Prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with enoxaparin: a subgroup analysis of the MEDENOX study

The efficacy of atorvastatin on inflammation and coagulation markers in high-risk thrombotic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a prevalent complication associated with malignancy. Clinical use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended, however its usage is limited due to bleeding complications, more cost associated, and reluctance to receive anticoagulant injections. Rivaroxaban a relatively easy to administer anticoagulant but it has a risk of bleeding and is expensive. Inflammation is the important factor in pathogenesis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Statins have the anti-inflammatory property that could decrease proinflammatory cytokines. Consequently, statins may be used as thromboprophylaxis for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To provide comparison between atorvastatin and rivaroxaban on affecting inflammatory biomarkers (interleukin 6 [IL-6], C reactive protein [CRP]) and coagulation activation biomarkers (Tissue Factor [TF], prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 [F1 + 2], D-Dimer) in cancer patients at high risk of thrombosis receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study that was double-blinded and involved high-risk cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. For up to ninety days, participants were randomized to receiver either atorvastatin 20 mg or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily. The level of plasma of IL-6, CRP, TF, F1 + 2, and D-dimer were assessed 24 h before chemotherapy, 30, 60, and 90 day after chemotherapy. The latest observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was used to examine the data. The laboratory results were evaluated using an independent T test or Mann-Whitney U test prior to and after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Eighty-six randomized patients were enrolled, although both groups showed a decreasing trend in plasma level of IL-6, CRP, TF, F1 + 2, and D-dimer, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the atorvastatin group, there was a significant correlation between delta level of IL-6 and F1 + 2 (r = 0.313, p = 0.043) and delta level of CRP and F1 + 2 (r = 0.398, p = 0.009), whereas in the rivaroxaban group there was a significant correlation between delta CRP and D-dimer level (r = 0.387, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin decreases IL-6 and CRP level, which also decreases F1 + 2 level. Atorvastatin did not substantially differ from rivaroxaban in decreasing plasma levels of inflammatory biomarkers IL-6, CRP, and coagulation activation biomarkers TF, F1 + 2, D-dimer in high-risk cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN71891829, Registration Date: 17/12/2020.

Risk stratification and contributing factors of deep vein thrombosis among patients admitted at Debre Markos comprehensive specialized hospital, Ethiopia in 2024

Introduction

Deep vein thrombosis is a serious condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Studies conducted in various hospitals in Ethiopia have reported that the prevalence rates of deep vein thrombosis range from approximately 5-10% among hospitalized patients. The risk stratification of deep vein thrombosis and the identification of associated risk factors are critical for assessing deep vein thrombosis in hospital settings. Wells scoring provides a valuable framework for assessing individual risk. This study aims to assess the risk stratification of deep vein thrombosis and to identify the risk factors among patients admitted at Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Hospital.

Method

A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2023 to February 2024. The study included 423 adult patients, and the data were collected using a structured questionnaire and chart review. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted after performing the model test.

Result

The prevalence of deep vein thrombosis was found to be 7.9%, with 44.2% categorized as having no risk, 8.1% as moderate risk, and 47.7% as high risk for deep vein thrombosis stratification. Various risk factors, such as regular alcohol consumption (odd ratio 4.59, p = 0.032), a previous history of deep vein thrombosis (odd ratio 28.32, p = 0.000), the presence of a central catheter (odd ratio 12.92, p = 0.000), a severe lipid profile (odd ratio 3.8, p = 0.001), and a longer duration of stay in the ward (odd ratio 1.28, p = 0.000), were significantly associated with high risk for deep vein thrombosis stratification.

Conclusion

The prevalence of high-risk deep vein thrombosis stratification was found to be high, and the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis was also high within this risk group. Regular alcohol consumption, a previous history of deep vein thrombosis, the presence of a central catheter, a severe lipid profile, and a longer duration of stay in the ward were statistically significant for high-risk deep vein thrombosis stratification. This study highlights the importance of identifying patients who are at high risk for deep vein thrombosis stratification and addressing the risk factors for deep vein thrombosis stratification.

Incidence and characteristic of deep venous thrombosis in hospitalized chronic heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

This study was conducted to investigate the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), outcomes and its characteristics in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) in a retrospective setting.

OUTCOMES

Patients died of cardiac shock or acute exacerbation of heart failure (HF), admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) due to acute exacerbation of HF, patients decided to withdraw treatment and return home due to acute exacerbation of HF.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2022, we admitted 359 patients diagnosed with CHF, and lower limb ultrasonography was performed for the examination of DVT after admission. The incidence of DVT was recorded and patients with known risk factors of VTE were identified and excluded after incidence of DVT was calculated. Patients' clinical data were then collected.

RESULTS

The occurrence of DVT was 10.0% (36/359), as calf intramuscular vein thrombosis was the main constitution (n  =  28, 75%). DVT patients with other factors (carcinoma, surgery, stroke, previous history of DVT) constituted a considerable part (33.3%, 12/36). Age, history of Diabetes Mellitus (DM), levels of DDi (D-Dimer), levels of alanine transferase (ALT) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd) were independent predictors or risk factors of DVT in CHF patients, while chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 1-4, white blood cell (WBC) and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) were protective factors. Incidence of DVT was correlated with a poor outcome of CHF patients (Pearson Chi-Square test, Value 19.612, P  <  0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, incidence of DVT was found to be relatively high among hospitalized CHF patients, while patients with DVT was associated with a poor prognosis.

