Systematic Review of Real-World Studies Evaluating Characteristics Associated With or Programs Designed to Facilitate Outpatient Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis

External validation of a prognostic score to identify low-risk outpatients with acute deep venous thrombosis in the lower limbs

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines suggest home treatment for patients diagnosed with acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT). A prognostic score has been proposed to identify low-risk patients; however, its validation remains limited.

METHOD

This prospective observational study aimed to externally validate the prognostic score in selecting low-risk outpatients with acute DVT in the lower limbs. Consecutive outpatients diagnosed with acute DVT in a tertiary hospital were included. The score included 6 variables: heart failure, kidney failure, recent major bleeding, altered platelet count, immobilization, and cancer. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite outcome, including confirmed diagnosis of PE, major bleeding, or all-cause death at 7 days. Patients meeting zero criteria were considered low risk.

RESULTS

Among the 1035 patients included, 485 (46.9 %) met zero criteria. Of these, 0.2 % (95 % CI 0.0-1.1 %) and 0.4 % (95 % CI, 0.0-1.5 %) patients experienced the composite outcome at 7 and 30 days, respectively. Among patients who met 1 or more criteria for admission, 344 patients (62.5 %) were discharged. Among these, the composite outcome at 7 and 30 days occurred in 2 (0.6 %) and 5 (1.4 %) patients, respectively. The C-statistics of the score were 0.68 (95 % CI, 0.57-0.79) and 0.69 (95 % CI, 0.64-0.76) at 7 and 30 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the efficacy of the prognostic score in identifying low-risk outpatients with acute DVT. It also suggests that a considerable proportion of patients with acute DVT may benefit from outpatient treatment despite having some risk criteria, highlighting the potential for optimizing ambulatory care pathways.

Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in outpatients: a propensity score-matched comparison with a historical inpatient population

BACKGROUND

Despite the guidelines' appeal to treat patients with deep vein thrombosis and low-risk pulmonary embolism in outpatient settings, the real-world evidence shows a high prevalence of inpatient therapy leading to unwarranted health resource utilization. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in outpatient settings compared to inpatient treatment.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched comparison with a historical inpatient population was performed based on a retrospective analysis of patients with deep vein thrombosis and without pulmonary embolism treated as outpatients with oral rivaroxaban. Inpatient controls were treated with oral rivaroxaban following a short-term initial therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins. The relevant outcomes extracted from electronic medical records were as follows: recurrent deep vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, minor bleeding, unscheduled hospitalization, and death.

RESULTS

Among 209 outpatients who were never admitted to the hospital the deep vein thrombosis recurrence rate was 3.3% (95%CI, 1.6-6.8%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding rate 2.9% (95%CI, 1.3-6.1), minor bleeding rate 6.2% (95%CI, 3.7-10.0%), unscheduled hospitalization rate 1.4% (95%CI, 0.5- 4.1%), mortality rate 1.4% (95%CI, 0.5-4.1%). No symptomatic pulmonary embolism or major bleeding was detected. No statistically significant differences were observed when compared with inpatient controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The outpatient use of rivaroxaban for deep vein thrombosis treatment is a safe and effective approach for patients without pulmonary embolism, with no significant differences when compared to inpatient therapy with oral rivaroxaban following a short-term initial therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins.

Impact of magnesium on bone health in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnesium plays a key role in bone health and may, therefore, represent an interesting nutrient for the prevention of bone loss and osteoporosis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of magnesium intake from any source on bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), bone turnover markers, and fracture risk in older adults.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using Embase, Medline Ovid and Cochrane Central from database inception to October 2020. All studies that related magnesium intake with bone health outcomes among adults aged ≥60 years were included. Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias assessments. Authors were contacted for missing data.

RESULTS

Once 787 records were screened, six cohort studies, one case-control study and five cross-sectional studies were included. Qualitative evaluation demonstrated a positive trend between higher magnesium intake and higher hip and femoral neck BMD. Meta-analysis of four studies showed a significant positive association between magnesium intake and hip BMD (pooled beta: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.01-0.06, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that a higher magnesium intake may support an increase in hip and femoral neck BMD. Due to limited research no associations with BMD at other sites or fractures were found. There is a need for properly designed cohort studies to determine the association between magnesium intake and bone health in older adults. Next, large and long-term randomized controlled trials in older adults are needed to determine whether an increase in magnesium (supplementation) intake can improve bone health. The combination of several bone nutrients (calcium, vitamin D, protein, magnesium and potentially more) may be needed for the most optimal effect on bone health and to delay or prevent the development of osteoporosis.

