II study

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of fondaparinux (FPNX) for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LAC).

METHODS

Patients scheduled for LAC received once-daily subcutaneous injections of FPNX 1.5-2.5 mg for 4-8 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of bleeding events. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).

RESULTS

Among 128 patients evaluable for efficacy, 119 patients were administered FPNX. Nine patients were excluded owing to intraoperative events, including conversion to open surgery among others. Thirteen patients discontinued treatment owing to anastomotic bleeding (n = 5), anastomotic leakage (n = 3), bleeding at drain insertion site (n = 2), subcutaneous bleeding (n = 1), drug-induced rash (n = 1), and sepsis (n = 1). Among the FPNX discontinuations, there were eight cases of bleeding (6.7%), and two cases of major bleeding (1.7%). In multivariate analysis, operative time >300 min was identified as a risk factor for bleeding events (p = 0.001) secondary to FPNX. The incidence rate of DVT was 2.5% (3/119 cases); these patients were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

There were no cases of PE. It is necessary to establish strict criteria for VTE prophylaxis with FPNX after LAC for Japanese patients considering the incidence of bleeding events.

Reproducibility of clinical events adjudications in a trial of venous thromboembolism prevention

Essentials The reproducibility of Clinical Events Committee (CEC) adjudications is almost unexplored. A random selection of events from a venous thromboembolism trial was blindly re-adjudicated. 'Unexplained sudden deaths' (possible fatal embolism) explained most discordant adjudications. A precise definition for CEC adjudication of this type of events is needed and proposed.

SUMMARY

Background When clinical trials use clinical endpoints, establishing independent Clinical Events Committees (CECs) is recommended to homogenize the interpretation of investigators' data. However, the reproducibility of CEC adjudications is almost unexplored. Objectives To assess the reproducibility of CEC adjudications in a trial of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. Methods The PREVENU trial, a multicenter trial of VTE prevention, included 15 351 hospitalized medical patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of symptomatic VTE, major bleeding or unexplained sudden death (interpreted as possible fatal pulmonary embolism [PE]) at 3 months. The CEC comprised a chairman and four pairs of adjudicators. Of 2970 adjudicated clinical events, a random selection of 179 events (121 deaths, 40 bleeding events, and 18 VTE events) was blindly resubmitted to the CEC. Kappa values and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to measure adjudication agreement. Results Overall, 18 of 179 (10.1%, 95% CI 6.5-15.3%) adjudications proved discordant. Agreement for the PREVENU composite primary endpoint was good (kappa = 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.85). When analyzed separately, agreements were very good for non-fatal VTE events (1, 95% CI not applicable), moderate for all (fatal and non-fatal) VTE events (0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.82), good for fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events (0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.88), and moderate for all fatal events (0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.81). Unexplained sudden death interpreted as possible fatal PE was responsible for nine of 18 (50%) discordant adjudications. Conclusion The reproducibility of CEC adjudications was good or very good for non-fatal VTE and bleeding events, but insufficient for VTE-related deaths, for which more precise and widely accepted definitions are needed.

possible role of soluble fibrin monomer complex after gastroenterological surgery

AIM

To examine the role of soluble fibrin monomer complex (SFMC) in the prediction of hypercoagulable state after gastroenterological surgery.

METHODS

We collected data on the clinical risk factors and fibrin-related makers from patients who underwent gastroenterological surgery at Hiroshima University Hospital between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. We investigated the clinical significance of SFMC, which is known to reflect the early plasmatic activation of coagulation, in the view of these fibrin related markers.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were included in the present study. There were no patients with symptomatic VTE. Thirty-five (28%) patients received postoperative anticoagulant therapy. In the multivariate analysis, a high SFMC level on POD 1 was independently associated with D-dimer elevation on POD 7 (OR = 4.31, 95%CI: 1.10-18.30, P = 0.03). The cutoff SFMC level was 3.8 μg/mL (AUC = 0.78, sensitivity, 63%, specificity, 89%). The D-dimer level on POD 7 was significantly reduced in high-SFMC patients who received anticoagulant therapy in comparison to high-SFMC patients who did not.

