Anticoagulating patients with high-risk acquired thrombophilias

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

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

Maxillofacial and oral surgery in patients with thrombophilia: safe territory for the oral surgeon? A single-center retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze patients with thrombophilia who underwent oral and/or maxillofacial surgery at our center.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with hereditary or acquired thrombophilia who had undergone oral/maxillofacial surgery between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019. Data regarding demographic and patient characteristics, surgical treatment modalities, antithrombotic therapies, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 76 eligible patients (26 male, 50 female) were included in this study, with a mean follow-up period of 3.8 months (range, 0-51 months). The mean age at time of surgery was 44.7 ± 19.4 years. Seven different hereditary and acquired thrombophilia were identified: factor V Leiden (n = 31; 40.8%), prothrombin G20210A mutation (n = 5; 6.6%), protein C deficiency (n = 4; 5.3%), protein S deficiency (n = 11; 14.5%), antiphospholipid syndrome (n = 10; 13.2%), hyperhomocysteinemia (n = 8; 10.5%), and elevated factor VIII (n = 2; 2.6%). Complications occurred in 9 patients (11.8%) and included postoperative infections (n = 6; 7.9%) and postoperative bleeding (n = 3; 3.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that oral and/or maxillofacial surgery in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of thrombophilia is not associated with a burden of thrombosis or high complication rates. Furthermore, we formulated a guideline for preoperative antithrombotic therapy for patients with thrombophilia undergoing oral and/or maxillofacial surgery.

Clinical and laboratory practice for lupus anticoagulant testing: An International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee survey

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines have contributed to more uniformity in the performance and interpretation of lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing. However, points to reconsider include testing for LA in patients on anticoagulation, cut-off values, and interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization committee (ISTH SSC) questionnaire was to capture the spectrum of clinical and laboratory practice in LA detection, focusing on variability in practice, so that the responses could inform further ISTH SSC recommendations.

METHODS

Members of the ISTH SSC on Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies and participants of the Lupus Anticoagulant/Antiphospholipid Antibodies Programme of the External quality Control of diagnostic Assays and Tests Foundation were invited to complete a questionnaire on LA testing that was placed on the ISTH website using RedCap, with data tallied using simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There was good agreement on several key recommendations in the ISTH and other guidelines on LA testing, such as sample processing, principles of testing, choice of tests, repeat testing to confirm persistent positivity and the use of interpretative reporting. However, the results highlight that there is less agreement on some other aspects, including the timing of testing in relation to thrombosis or pregnancy, testing in patients on anticoagulation, cut-off values, and calculation and interpretation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some of the variability in practice in LA testing reflects the lack of substantive data to underpin evidence-based recommendations, a more uniform approach, based on further guidance, should reduce the inter-center variability of LA testing.