Comparison of Chemical and Mechanical Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism in Non-surgical Mechanically Ventilated Patients

To compare the efficacy of mechanical and chemical prophylaxis in non-surgically mechanically ventilated patients in terms of reduction in mortality and length of hospital stay.

A total of 200 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were recruited retrospectively. Half participants received mechanical prophylaxis and half received chemical prophylaxis. Patients with medical diseases with age 18 years or above, both genders, Pakistani nationals, receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours or receiving subcutaneous low molecular weight (LMW) heparin or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin were included. Cases who undergone surgery and were then admitted to ICU, those who received both mechanical and chemical therapies, and patients who received anticoagulant treatment before admission to ICU were excluded from the study. The patient’s age, gender, length of stay in ICU, and mortality were recorded in each group. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data and Student t-test for continuous variables.

The mean age was 55.51±8.37 years. The males were 108(54%) and females were 92(46%). The mortality rate was higher in the mechanical prophylaxis group (49%) than chemical (31%) statistically significantly (P=0.014). Similarly, the length of hospital stay was also higher in the mechanical prophylaxis group (7.27±0.897 days) than chemical (6.67±1.045) statistically (P<0.001).

Chemical prophylaxis can reduce mortality and length of hospital stay more effectively than mechanical prophylaxis in ICUs admitted patients.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis in the Emergency Department: Results of an Italian Nominal Group Technique Study

Early diagnosis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a main issue in the Emergency setting. With the aim of assisting clinicians in the diagnosis and the subsequent management of DVT in the Emergency Departments, a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) study was conducted. A panel of 5 Italian experts developed 21 consensus statements based on available evidence and their clinical experience. The agreed consensus statements may assist clinicians in applying the results of clinical studies and clinical experience to routine care settings, providing guidance on all aspects of the risk assessment, prophylaxis, early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of DVT in the EDs.

Outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes the diagnosis of either deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). This review discusses an evidence-based approach to the outpatient treatment of VTE in the emergency care setting. Main findings: The majority of patients diagnosed with VTE in the acute care setting are at low risk for an adverse event. Outpatient treatment for patients deemed low-risk by validated clinical decision tools leads to safe, efficacious, patient-centered, and cost-effective care. From a patient perspective, outpatient treatment of VTE can been simplified by the use of direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) medications, and is supported by clinical trial evidence, and clinical practice guidelines from international societies. Outpatient treatment of patients with DVT has been more widely accepted as a best practice, while adoption of outpatient treatment of low-risk patients with acute PE has lagged. Many acute care clinicians remain wary of discharging patients with PE, concerned about drug access, adherence, and follow-up. Patients with VTE should be risk stratified identically as emerging evidence has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the interdependence of acute care protocols for the outpatient treatment of low-risk DVT and PE. Clinicians who practice in the acute care setting should be comfortable with risk stratification, anticoagulation, and discharge of low-risk VTE.

Outpatient Treatment of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines have supported outpatient treatment of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) since 2014, but adoption of this practice has been slow. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is now as common as vitamin K antagonist treatment, but data are sparse regarding outcomes for patients with low-risk PE treated with DOACs as outpatients. We conducted a systematic review of literature on outcomes of outpatient management for PE, including comparisons to inpatient treatment and differences by anticoagulant class.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRN for studies published from January 1980 through February 2019 using a predefined strategy developed with a medical librarian. We included English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective nonrandomized trials (NRTs) of adult patients diagnosed with acute, symptomatic PE, and discharged from the emergency department or within 48 hours. Our primary outcome included four major adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding) within 30 and 90 days. A preplanned subanalysis of high-quality studies assessed outcomes associated with different anticoagulation treatment classes.

RESULTS

Our initial search identified 6,818 records, of which 12 studies (four RCT, eight NRT) with a total of 3,191 patients were included in the review. All RCTs and six NRTs were determined to have low to moderate risk of bias and were classified as high quality. Outpatients in these studies (n = 1,814) had rates of 90-day major adverse outcomes below 1%, including all-cause mortality (0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 1.2%), PE-related mortality (0.06%, 95% CI = 0.01% to 0.3%), recurrent VTE (0.8%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 1.4%), and major bleeding (0.8%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 1.4%). Exploratory analysis revealed no association between anticoagulant treatment class and rates of major adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients, few patients experienced major adverse outcomes such as mortality, recurrent VTE, or major bleeding within 90 days.