CONCLUSION

The SFMC on POD 1 strongly predicted the hypercoagulable state after gastroenterological surgery than the clinical risk factors and the other fibrin related markers.

Bleeding risk of terminally ill patients hospitalized in palliative care units: the RHESO study

Essentials Bleeding incidence as hemorrhagic risk factors are unknown in palliative care inpatients. We conducted a multicenter observational study (22 Palliative Care Units, 1199 patients). At three months, the cumulative incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 9.8%. Cancer, recent bleeding, thromboprophylaxis and antiplatelet therapy were independent risk factors.

SUMMARY

Background The value of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients admitted to palliative care units is debatable. Moreover, the risk of bleeding in these patients is unknown. Objectives Our primary aim was to assess the bleeding risk of patients in a real-world practice setting of hospital palliative care. Our secondary aim was to determine the incidence of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and to identify risk factors for bleeding. Patients/Methods In this prospective, observational study in 22 French palliative care units, 1199 patients (median age, 71 years; male, 45.5%), admitted for the first time to a palliative care unit for advanced cancer or pulmonary, cardiac or neurologic disease were included. The primary outcome was adjudicated clinically relevant bleeding (i.e. a composite of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding) at 3 months. The secondary outcome was symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. Results The most common reason for palliative care was cancer (90.7%). By 3 months, 1087 patients (91.3%) had died and 116 patients had presented at least one episode of clinically relevant bleeding (fatal in 23 patients). Taking into account the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 9.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3-11.6). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in six patients (cumulative incidence, 0.5%; 95% CI, 0.2-1.1). Cancer, recent bleeding, antithrombotic prophylaxis and antiplatelet therapy were independently associated with clinically relevant bleeding at 3 months. Conclusions Decisions regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis in palliative care patients should take into account the high risk of bleeding in these patients.

Choosing the Appropriate Antithrombotic Agent for the Prevention and Treatment of VTE: A Case-Based Approach

Objective:

To review the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in various patient populations and evaluate the agents available for the prevention and treatment of VTE using a case-based approach.

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE search (1995–July 2006) was conducted to identify relevant literature. Additional references were reviewed from selected articles.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Articles related to the prevention of VTE in orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and medically ill patients, as well as the treatment of VTE, were reviewed.

Data Synthesis:

Pharmacologic options for the prevention and treatment of VTE include warfarin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), and fondaparinux. Current guidelines support the use of warfarin, LMWH, or fondaparinux for VTE prophylaxis following lower limb major orthopedic surgery. For VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients or patients undergoing general surgery, use of UFH and LMWH is supported; however, recent data on fondaparinux suggest that it is also effective in these patient populations. The use of UFH or LMWH (both in conjunction with warfarin) for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis or nonmassive pulmonary embolism is recommended. Recent data suggest that fondaparinux (in conjunction with warfarin) is also effective for the treatment of VTE. A variety of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacoeconomic factors differentiate each agent for the various indications.

Conclusions:

Currently, a “one-size-fits-all” anticoagulant is not available for treatment of VTE. A variety of patient factors, including type of surgery, medical indication, thrombotic risk factors, bleeding risk, history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and a variety of comorbid conditions can affect the safety, efficacy, and selection of appropriate VTE therapy.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology surgery

Gynecologic oncology patients are at a high-risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism and these events are a source of major morbidity and mortality. Given the availability of prophylaxis regimens, a structured comprehensive plan for prophylaxis is necessary to care for this population. There are many prophylaxis strategies and pharmacologic agents available to the practicing gynecologic oncologist. Current venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies include mechanical prophylaxis, preoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis, postoperative pharmacologic prophylaxis and extended duration pharmacologic prophylaxis that the patient continues at home after hospital discharge. In this review, we will summarize the available pharmacologic prophylaxis agents and discuss currently used prophylaxis strategies. When available, evidence from the gynecologic oncology patient population will be highlighted.