Cancer-associated venous thrombosis in adults (second edition): A British Society for Haematology Guideline

A shared decision on the most appropriate agent for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis should consider the following factors, which should be reassessed as patients continue along their cancer care pathway: risk of bleeding; tumour site; suitability of oral medications; potential for drug-drug interactions; and patient preference and values regarding choice of drug. Continuing anticoagulation beyond 6 months in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism and active cancer is recommended.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Pathophysiology, Laboratory Assessment, and Current Guidelines

Dysregulated hemostasis in cancer patients is associated with various clinical conditions, from thromboembolic complications to disseminated intravascular coagulation. Despite the well-established association between cancer and thromboembolic complications, the mechanisms involved are not completely elucidated. There are several predisposing factors in cancer for increased thrombus generation, such as immobilization and chemotherapy. The term cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) has been introduced to describe the close bidirectional relationship between cancer and thromboembolic events. Conventional coagulation tests (PT/aPTT) are more accurate in detecting a hypocoagulable rather than a hypercoagulable state; thus, their contribution to CAT management is limited. Traditionally, D-dimer levels have been the most common laboratory study for the evaluation of thrombotic risk. However, D-dimer levels only display a snapshot of the coagulation cascade, and they cannot provide a dynamic evaluation of evolving clot formation. Non-conventional assays, such as viscoelastic methods and microparticle formation are promising tools for the identification of patients at risk for developing CAT. Recent guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology counsel against the estimation of thrombotic risk through a single test and recommend the use of scoring systems that take into account several risk factors. The present review outlines the current insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms of CAT and provides a comprehensive review of the latest advances in the laboratory assessment of CAT and the recent guidelines for the management of patients at risk for developing thromboembolic complications.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Inpatients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are three times more likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), and guidelines recommend prophylaxis during all hospitalizations. In this systematic review, we sought to assess for the benefits and risks of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized IBD patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE and others up to 2/2022, for studies on IBD inpatients treated with prophylactic anticoagulation during hospitalization, compared to no prophylaxis. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were any VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Results were pooled using random-effects models, calculating odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 18 observational studies and 2 randomized-trial subgroups. The studies were highly variable regarding the included populations, interventions, and outcome definitions. Meta-analysis of all studies showed a nonsignificant effect of prophylaxis on VTEs (OR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.49-1.95]). An analysis of eight lower-risk-of-bias studies showed a significant reduction in VTEs (OR: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.13-0.55], number needed to treat (NNT) 34.8 [95% CI: 26.8-49.8]). A significant protective effect persisted in several subgroups. Major bleeding was reported in three studies and showed a significant increase with prophylaxis (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.11-3.67], number needed to harm (NNH) 113.6 [95% CI: 40.7-very-large-number]).

CONCLUSION

In studies with lower-risk-of-bias, a significant reduction in VTEs was shown in patients treated with VTE prophylaxis (NNT = 35), which should be carefully considered against an increased major-bleeding risk (NNH = 114). However, current data are limited and randomized trials dedicated to IBD inpatients would aid in understating whether universal prophylaxis should be recommended.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism risk-prediction in foot and ankle fracture surgery

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) are rare but serious complications after foot and ankle fracture surgery. A consensus definition of a high-risk patient has not been reached, leading to significant variability in the use of pharmacologic agents for VTE prophylaxis. The aim of this study was to develop a model for predicting VTE risk in patients undergoing surgery for foot and ankle fractures that is usable and scalable in clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 15,342 patients, within the ACS-NSQIP database, who had undergone surgical repair of foot and ankle fractures from 2015 to 2019 was performed. Univariate analysis evaluated differences in demographics and comorbidities. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was generated based on a 60 % development cohort to evaluate risk factors for VTE. A receiver operator curve based on the 40 % test cohort calculated area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the model in predicting VTE within the 30-day postoperative period.

RESULTS

Of the 15,342 patients, 1.2 % patients experienced VTE, and 98.8 % patients did not. Patients who experienced VTE were significantly older and had an overall higher comorbidity burden. Those who had VTE spent on average 10.5 more minutes in the operating room. In the final model, age over 65, diabetes, dyspnea, CHF, dialysis, wound infection and bleeding disorders were all found to be significant predictors of VTE after controlling for all other factors. The model generated an AUC of 0.731, indicating good predictive accuracy. The predictive model is publicly available at https://shinyapps.io/VTE_Prediction/.

CONCLUSIONS

In alignment with previous studies, we identified increased age and bleeding disorders as independent risk factors for VTE after foot and ankle fracture surgery. This is one of the first studies to generate and test a model for identifying patients at risk for VTE in this population. This evidence-based model may help surgeons prospectively identify high-risk patients who may benefit from pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis.

The effectiveness of atorvastatin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy : A randomised controlled trial: open label

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication in cancer. Although thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients is recommended by the guidelines, clinicians' use of thromboprophylaxis remains limited due to cost, bleeding complications, and reluctance to give injectable anticoagulants. Inflammation plays essential roles in the pathogenesis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Owing to its ability to decrease proinflammatory cytokines, statins have anti-inflammatory properties. Thus, statins can be possibly utilized as thromboprophylaxis therapy in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of atorvastatin and rivaroxaban for DVT prevention in high-risk thrombosis patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving cancer patients with high-risk of thrombosis undergoing chemotherapy. We randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive atorvastatin 20 mg or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for up to 90 days. Doppler ultrasonography was performed 90 days following chemotherapy to diagnose DVT. Average cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to analyze the cost of atorvastatin compared to rivaroxaban.

RESULTS

Of the eighty six patients who underwent randomization, primary efficacy end point was observed in 1 of 42 patients (2.3%) in the atorvastatin group and in 1 of 44 (2.2%) in the rivaroxaban group (Odds Ratio [OR], 0.953; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.240 to 3.971; p = 1.000). There was a significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding, 2 of 42 patients (4.8%) in the atorvastatin group and 12 of 44 (27.3%) in the rivaroxaban group (OR, 0.257; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.94; p = 0.007). The average cost-effectiveness ratio of using atorvastatin was lower than that of rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin did not differ significantly from rivaroxaban in reducing the incidence of DVT, lower bleeding risk, and cost-effectiveness for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk thrombosis patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The presence of limited statistical power and wide confidence intervals in this study needs further study to strengthen the efficacy of atorvastatin as DVT prophylaxis in cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN71891829, Registration Date: 17/12/2020.