[Economic consequences of biological monitoring and medical complications of injectable anticoagulants in France]

AIM

To assess the frequency of platelet monitoring and bleeding risks associated with the use of injectable anticoagulants in a real life setting and to estimate the associated costs.

METHOD

An analysis of the 2013 data from a random sample of ≈600,000 patients registered in the French National Health Insurances reimbursement database was conducted to identify platelet counts performed during injectable anticoagulants exposure period and treatment interruptions due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or transfusion. Events were then valued to establish associated costs.

RESULTS

Overall 15,985 adult patients representing a cumulated injectable anticoagulants exposure time of 12,264 months were selected. Treatment sequences involved unfractionated heparin (2.8%), low molecular weight heparin (86.9%), and fondaparinux (13.1%). Patients treated with unfractionated heparin were older (77 vs. 57 and 59 years) with longer treatment duration (32.6 vs. 25.1 and 21 days). After statistical adjustment, the average monthly number of platelet counts was 1.36-fold lower in patients treated with fondaparinux compared to low molecular weight heparin (P<0.0001). No difference was found between low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux regarding the incidence of bleeding with transfusion (P=0.76) or hospitalized thrombocytopenia (P=0.82). Extrapolated for the whole country, the estimated costs for biological monitoring were € 21.6 million for low molecular weight heparin and € 0.9 million for fondaparinux.

CONCLUSION

Significantly fewer platelet counts were performed among patients treated with fondaparinux than among patients receiving low molecular weight heparin without additional bleeding risk. This finding should be taken into account when assessing the costs of such treatments.

Pentasaccharides for the prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition with potentially serious and life-threatening consequences. The standard method of thromboprophylaxis uses an anticoagulant such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or warfarin. In recent years, another type of anticoagulant, pentasaccharide, an indirect factor Xa inhibitor, has shown good anticoagulative effect in clinical trials. Three types of pentasaccharides are available: short-acting fondaparinux, long-acting idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux. Pentasaccharides cause little heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and are better tolerated than unfractionated heparin, LMWH and warfarin. However, no consensus has been reached on whether pentasaccharides are superior or inferior to other anticoagulative methods.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of pentasaccharides versus other methods of thromboembolic prevention (thromboprophylaxis) in people who require anticoagulant treatment to prevent venous thromboembolism.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). The CIS searched trial databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. Review authors searched LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on any type of pentasaccharide versus other anticoagulation methods (pharmaceutical or mechanical) for VTE prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data in predesigned tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review 25 studies with a total of 21,004 participants. All investigated fondaparinux for VTE prevention; none investigated idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux. Studies included participants undergoing abdominal surgery, thoracic surgery, bariatric surgery or coronary bypass surgery; acutely ill hospitalised medical patients; people requiring rigid or semirigid immobilisation; and those with superficial venous thrombosis. Most studies focused on orthopaedic patients. We lowered the quality of the evidence because of heterogeneity between studies and a small number of events causing imprecision.When comparing fondaparinux with placebo, we found less total VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; 5717 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 64%; P < 0.00001), less symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.36; 6503 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001), less total DVT (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40; 5715 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 67%; P < 0.00001), less proximal DVT (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39; 2746 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 64%; P = 0.0004) and less total pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.62; 6412 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 0%; P = 0.008) in the fondaparinux group. The quality of the evidence was moderate for total VTE, total DVT and proximal DVT, and high for symptomatic VTE and total PE.When fondaparinux was compared with LMWH, analyses indicated that fondaparinux reduced total VTE and DVT (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; 9339 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 64%; P < 0.0001; and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.71; 9356 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 67%; P < 0.0001, respectively), and showed a trend toward reduced proximal DVT (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.02; 8361 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 53%; P = 0.06). Symptomatic VTE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.63; 12240 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 35%; P = 0.90) and total PE (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.34; 12350 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%; P = 0.51) indicated no difference between fondaparinux and LMWH. The quality of the evidence was moderate for total VTE, symptomatic VTE, total DVT and total PE, and low for proximal DVT.We showed that fondaparinux increased major bleeding compared with both placebo and LWMH (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.44; 6659 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 0%; P = 0.0008; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.75; 12,501 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 24%; P = 0.008; high-quality evidence, respectively). All-cause mortality was not different between fondaparinux and placebo or LMWH (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.22; 6674 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 14%; P = 0.26; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22; 12,400 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 0%; P = 0.44; moderate-quality evidence, respectively).One study compared fondaparinux with variable and fixed (1 mg per day) doses of warfarin after elective hip or knee replacement surgery and showed no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between fondaparinux and both variable and fixed doses of warfarin. The quality of the evidence was very low. One small study compared fondaparinux with edoxaban in patients with severe renal impairment undergoing lower-limb orthopaedic surgery and reported no thromboembolic events, major bleeding events or deaths in either group. The quality of the evidence was very low. One small study compared fondaparinux with mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Results showed no difference in total VTE and total DVT between fondaparinux and mechanical thromboprophylaxis. This study reported no cases pertaining to the other outcomes of this review. The quality of the evidence was low.There were insufficient studies to permit meaningful conclusions for subgroups of clinical conditions other than orthopaedic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to high quality evidence shows that fondaparinux is effective for short-term prevention of VTE when compared with placebo. It can reduce total VTE, DVT, total PE and symptomatic VTE, and does not demonstrate a reduction in deaths compared with placebo. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that fondaparinux is more effective for short-term VTE prevention when compared with LMWH. It can reduce total VTE and total DVT and does not demonstrate a reduction in deaths when compared with LMWH. However, at the same time, moderate to high quality evidence shows that fondaparinux increases major bleeding when compared with placebo and LMWH. Therefore, when fondaparinux is chosen for the prevention of VTE, attention should be paid to the person's bleeding and thrombosis risks. Most data were derived from patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, the conclusion predominantly pertains to these patients. Data on fondaparinux for other clinical conditions are sparse.

Safety of fondaparinux for prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism in urological malignancy: A prospective randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate the safety of postoperative fondaparinux in comparison with low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing uro-oncological surgery.

METHODS

The present study was a prospective, single-blind, non-inferiority randomized trial. A total of 359 patients undergoing surgery for urological malignancy were enrolled from January 2011 to December 2012. A total of 298 of these patients (fondaparinux group, 152; low molecular weight heparin group, 146) were evaluable for the intention-to-treat-analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to low-dose unfractionated heparin, 5000 units twice daily until postoperative day 1 plus either fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily or low molecular weight heparin 2000 units twice daily until postoperative day 5. The primary end-point was postoperative bleeding as by independent review, and the study was powered to show the non-inferiority of fondaparinux versus low molecular weight heparin. The other adverse events were evaluated. D-dimer and soluble fibrin monomer complex levels were measured perioperatively.

RESULTS

Bleeding occurred in 21 patients (12 in the fondaparinux group and 9 in low molecular weight heparin group, respectively). No significant differences were detected in the incidence of postoperative bleeding and the other adverse events between the two groups. The D-dimer was elevated on postoperative day 1 in one patient (16.6 μg/mL). In another patient, the soluble fibrin monomer complex was elevated (109 μg/mL).

CONCLUSIONS

Fondaparinux is non-inferior to low molecular weight heparin with respect to risk of bleeding. The favorable safety profile of fondparinux supports its prophylactic use as an alternative to low molecular weight heparin after surgery for urological malignancy.