Prevention, Diagnostics and Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis. Russian Experts Consensus

The guidelines are developed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation by the all-Russian public organization «Association of Phlebologists of Russia» with participation of the Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons of Russia, the Russian Society of Surgeons, the Russian Society of Angiologists and Vascular Surgeons, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Association of Oncologists of Russia, the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology, Russian Society of Oncohematologists, Russian Society of Cardiology, Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Correlation of Inflammation and Coagulation Markers with the Incidence of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Cancer Patients with High Risk of Thrombosis

Background

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication and the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Pro-inflammatory stimuli in the cancer microenvironment induce nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling pathway that plays an integral role in immunothrombosis mechanism.

Objective

To investigate the role of inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers in the development of DVT in cancer patients with high risk of thrombosis (Khorana score ≥2).

Subjects and methods

This study was a cross-sectional study at Dr. Kariadi General Hospital. The serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines, ie, NF-κB, interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and coagulation biomarkers, ie, tissue factor (TF), prothrombin fragment F1+2 (F1+2), fibrinogen and D-dimer were measured in newlydiagnosed cancer patients with a highrisk of thrombosis. Color duplex sonography was used for DVT screening.

Results

From January to November 2021, there were 83 eligible patients. DVT was confirmed in 8 subjects (9.63%). Univariate analysis revealed a significant difference between the median age of patients with DVT compared to non-DVT patients, 49.5 years (range: 23–60 years) and 42 years (range: 19–60 years), with p=0.046. D-dimer level was higher in DVT patients [(6.020 µg/L, range 2.090–20.000) vs (1.940 µg/L, range 270–20.000), p=0.005]. Multivariate analysis revealed age and D-dimer were significantly correlated with DVT incidence. In all patients, there were significant positive correlations between several inflammatory and coagulation activation parameters, which were IL-6 with D-dimer and F1+2, CRP with F1+2 and D-dimer as well as TNF-α with F1+2. However, these findings were not shown in DVT patients.

Conclusion

In cancer patients with a high risk of thrombosis, age and D-dimer level are the significant variables towards the incidence of DVT. In patients with DVT, there was no significant correlation between inflammatory and coagulation activation parameters.

The effect of intermittent pneumatic compression on deep-vein thrombosis and ventilation-free days in critically ill patients with heart failure

There are contradictory data regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and heart failure (HF) decompensation in critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of adjunctive use of IPC on the rate of incident DVT and ventilation-free days among critically ill patients with HF. In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the PREVENT trial (N = 2003), we compared the effect of adjunctive IPC added to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (IPC group), with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group) in critically ill patients with HF. The presence of HF was determined by the treating teams according to local practices. Patients were stratified according to preserved (≥ 40%) versus reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction, and by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. The primary outcome was incident proximal lower-limb DVT, determined with twice weekly venous Doppler ultrasonography. As a co-primary outcome, we evaluated ventilation-free days as a surrogate for clinically important HF decompensation. Among 275 patients with HF, 18 (6.5%) patients had prevalent proximal lower-limb DVT (detected on trial day 1 to 3). Of 257 patients with no prevalent DVT, 11/125 (8.8%) patients in the IPC group developed incident proximal lower-limb DVT compared to 6/132 (4.5%) patients in the control group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–5.08, p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the IPC and control groups (median 21 days versus 25 days respectively, p = 0.17). The incidence of DVT with IPC versus control was not different across NYHA classes (p value for interaction = 0.18), nor across patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (p value for interaction = 0.15). Ventilator-free days with IPC versus control were also not different across NYHA classes nor across patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In conclsuion, the use of adjunctive IPC compared with control was associated with similar rate of incident proximal lower-limb DVT and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with HF.

Trial registration: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02040103) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Evaluation of the Padua Prediction Score ability to predict venous thromboembolism in Israeli non-surgical hospitalized patients using electronic medical records

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered a leading safety concern during hospitalization. The Padua Predication Score (PPS) is a risk model conceived to predict VTE among non-surgical hospitalized patients. The study aim was to evaluate the PPS ability to predict VTE in Israeli non-surgical hospitalized patients using data from electronic medical records. A single center, large-scale, historic cohort study of hospitalized non-surgical patients was conducted. Outcomes included clinically diagnosed symptomatic VTE events, bleeding events, and mortality during hospitalization and up to 90 days thereafter, and readmission up to 90 days after discharge. 5117 patient records were analyzed after screening and validation. 1120 (22%) patients were defined per PPS as high-risk, of which 277 (24.7%) were prophylactically treated. The low-risk group included 3997 (78%) patients. Prevalence of symptomatic VTE was low. Overall, 14 (0.27%) VTE events were diagnosed: 3 cases in the high-risk group (0.27%) and 11 (0.28%) in the low-risk group, with no significant difference, p = 0.768. Prophylactic treatment among the high-risk patients did not significantly improve VTE incidence: 1/277 (0.36%) treated vs. 2/843 (0.24%), p = 0.343. There was no significant difference between the study groups regarding the rates of bleeding, unexplained mortality or readmission. PPS was not found to be an efficient tool for identification of non-surgical hospitalized patients with high risk for clinically significant VTE.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

Heart Failure Is Associated with Increased Risk of Long-Term Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), consisting of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is highly prevalent in in-hospital HF patients and contributes to worse prognoses. However, the risk of VTE in out-patients with HF in long-term period is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between HF and the risk of VTE in a long-term follow-up duration.