Primary prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events in patients with gastrointestinal cancers - Review

Venous thromboembolism event (VTE) is a common and morbid complication in cancer patients. Patients with gastrointestinal cancers often suffer from symptomatic or incidental splanchnic vein thrombosis, impaired liver function and/or thrombocytopenia. These characteristics require a thorough risk/benefit evaluation for individual patients. Considering the risk factors for the development of VTE and bleeding events in addition to recent study results may be helpful for correct initiation of primary pharmacological prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), preferably with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH). Whereas thromboprophylaxis is most often recommended in hospitalized surgical and non-surgical patients with malignancy, there is less agreement as to its duration. With regard to ambulatory cancer patients, the lack of robust data results in low grade recommendations against routine use of anticoagulant drugs. Anticoagulation with LMWH for the first months is the evidence-based treatment for acute CAT, but duration of secondary prevention and the drug of choice are unclear. Based on published guidelines and literature, this review will focus on prevention and treatment strategies of VTE in patients with gastrointestinal cancers.

The Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Patients

Patients undergoing surgery are at an increased risk of VTE. Since the early 1990s the prevention of VTE has been dominated by the administration of low-molecular weight heparin during admission. New oral anticoagulants have been extensively researched and have increased in popularity. This chapter reviews why surgical patients are at increased risk of VTE and summaries both the pharmacological and mechanical methods of prophylaxis available.

Adjusted-Dose Enoxaparin for VTE Prevention in the Morbidly Obese

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem and common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While trials in both surgical and medically ill patients have demonstrated efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis (VTEP), they failed to adequately represent morbidly obese (body mass index > 40 kg/m2) patients. Objective: To assess the impact of a weight-adjusted enoxaparin dosing algorithm on anti-factor Xa levels, thrombosis, and bleeding in morbidly obese patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted, which included morbidly obese patients receiving VTEP with adjusted-dose enoxaparin. Patients received enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg subcutaneously once or twice daily based on VTE risk. An anti-factor Xa level was drawn 3 to 5 hours after 2 or more consecutive doses. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients achieving target anti-factor Xa levels, defined as 0.2 to 0.6 IU/mL. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding. Results: Of the 182 charts reviewed, 141 anti-factor Xa levels from 130 patients met inclusion criteria. The study population was 44% male, and the median body mass index was 45.6 kg/m2. A total of 120 anti-factor Xa levels (85.1%) were within the target prophylactic range. Sixteen anti-factor Xa levels (11.3%) were below target range, and 5 (3.4%) were above range. The only significant difference among the 3 groups was baseline renal function (P = .035). There were 2 thromboembolic events and 1 major bleed in the study population. Conclusion: A weight-based VTEP dosing strategy for morbidly obese patients is effective without an apparent increase in adverse events.

Lack of consistency in the relationship between asymptomatic DVT detected by venography and symptomatic VTE in thromboprophylaxis trials

Asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) detected by mandatory venography, a surrogate outcome, comprises most of the efficacy outcome events in recent thromboprophylaxis trials. The validity of this surrogate to estimate trade-off between thrombotic and bleeding events in these clinical trials requires a consistent relationship between asymptomatic DVT and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In this systematic review of high quality VTE prevention trials, we examined the consistency of the ratios of asymptomatic DVT to symptomatic VTE across a broad range of indications. Studies were identified from citations listed in the chapters on VTE prevention in the antithrombotic guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians, 2012. A study was eligible if it: 1) was a randomised trial comparing an anticoagulant with standard of care; 2) included at least 500 participants; 3) reported asymptomatic or all DVT rates; and 4) reported symptomatic VTE rates. Of the 26 eligible trials, 19 trials were conducted in orthopaedic patients, five in general surgery patients and two in general medical patients. The overall median rates (ranges) for asymptomatic DVT and symptomatic VTE were 9.11 % (0.75 to 54.87 %) and 0.49 % (0.00 to 3.10 %), respectively. The median ratio was 14.53, with a wide range (2.75 to 103.86). Wide variability in the ratios persisted despite indication- and anticoagulant-specific analyses. In VTE prevention trials of alternative anticoagulants, the wide variability in the ratios of asymptomatic DVT to symptomatic VTE precludes judging the trade-off between thrombotic and bleeding events on the basis of composite outcomes dominated by venographic DVT.