METHODS

We searched for studies investigating the risk of VTE, PE, and DVT in patients with HF before April 15, 2020, in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Cohort studies and post hoc analysis of RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they reported relative risk of VTE, DVT or PE in patients with HF in more than 3-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

We identified 31 studies that enrolled over 530,641 HF patients. Overall, patients with HF were associated with an increased risk of VTE (risk ratio [RR]=1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.34-1.84) and PE (RR=2.00, 95% CI=1.38-2.89). However, the risk of DVT was not significantly increased in HF patients (RR=1.33, 95% CI=0.67-2.63). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with chronic HF (RR=1.54, 95% CI=1.32-1.80) had a higher risk of VTE than those with acute HF (RR=0.95, 95% CI=0.68-1.32).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, HF was an independent risk for VTE and PE but not DVT in a long-term follow-up period. Patients with chronic HF were prone to suffer from VTE than acute HF.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with non-hematological cancer admitted for COVID-19 at a third-level hospital in Madrid

An increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been reported. We aimed to describe the incidence rate of VTE on patients with non-hematological cancer who required hospitalization due to COVID-19 at our center. In this prospective study, non-hematological cancer patients hospitalized for confirmed COVID-19 at our institution from 1st March to 30th April 2020, were evaluated daily for VTE complications during their hospital stay, and after discharge until 30th June 2020. Furthermore, Doppler ultrasound of lower limbs was routinely performed in asymptomatic patients based on D-dimer levels and current active cancer therapy. The primary outcome of this study was the cumulative incidence of VTE. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of bleeding and mortality. A total of 58 hospitalized non-hematological cancer patients and confirmed COVID-19 were identified. Median follow-up since initial symptoms of COVID-19 was 91 days (IQR 19–104). Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in three (5%) patients. Symptomatic catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was observed in one patient. Doppler ultrasound of lower limbs was done in 11 asymptomatic patients, showing distal DVT in two of them (18%). The cumulative incidence of VTE on day 14 after admission was 10%, without new VTE events after hospital discharge and up to 90 days follow-up. No bleeding complication was observed. Seventeen patients (29%) died in the first 14 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Four patients died after discharge due to malignancy progression. The cumulative incidence of VTE in non-hematological cancer patients under active treatment was 10% at day 14 after admission, with no further new events in the following 12 weeks.

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.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Acute Medically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for medical patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism. We aimed to assess the benefit and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients hospitalized.

METHODS

We prepared a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Israel with patients hospitalized in medical departments with an admission lasting more than 48 hours during 2014-2017.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

30-day mortality.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

90-day incidence of pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, and major bleeding. Propensity-weighted logistic multivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 18,890 patient-unique episodes were included in the analysis. Of them, 3206 (17.0%) received prophylaxis. A total of 1309 (6.9%) died, 540/3206 (16.8%) of those who received venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and 769/15,864 (4.9%) of those who did not. Prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in mortality, multivariable-adjusted odds ratio propensity-weighted (OR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.14). One hundred forty-two patients (0.7%) developed venous thromboembolism, 44/3206 (1.4%) of those who received prophylaxis and 98/15,864 (0.6%) of those who did not. Prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in venous thromboembolism in the whole cohort, multivariable-adjusted propensity-weighted OR 1.09 (95% CI, 0.52-2.29). Prophylaxis was associated with an increase in major bleeding (multivariable-adjusted propensity-weighted OR 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48).

CONCLUSION

The current practice of routinely administering venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to medically ill patients considered at high risk for thrombosis resulted in a high risk for bleeding without a clear clinical benefit, and should be reassessed.

COVID-19 and Venous Thromboembolism in Intensive Care or Medical Ward

Despite thromboprophylaxis, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) exhibit hypercoagulability and higher venous thromboembolic risk, although its real incidence is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID‐19 admitted to both intensive care units (ICUs) and medical wards (MWs). Consecutive patients admitted for COVID‐19 to the MW and the ICU at Padua University Hospital, all receiving thromboprophylaxis, underwent systematic ultrasonography of the internal jugular, and the upper and lower limbs veins every 7 days (± 1 day) after the admission; and, if negative, once‐weekly until discharge or death. In case of suspected pulmonary embolism, a multidetector computed tomographic angiography was performed. The primary outcome was the proportion of any deep‐vein thrombosis (DVT) and symptomatic pulmonary embolism in both groups. An extended blood coagulative test was performed as well. From March 4 to April 30, 2020, a total of 85 patients were investigated, 44 (52%) in MWs and 41 (48%) in the ICU. Despite thromboprophylaxis, VTE occurred in 12 patients in the MWs (27.3%) and 31 patients in the ICU (75.6%) with an odds ratio of 9.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5–24.5; P < 0.001). Multiple‐site DVT occurred in 55.6% of patients (95% CI 39.6–70.5). Increased D‐dimer levels significantly correlated with VTE (P = 0.001) and death (P = 0.015). Summarizing, patients with COVID‐19 admitted to the MW or ICU showed a high frequency of venous thromboembolism, despite standard‐dose or high‐dose thromboprophylaxis. Whether thrombosis, particularly asymptomatic events, may play a role in the morbidity and mortality of patients with COVID‐19 remain to be clarified.

Incidence of thrombosis and hemorrhage in hospitalized cancer patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a recognized prothrombotic state. Patients hospitalized with active cancer are predisposed to thrombosis but whether active cancer further amplifies thrombotic risk with COVID-19 is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cumulative incidences of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without active cancer at 28 days.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 was performed. Active cancer required cancer-directed therapy within previous 6 months. The cumulative incidences of thrombosis or hemorrhage were estimated considering death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Patients without cancer (n = 353) and active cancer (n = 45) were comparable in terms of age, sex, antibiotics administered, length of hospitalization, and critical care. The most common malignancies were lymphoid (17.8%), gastrointestinal (15.6%), lung (13.3%), and genitourinary (13.3%). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 18.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2%-27.9%) in the non-cancer cohort and 14.2% (95% CI, 4.7%-28.7%) in the cancer cohort. The cumulative incidence of major and fatal bleeding at day 28 was 20.8% (95% CI, 12.1%-31.0%) in the non-cancer group and 19.5% (95% CI, 5.5%-39.8%) in the cancer cohort. Three patients experienced fatal bleeds, all of whom were in the non-cancer cohort. Survival was significantly shorter in the group with active cancer (P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a similarly high incidence of thrombosis and bleeding among patients admitted with COVID-19 with or without active cancer.

Management of Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy in Glaucoma Surgery

The use of antithrombotic therapy is rising as the population of older adults grows and novel agents with wider indications emerge. Likewise, surgical treatment of glaucoma may become increasingly common as the prevalence of glaucoma increases and innovative treatment options are developed. These trends highlight the need to understand how best to manage antithrombotic therapy in the context of glaucoma surgery. This review article describes current literature on antithrombotic therapy and perioperative thromboembolic risk evaluation based on individual factors. In addition, guidance is offered on the management of antithrombotic therapy in the setting of each type of glaucoma surgery, with an emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach involving the patients' treating physicians.

Inpatient prophylaxis in cancer patients: where is the evidence?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable in-hospital mortality. Cancer is associated with an increased risk of VTE which is further compounded by acute hospitalization for medical illness. The absolute incidence of VTE of hospitalized cancer patients ranges between 2% and 17% but the rates vary considerably depending on the type of study, method of VTE surveillance and whether pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is administered. Complicating the interpretation of thromboprophylaxis trials is the paucity of reported data on the relative benefit of thromboprophylaxis relative to an increased risk of hemorrhage inherent to cancer patients. Efforts over the last decade have improved the rates of adherence to in-hospital pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis regimens. Whether these efforts also improve outcomes continues to be debated. In this review, the prevalence of VTE and hemorrhage in hospitalized cancer patients is presented in the context of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis data along with a discussion of emerging approaches towards VTE risk-adapted prescription of antithrombotics during hospitalization.

New insights on patient-related risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with solid organ cancers

Patient-related risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are infrequently studied. We compared the role of patient-related risk factors for VTE in patients with solid organ cancers to their role in patients without cancer using National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data. Patients with cancer: risk of VTE hospitalization; Increased: chronic pulmonary disease (OR 1.172, 95% CI 1.102-1.247), obesity (OR 1.369, 95% CI 1.244-1.506). Decreased: liver disease (OR 0.654, 95% CI 0.562-0.762), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR 0.539, 95% CI 0.491-0.593), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (OR 0.247, 95% CI 0.187-0.326). Patients without cancer: Risk of VTE hospitalization; Increased: age (OR 1.024, 95% CI 1.022-1.025), congestive heart failure (OR 1.221, 95% CI: 1.107-1.346), chronic pulmonary disease (OR 1.372, 95% CI 1.279-1.473), obesity (OR 2.627, 95% CI 2.431-2.838). Decreased: female gender (OR 0.772, 95% CI 0.730-0.816), diabetes (OR 0.756, 95% CI 0.701-0.815), ESRD (OR 0.315, 95% CI 0.252-0.395). In conclusion, chronic pulmonary disease and obesity increase VTE hospitalization risk in patients with and without cancer and the risk decreases in cancer patients with liver disease, CKD or ESRD.

Improving VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis prescribing rate in medical patients: integrating risk assessment tool into the workflow

Medical inpatients often have important risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). In our institution, VTE prophylaxis in this group was underused. The main barriers identified were inattention to VTE prophylaxis, competing priorities and lack of confidence in the decision-making. We aimed to improve the rate of VTE prophylaxis use by introducing a paper-based risk assessment tool, with actionable management recommendations within the prescription chart. The rationale was that an assessment tool at the point of prescribing can reduce steps between decision-making and prescribing process, thus promoting confidence and acting as a reminder. A total of 552 prescription charts completed over a period of 29 weeks were examined during the baseline period. In the postintervention period, 871 charts completed over 40 weeks period were examined. The risk assessment tool was completed in 51% of the cases examined in the postintervention period. The introduction of the risk assessment tool was associated with a significant change in the pattern of VTE pharmacological prophylaxis use. The change occurred when the form was made highly visible and enclosed in the prescription chart. The pharmacological prophylaxis use was higher with a completed assessment form than without (mean (SD) 97.5% (7.6%) vs 70.1% (19.4%); p<0.0001). The rate of appropriate prophylaxis decision was 98.2% (SD 5.2%) with a completed assessment form, and 80.7% (SD 17.9%) when it was not used. The qualitative interviews revealed positive themes; many users found it useful, easy and convenient to use. Our data have shown that a paper-based VTE risk assessment tool placed within the prescription chart could substantially improve the rate of appropriate assessment and VTE prophylaxis implementation. This suggests that tool clearly needs to be a seamless integration into the workflow to capture users’ attention and mitigate the influence of time perception.

Dose-adjusted enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients: a randomized, double-blinded multicenter phase 2 trial

Hospitalized patients with cancer are at an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). The recommendation for routine pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer to prevent VTE is based on extrapolation of results from noncancer cohorts. There are limited data to support the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) regimens in high-risk hospitalized patients with cancer. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial in hospitalized patients with active cancer at high risk of developing VTE based on Padua risk score. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed-dose enoxaparin (40 mg daily) vs weight-adjusted enoxaparin (1 mg/kg daily) during hospitalization. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety of dose-adjusted enoxaparin and evaluate the incidence of VTE with fixed-dose enoxaparin. Blinded clinical assessments were performed at day 14, and patients randomly assigned to fixed-dose enoxaparin subsequently underwent a bilateral lower extremity ultrasound. A total of 50 patients were enrolled and randomized. The median weight of patients enrolled in weight-adjusted enoxaparin arm was 76 kg (range, 60.9-124.5 kg). There were no major hemorrhages or symptomatic VTE in either arm. At time of completion of the blinded clinical assessment, there was only 1 incidentally identified pulmonary embolus that occurred in the weight-adjusted arm. In the group randomly assigned to fixed-dose enoxaparin who subsequently underwent surveillance ultrasound, the cumulative incidence of DVT was 22% (90% binomial confidence interval, 0%-51.3%). This phase 2 trial confirms a high incidence of asymptomatic VTE among high-risk hospitalized patients with cancer and that weight-adjusted LMWH thromboprophylaxis is feasible and well-tolerated. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02706249.

The Risk of Subsequent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with Nontyphoidal Salmonellosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) risk among patients with a diagnosis of nontyphoidal salmonellosis (NTS) in an Asian population. The risk was analyzed in a cohort of 17,855 patients newly diagnosed with NTS and 71,420 individuals without NTS using a hospitalization claim dataset. Both groups were matched by age, sex, and index date as an original analysis. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was applied to estimate the risk of DVT and PE, accounting for any competing event (death). With a follow-up of 4.94 (±3.93) years in the NTS group and 6.30 (±3.67) years in the non-NTS group, the adjusted subhazard ratios (SHRs) of DVT and PE were 1.83 (95% CI 1.44–2.31) and 1.84 (95% CI 1.30–2.60). The NTS group had an increased risk of DVT and PE compared with the control group in all of the age subgroups. Stratified analyses showed that patients aged 18–39 years in the NTS group had significantly higher DVT and PE risks compared with patients of the same age in the non-NTS group (aHR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.22–15.91 for DVT; aHR 6.72; 95% CI, 2.23–20.30 for PE). The P-value for interaction between age and exposure of NTS is <0.001 for DVT and 0.004 for PE in our sub-group analyses. The findings were cross-validated by a re-analysis with propensity score matching (PSM), and that revealed consistent results. Despite of low absolute risk, clinicians should be aware that patients with an NTS hospitalization history is at increased risk for VTE especially when assessing patients coincident with other VTE risk factors.

[Diagnostic and therapeutic management of venous thromboembolic disease in obese patients]

Despite the high proportion of obese patients this population remains understudied in the field of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). Obesity is a risk factor for pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis, especially when it is associated with other risk factors for VTE. Currently there is no validated diagnostic algorithm for VTE in the population of obese patients. Moreover, imaging examinations can be of poor quality and inconclusive. In the prevention of VTE, data concerning obese patients are mainly based on low-level studies. Apart from the context of bariatric surgery, an adjustment of heparin doses according to the weight of the patient is proposed only on a case-by-case basis. According to the current guidelines, therapeutic fixed dose oral anticoagulants should not be prescribed for patients with weights exceeding 120kg or a body mass index>40kg/m². Heparin doses should be weight adjusted and monitored with anti-Xa activity. Anti vitamin K can be prescribed but require INR monitoring. Therefore, new studies specifically dedicated to obese patients are required in the field of VTE for better diagnostic and therapeutic management.

Recommendations for VTE Prophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains highly prevalent in medically ill patients, and often leads to increased mortality and cost burden during hospitalization and post-discharge. Nearly half of all VTEs occur during or after hospitalization, with pulmonary embolism accounting for 10% of inpatient mortality. Appropriate prophylaxis in high-risk medically ill patients has been shown to reduce risk of VTE and related mortality. Despite current evidence-based guidelines, VTE prophylaxis has been under-used. This owes greatly to ambiguity and concerns related to appropriate patient and prophylactic agent selection, and duration of prophylaxis. Because many acutely ill medical patients have multiple comorbidities, the risk of major bleeding must be considered when choosing to implement pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. Multiple risk assessment models have been developed and validated to help estimate VTE and bleeding risks in this population. While studies have shown that the risk for VTE often extends far beyond hospital discharge, there is no evidence to support extending prophylaxis after hospital discharge. The appropriate selection of VTE prophylaxis requires consideration for cost, availability, patient preference, compliance, and underlying comorbidities. Our paper reviews the current evidence and reasoning for appropriate selection of VTE prophylaxis in acutely medical ill patients, and highlights our own approach and recommendations.

Risk Factor and Mortality in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism Combined with Infectious Disease

BACKGROUND

Infectious conditions may increase the risk of venous thromboembolism. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factor for combined infectious disease and its influence on mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

Patients with PE diagnosed based on spiral computed tomography findings of the chest were retrospectively analyzed. They were classified into two groups: patients who developed PE in the setting of infectious disease or those with PE without infection based on review of their medical charts.

RESULTS

Of 258 patients with PE, 67 (25.9%) were considered as having PE combined with infectious disease. The sites of infections were the respiratory tract in 52 patients (77.6%), genitourinary tract in three patients (4.5%), and hepatobiliary tract in three patients (4.5%). Underlying lung disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.926-7.081; p<0.001), bed-ridden state (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.390-5.811; p=0.004), and malignant disease (OR, 1.867; 95% CI, 1.017-3.425; p=0.044) were associated with combined infectious disease in patients with PE. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with PE combined with infectious disease than in those with PE without infection (24.6% vs. 11.0%, p=0.006). In the multivariate analysis, combined infectious disease (OR, 4.189; 95% CI, 1.692-10.372; p=0.002) were associated with non-survivors in patients with PE.

CONCLUSION

A substantial portion of patients with PE has concomitant infectious disease and it may contribute a mortality in patients with PE.

The Role of Antithrombotic Therapy in Heart Failure

Heart failure is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality burden affecting approximately 1-2% of adults in developed countries, mounting to over 10% in individuals aged >70 years old. Heart failure is characterized by a prothrombotic state and increased rates of stroke and thromboembolism have been reported in heart failure patients compared with the general population. However, the impact of antithrombotic therapy on heart failure remains controversial. Administration of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is the obvious (and well-established) choice in heart failure patients with cardiovascular comorbidity that necessitates their use, such as coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. In contrast, antithrombotic therapy has not demonstrated any clear benefit when administered for heart failure per se, i.e. with heart failure being the sole indication. Randomized studies have reported decreased stroke rates with warfarin use in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, but at the expense of excessive bleeding. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants have shown a better safety profile in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared with warfarin, however, current evidence about their role in heart failure with sinus rhythm is inconclusive and further research is needed. In the present review, we discuss the role of antithrombotic therapy in heart failure (beyond coronary artery disease), aiming to summarize evidence regarding the thrombotic risk and the role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in patients with heart failure.

Anticoagulation in Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients: Potential Impact of NOACs

While substantial evidence supports the use of standard-duration injectable anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, consensus is mixed about which agents may be preferred in acutely ill patients with ongoing need of VTE prophylaxis past the first 10-day duration of hospital stay and post-discharge. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) provide Factor Xa inhibition to prevent the thrombin generation essential in thromboembolism development, but evidence for the efficacy and safety of most NOACs is conflicting regarding extended-duration prophylaxis. Enoxaparin, a preferred injectable anticoagulant in standard-duration VTE prophylaxis, has shown an increased risk of major bleeding events when used in extended-duration prophylaxis, which outweighs its benefit. Rivaroxaban has demonstrated efficacy in extended-duration prophylaxis, but both rivaroxaban and apixaban have shown increased risks of major bleeding. Betrixaban remains the only NOAC approved in the USA for extended-duration VTE prophylaxis, and it demonstrates efficacy, with fewer adverse effects than other NOACs. This review evaluates the appropriateness of different NOAC agents compared with current therapies for the extended-duration VTE prophylaxis setting in medically ill populations.

Incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism in medically ill hospitalized elderly cancer patients: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medically ill hospitalized elderly cancer patients in a single Korean tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Patients were examined for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by duplex and color Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) of both legs between days 5 and 14 of their hospital stays. The primary endpoint was the incidence of VTE by day 14, which was determined via a composite of DVT detected by routine DUS and symptomatic VTE.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients with 31 hematologic and 109 nonhematologic malignancies were analyzed. The median age was 73 years, and 45.7% of the patients were female. The median length of hospital stay was 12 days. The modified Padua prediction score (PPS) ≥ 4 was 92.9%. The incidence of VTE by day 14 was 7.1%, including six proximal and four distal DVT cases. Being female, having a length of hospital stay of ≥ 13 days, and having a modified Padua prediction score of ≥ 6 were risk factors of VTE in univariate analysis. The incidence of VTE was 2.3%, 7.3%, and 41.7% in patients with 0-1, 2, and 3 of these risk factors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of VTE in medically ill hospitalized elderly cancer patients was lower in Korean patients than in Western patients. However, the risk of VTE in those with more than two risk factors (female, long length of hospitalization, and high PPS) increased considerably, and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is warranted in these cases.

Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in High-Risk Medical Patients

Venous thromboembolism accounts for significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute medical illnesses requiring hospital admission. American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend prophylaxis with heparins as first line and mechanical methods as second line. The risk of major bleeding with anticoagulants is less than 1% and not significantly different between agents. Although data support the use of all heparins, there is a trend toward superiority of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Because acute illness and immobility do not end at hospital discharge, extended-duration therapy with LMWHs and direct oral anticoagulants remains under investigation.

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill

Background

Clinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups.

Objective

To present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected from experts, clinical practice guidelines and original studies on the unmet needs in thromboprophylaxis, and on the treatment of VTE in two high-risk patient groups: patients with cancer and the critically ill.

Methodology

To identify specific unmet needs in the management of VTE, a methodology was designed and implemented that assessed gaps in prophylaxis and treatment of VTE through interviews with 44 experts in the field of thrombosis and haemostasis, and through a review of current guidelines and seminal studies to substantiate the insights provided by the experts. The research findings were then analysed, discussed and consolidated by a multidisciplinary group of experts.

Results

The gap analysis methodology identified shortcomings in the VTE risk assessment tools, patient stratification approaches for prophylaxis, and the suboptimal use of anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis and treatment.

Conclusions

Specifically, patients with cancer need better VTE risk assessment tools to tailor primary thromboprophylaxis to tumour types and disease stages, and the potential for drug–drug interactions needs to be considered. In critically ill patients, unfractionated heparin is not advised as a first-line treatment option, and the strength of evidence is increasing for direct oral anticoagulants as a treatment option over low-molecular-weight heparins.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12959-019-0196-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Impact of age on the efficacy and safety of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in medical patients

The EXCLAIM study enrolled hospitalised acutely ill medical patients with age >40 years and recently-reduced mobility into a trial of extended-duration anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the impact of age on patient outcomes. After completion of open-label therapy with enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily (10 ± 4 days), eligible patients underwent randomisation to receive double-blind therapy of enoxaparin (n=2,975) or placebo (n=2,988) for 28 ± 4 days. During follow-up, the venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk increased with age in both treatment groups. In patients with age >75 years, those who received extended-duration enoxaparin had lower incidence of VTE (2.5% vs 6.7%; absolute difference [AD] [95% confidence interval]: −4.2% [−6.5, −2.0]), proximal deep-vein thrombosis (2.5% vs 6.6%; AD −4.1 % [−6.2, −2.0]), and symptomatic VTE (0.3% vs 1.5%; AD −1.2% [−2.2, −0.3]), in comparison to those who received placebo. In patients with age ≤75 years, those who received enoxaparin had reduced VTE (2.4% vs 2.8%; AD −0.4% [−1.5, 0.7]) and symptomatic VTE (0.2% vs 0.7%; AD −0.6% [−1.0, −0.1]) in comparison to those who received placebo. In both age subgroups, patients who received enoxaparin had increased rates of major bleeding versus those who received placebo: age >75 years (0.6% vs 0.2%; AD +0.3% [−0.2, 0.9], respectively); age ≤75 years (0.7% vs 0.2%; AD +0.5% [0.1, 0.9]). Patients in both age subgroups that received enoxaparin had similar low bleeding rates (0.6% and 0.7%, respectively). VTE risk increased with age, though the bleeding risk did not. Patients with age >75 years had a more favourable benefit-to-harm profile than younger patients.

Validation of a Patient-Completed Caprini Risk Score for Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment

Introduction  Individualized risk assessment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) using the Caprini risk score (CRS), coupled with targeted prophylaxis based on the score, is effective in reducing postoperative VTE. Critics contend that using this tool is time consuming for health care providers. We decided to create a patient-completed CRS and conducted a prospective study to compare the scores calculated by a patient with those calculated by a blinded physician for the same patient.

Methods  In phase 1, we interviewed patients in our deep vein thrombosis (DVT) support group who had a history of thrombosis and included their family members to determine areas of misunderstanding in the original CRS. We created a patient-completed form based on these interviews. In phase 2, we further optimized the questions after a CRS-trained, blinded physician scored 20 hospitalized patients during the pilot study. In the final (third) phase, we measured the agreement level between the new form filled out by the trained physicians and those filled out by the patients. The study was approved by our local institutional review board. Using PASS version 11, we determined that a sample size of 37 individuals achieves a power of 80%, to detect a 0.1 difference between the null hypothesis correlation of 0.5 and the alternative hypothesis correlation of 0.7 using a two-sided hypothesis test with a significance level of 0.05. We tabulated the individuals' answers and categorized the scores by using SPSS version 23 to estimate the kappa value, linear correlation, and the Bland–Altman test. A kappa value greater than 0.8 indicated an “almost perfect agreement.”

Results  We tested the first patient-completed CRS version (phase 2) in a 20-patient pilot study. A poor agreement was observed with the body mass index (BMI) responses in multiple iterations, and so we excluded the BMI calculation from the final patient-completed CRS form. We recruited 42 patients with an average age of 55, mostly female (45%), who completed less than college education (62%) to fill out the updated CRS form (phase 3). An almost perfect agreement was found for both the individual questions and the overall score comparing physician and patient answers, resulting in a high correlation ( r  = 0.95). In Bland–Altman, we did not find any trend for extreme values.

Conclusion  We created and validated a patient-completed CRS form that has an excellent agreement level with the physician-completed form. From the results, the physician only needs to calculate the BMI. The average time for a patient to complete the form was 5 minutes. The average time for the physician to finalize the score was approximately 6 minutes. Implementation studies are needed to assess the correlation of the aggregated score, derived from this form, with the occurrence of perioperative VTE.

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.

Role of Antiplatelet Therapy and Anticoagulation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Heart failure continues to be a leading cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the United States. The pathophysiology of heart failure involves the activation of complex neurohormonal pathways, many of which mediate not only hypertrophy and fibrosis within ventricular myocardium and interstitium, but also activation of platelets and alteration of vascular endothelium. Platelet activation and vascular endothelial dysfunction may contribute to the observed increased risk of thromboembolic events in patients with chronic heart failure. However, current data from clinical trials do not support the routine use of chronic antiplatelet or oral anticoagulation therapy for ambulatory heart failure patients without other indications (atrial fibrillation and/or coronary artery disease) as the risk of bleeding seems to outweigh the potential benefit related to reduction in thromboembolic events. In this review, we consider the potential clinical utility of targeting specific pathophysiological mechanisms of platelet and vascular endothelial activation to guide clinical decision making in heart failure patients.

Infection as cause of immobility and occurrence of venous thromboembolism: analysis of 1635 medical cases from the RIETE registry

Several risk assessment models include infection and immobility among the items to be considered for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention. However, information on patients with infection leading to immobility and developing VTE are limited, as well as on the role of specific types of infection. Data were collected from the worldwide RIETE registry, including patients with symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE, and followed-up for at least 3 months. The overall population of RIETE at June 2013 (n = 47,390) was considered. Acute infection leading to immobility was reported in 3.9 % of non-surgical patients. Compared with patients immobilized due to dementia, patients with infection had a shorter duration of immobilization prior to VTE (less than 4 weeks in 94.2 vs. 25.9 % of cases; p < 0.001). During the 3-month follow-up, VTE patients with infection versus those with dementia had a lower rate of fatal bleeding (0.5 vs. 1.1 %; p < 0.05) or fatal PE (1.7 vs. 3.5 %; p < 0.01). Patients with respiratory tract infections had more likely PE as initial VTE presentation than other types of infection (62.3 vs. 37.7 %; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients with pneumonia than those with other respiratory infections had received VTE prophylaxis (50.2 vs. 30.6 %; p < 0.001). Following VTE, patients with sepsis showed a significantly higher risk of fatal bleeding. Based on our real-world data, infection seems to contribute to the pathogenesis of VTE by accelerating the effects of immobility. Its role as VTE risk factor probably deserves further attention and specific assessment in order to optimize VTE prophylaxis and treatment.

Unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in the elderly

With the ageing of the general population, clinicians are facing with increased frequency the challenge of administering parenteral anti-coagulation therapy in the elderly, the main indications being venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute coronary syndromes (ACS), atrial fibrillation and bridging therapy. Assessing the risk/benefit ratio is always difficult in this category of patients, because of the higher risk for hemorrhagic events, although in most cases the benefit outweighs the risk, especially in the setting of VTE. The development of early invasive strategies for treating ACS has improved outcomes, while reducing the need for prolonged anticoagulation. For ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the mainstay treatment with well documented benefits in terms of mortality reduction regardless of the patient's age. However, evidence is less strong regarding early invasive treatment for over 75-year old Non-STEMI patients, resulting in a significant percentage being treated conservatively, including parenteral anticoagulation. This review will focus on the use of parenteral anticoagulation (unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin) in older patients. We will analyze current guidelines-based parenteral anticoagulation indications, while focusing on specific considerations in the elderly, such as: frailty and comorbidities, pharmacokinetics, the hemorrhagic risk and available clinical evidence. The goal is to offer a comprehensive tool for the clinician managing parenteral anticoagulation in older patients.

Thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in medical patients: which patients benefit?

It is unclear whether thromboprophylaxis produces a consistent risk reduction in different subgroups of medical patients at risk from venous thromboembolism. We performed a retrospective, post hoc analysis of 3706 patients enrolled in the PREVENT study. Patients were at least 40 years old with an acute medical condition requiring hospitalization for at least 4 days and had no more than 3 days of immobilization prior to enrolment. Patients received either subcutaneous dalteparin (5000 IU) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was the composite of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, asymptomatic proximal DVT, or sudden death. Primary diagnosis subgroups were acute congestive heart failure, acute respiratory failure, infectious disease, rheumatological disorders, or inflammatory bowel disease. All patients, except those with congestive heart or respiratory failure, had at least one additional risk factor for venous thromboembolism. A risk reduction was shown in patients receiving dalteparin versus placebo. The relative risk (RR) was 0.73 in patients with congestive heart failure, 0.72 for respiratory failure, 0.46 for infectious disease, and 0.97 for rheumatological disorders. The RR was 0.52 in patients aged ≥ 75 years, 0.64 in obese patients, 0.34 for patients with varicose veins, and 0.71 in patients with chronic heart failure. No subgroup had a significantly different response from any other. Importantly, multivariate analysis showed that all patient groups benefited from thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin. Our findings, therefore, support the broad application of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients.