Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Massive Pulmonary Embolism-Related Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Management of patients experiencing massive pulmonary embolism-related cardiac arrest is controversial. Venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation has emerged as a potential therapeutic option for these patients. We performed a systematic review assessing survival and predictors of mortality in patients with massive PE-related cardiac arrest with venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation use. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was started on February 16, 2020, and completed on March 16, 2020, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cinahl, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included all available literature that reported survival to discharge in patients managed with venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation for massive PE-related cardiac arrest. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted patient characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: About 301 patients were included in our systemic review from 77 selected articles (total screened, n = 1,115). About 183 out of 301 patients (61%) survived to discharge. Patients (n = 51) who received systemic thrombolysis prior to cannulation had similar survival compared with patients who did not (67% vs 61%, respectively; p = 0.48). There was no significant difference in risk of death if PE was the primary reason for admission or not (odds ratio, 1.62; p = 0.35) and if extracorporeal membranous oxygenation cannulation occurred in the emergency department versus other hospital locations (odds ratio, 2.52; p = 0.16). About 53 of 60 patients (88%) were neurologically intact at discharge or follow-up. Multivariate analysis demonstrated three-fold increase in the risk of death for patients greater than 65 years old (adjusted odds ratio, 3.08; p = 0.03) and six-fold increase if cannulation occurred during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (adjusted odds ratio, 5.67; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation has an emerging role in the management of massive PE-related cardiac arrest with 61% survival. Systemic thrombolysis preceding venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation did not confer a statistically significant increase in risk of death, yet age greater than 65 and cannulation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation were associated with a three- and six-fold risks of death, respectively.

Clinical conundrum: concomitant high-risk pulmonary embolism and acute ischemic stroke.

High-risk PE can be complicated by the presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), which can lead to paradoxical systemic embolization, including cerebral embolism ultimately leading to acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Acute management is challenging given the competing benefits and risks of systemic thrombolysis. Herein, we aim to provide a review of clinical presentations, diagnostic findings, and treatment and outcome from the available literature, with the hopes of providing insight into treatment options. We followed the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE database, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for all reported cases/case series of concomitant high-risk PE and paradoxical ischemic stroke was conducted from inception to July 2019. Twenty-nine cases from 27 articles (26 single case reports, 1 case series of 3 patients) were included. There were 10 men and 19 women, ranging in age from 29 to 81 years (mean 56.1 ± 13.5 years). PFO was diagnosed in 89.7% of patients, mostly by transesophageal echocardiography. Treatment modalities included systemic thrombolysis (40%), anticoagulation alone (36%), surgical thrombectomy (16%), and percutaneous thrombectomy (8%). Overall mortality rate was 31%. Patients receiving thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy had the most favorable outcome. Survival to discharge was 90% (9 out of 10), 100% (5 out of 5), and 50% (4 out of 8) in the systemic thrombolysis, surgical thrombectomy, and anticoagulation alone groups respectively. In the setting of combined high-risk PE and ischemic stroke, PFO can be detected in 90% of published cases. Thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy seem to be effective management, but further studies are needed for validation.

Management appropriateness and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

The impact of adherence to published guidelines on the outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has not been well defined by previous studies.In this prospective cohort study of patients admitted to a respiratory department (n=2096), we evaluated whether patients with PE had better outcomes if they were acutely managed according to international guidelines. Outcomes consisted of all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding events during the first month of follow-up after diagnosis.Overall, 408 patients (19% (95% CI 18-21%)) did not receive guideline-adherent PE management. Patients receiving non-adherent management were significantly more likely to experience all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.39 (95% CI 1.57-3.61) or PE-related mortality (adjusted OR 5.02 (95% CI 2.42-10.42); p<0.001) during follow-up. Non-adherent management was also a significant independent predictor of recurrent VTE (OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.11-4.32); p=0.03) and major bleeding (OR 2.65 (95% CI 1.66-4.24); p<0.001). An external validation cohort of 34 380 patients with PE from the RIETE registry confirmed these findings.PE management that does not adhere to guidelines for indications related to anticoagulation, thrombolytics and inferior vena cava filters is associated with worse patient outcomes.

Prognostic Scores for Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

Rapid and accurate risk stratification is critical in determining the optimal treatment strategy for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Early identification of patients with normal blood pressure and a favorable prognosis (low-risk PE) might select a subset of patients for outpatient treatment, which is associated with reduced cost and improved patient satisfaction, and has been shown to be effective and safe. Alternatively, identification of normotensive patients deemed as having a high risk for PE-related adverse clinical events (intermediate-high-risk PE) might select a subset of patients for close observation and consideration of escalation of therapy. Clinical prognostic scores have been gaining importance in the classification of patients into these categories. They should be derived and validated following strict methodological standards, and their use in clinical practice should be encouraged.

Computerised clinical decision support for suspected PE.

This study aimed to determine the effect of an evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) algorithm on the use and yield of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and on outcomes of patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for suspected PE. The study included 1363 consecutive patients evaluated for suspected PE in an ED during 12 months before and 12 months after initiation of CDS use. Introduction of CDS was associated with decreased CTPA use (55% vs 49%; absolute difference (AD), 6.3%; 95% CI 1.0% to 11.6%; p=0.02). The use of CDS was associated with fewer symptomatic venous thromboembolic events during follow-up in patients with an initial negative diagnostic evaluation for PE (0.7% vs 3.2%; AD 2.5%; 95% CI 0.9% to 4.6%; p<0.01).

Prognostic significance of multidetector CT in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism: results of the protect study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), rapid and accurate risk assessment is paramount in selecting the appropriate treatment strategy. The prognostic value of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) assessed by multidetector CT (MDCT) in normotensive patients with PE has lacked adequate validation. METHODS: The study defined MDCT-assessed RVD as a ratio of the RV to the left ventricle short axis diameter greater than 0.9. Outcomes assessed through 30 days after the diagnosis of PE included all-cause mortality and 'complicated course', which consisted of death from any cause, haemodynamic collapse or recurrent PE. RESULTS: MDCT detected RVD in 533 (63%) of the 848 enrolled patients. Those with RVD on MDCT more frequently had echocardiographic RVD (31%) than those without RVD on MDCT (9.2%) (p<0.001). Patients with RVD on MDCT had significantly higher brain natriuretic peptide (269±447 vs 180±457 pg/ml, p<0.001) and troponin (0.10±0.43 vs 0.03±0.24 ng/ml, p=0.001) levels in comparison with those without RVD on MDCT. During follow-up, death occurred in 25 patients with and in 13 patients without RVD on MDCT (4.7% vs 4.3%; p=0.93). Those with and those without RVD on MDCT had a similar frequency of complicated course (3.9% vs 2.3%; p=0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The PROgnosTic valuE of CT study showed a relationship between RVD assessed by MDCT and other markers of cardiac dysfunction around the time of PE diagnosis, but did not demonstrate an association between MDCT-RVD and prognosis.

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: Compendium and Review of CHEST Guidelines 2012-2021.

The CHEST Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism Disease evidence-based guidelines are now updated in a more frequent, focused manner. Guidance statements from the most recent full guidelines and two subsequent updates have not been gathered into a single source. An international panel of experts with experience in prior antithrombotic therapy guideline development reviewed the 2012 CHEST antithrombotic therapy guidelines and its two subsequent updates. All guideline statements and their associated patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions were assembled. A modified Delphi process was used to select statements considered relevant to current clinical care. The panel further endorsed minor phrasing changes to match the standard language for guidance statements using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) format endorsed by the CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee. The panel appended comments after statements deemed as relevant, including suggesting that statements be updated in future guidelines because of interval evidence. We include 58 guidance statements from prior versions of the antithrombotic therapy guidelines, with updated phrasing as needed to adhere to contemporary nomenclature. Statements were classified as strong or weak recommendations based on high-certainty, moderate-certainty, and low-certainty evidence using GRADE methodology. The panel suggested that five statements are no longer relevant to current practice. As CHEST continues to update guidance statements relevant to antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, this article serves as a unified collection of currently relevant statements from the preceding three guidelines. Suggestions have been made to update specific statements in future publications.

Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

Changes in PESI scores predict mortality in intermediate-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Although the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) accurately identifies 35% of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) as being low risk, some patients deemed high risk by the PESI on admission might be treated safely in the outpatient environment. This retrospective cohort study included a total of 304 consecutive patients with acute PE, classified at the time of hospital admission into PESI class III. The PESI was recalculated 48 h after admission (PESI(48)) and each patient reclassified into the corresponding risk category. The primary outcome of the study was all-cause mortality between day 2 and day 30 after PE diagnosis. 26 (8.5%) patients (95% CI 5.4-11.7%) died between day 2 and day 30 after PE diagnosis. Investigators reclassified 83 (27.3%) patients (95% CI 22.3-32.3%) as low risk (classes I and II) at 48 h. 30-day mortality in these patients was 1.2% (95% CI 0-3.5%) as opposed to 11.3% (95% CI 7.1-15.5%) in those who remained high risk. The net improvement in reclassification was estimated at 54% (p<0.001). In a cohort of intermediate-risk patients with acute PE, calculation of the PESI(48) allows identification of those patients at very low risk of dying during the first month of follow-up.

Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data. RESULTS: Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020. INTERPRETATION: Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Arterial Thrombosis and Thromboembolism in COVID-19: An American College of Chest Physicians Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients.

Well-being at a Military Medical School and Implications for Military Retention.

INTRODUCTION: Physical and psychological well-being play a critical role in the academic and professional development of medical students and can alter the trajectory of a student's quality of personal and professional life. Military medical students, given their dual role as officer and student, experience unique stressors and issues that may play a role in their future intentions to continue military service, as well as practice medicine. As such, this study explores well-being across the 4 years of medical school at Uniformed Services University (USU) and how well-being relates to a student's likelihood to continue serving in the military and practicing medicine. METHODS: In September 2019, 678 USU medical students were invited to complete a survey consisting of three sections-the Medical Student Well-being Index (MSWBI), a single-item burnout measure, and six questions regarding their likelihood of staying in the military and medical practice. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and contingency table analysis. Additionally, thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses included as part of the likelihood questions. RESULTS: Our MSWBI and burnout scores suggest that the overall state of well-being among medical students at USU is comparable to other studies of the medical student population. ANOVA revealed class differences among the four cohorts, highlighted by improved well-being scores as students transitioned from clerkships to their fourth-year curriculum. Fewer clinical students (MS3s and MS4s), compared to pre-clerkship students, indicated a desire to stay in the military. In contrast, a higher percentage of clinical students seemed to "reconsider" their medical career choice compared to their pre-clerkship student counterparts. "Medicine-oriented" likelihood questions were associated with four unique MSWBI items, whereas "military-oriented" likelihood questions were associated with one unique MSWBI item. CONCLUSION: The present study found that the overall state of well-being in USU medical students is satisfactory, but opportunities for improvement exist. Medical student well-being seemed to have a stronger association with medicine-oriented likelihood items than with military-oriented likelihood items. To obtain and refine best practices for strengthening engagement and commitment, future research should examine if and how military and medical contexts converge and diverge throughout training. This may enhance the medical school and training experience and, ultimately, reinforce, or strengthen, the desire and commitment to practice and serve in military medicine.

7-Year Experience with Automated Pupillometry and Direct Integration With the Hospital Electronic Medical Record.

INTRODUCTION: Manual pupillary assessments are an integral part of the neurologic evaluation in critically ill patients. Automated pupillometry provides reliable, consistent, and accurate measurement of the light response. We established a computer interface that allows for direct download of pupillometer information to our hospital electronic medical record (EMR). Here, we report our single-center experience. METHODS: An interface allowing direct download of pupillometer data to our EMR was developed. We then performed a prospective study using an electronic survey distributed to nurses that used pupillometers in 2015, 2018, and 2020 using a 5-point Likert-style format to evaluate the acceptance of this implementation. RESULTS: In 2015, 22 nurses were surveyed, with 50% of the respondents citing lack of pupillometers and 41% citing the labor intensity associated with data entry as the reason for the reluctance to use the pupillometer. The number of nurse responses in 2018 increased to 123, with 78% of nurses finding that the direct download to hospital EMR improved the efficiency of their neurologic exams. In 2020, 108 nurses responded with similar responses to those in 2018. We added 3 additional questions regarding utility of the pupillometer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifty-eight percent of nurses were reassured of the neurologic exam when using the pupillometer in lieu of a full exam to limit infectious exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the implementation of a direct interface to download pupillometer data to the EMR. The positive effect on nursing workflow and documentation of pupillary findings is discussed.

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Update to the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often exhibit markers of a hypercoagulable state and have an increased incidence of VTE. In response, CHEST issued rapid clinical guidance regarding prevention of VTE. Over the past 18 months the quality of the evidence has improved. We thus sought to incorporate this evidence and update our recommendations as necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This update focuses on the optimal approach to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. The original questions were used to guide the search, using MEDLINE via PubMed. Eight randomized controlled trials and one observational study were included. Meta-analysis, using a random effects model, was performed. The panel created summaries using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. Updated guidance statements were drafted, and a modified Delphi approach was used to obtain consensus. RESULTS: We provide separate guidance statements for VTE prevention for hospitalized patients with acute (moderate) illness and critically ill patients in the ICU. However, we divided each original question and resulting recommendation into two questions: standard prophylaxis vs therapeutic (or escalated dose) prophylaxis and standard prophylaxis vs intermediate dose prophylaxis. This led to a change in one recommendation, and an upgrading of three additional recommendations based upon higher quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in care for patients with COVID-19 have improved overall outcomes. Despite this, rates of VTE in these patients remain elevated. Critically ill patients should receive standard thromboprophylaxis for VTE, and moderately ill patients with a low bleeding risk might benefit from therapeutic heparin. We see no role for intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis in either setting.

Executive Summary: Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Combinations of prognostic tools for identification of high-risk normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: In haemodynamically stable patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), studies have not evaluated the usefulness of combining the measurement of cardiac troponin, transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), and lower extremity complete compression ultrasound (CCUS) testing for predicting the risk of PE-related death. METHODS: The study assessed the ability of three diagnostic tests (cardiac troponin I (cTnI), echocardiogram, and CCUS) to prognosticate the primary outcome of PE-related mortality during 30 days of follow-up after a diagnosis of PE by objective testing. RESULTS: Of 591 normotensive patients diagnosed with PE, the primary outcome occurred in 37 patients (6.3%; 95% CI 4.3% to 8.2%). Patients with right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) by TTE and concomitant deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by CCUS had a PE-related mortality of 19.6%, compared with 17.1% of patients with elevated cTnI and concomitant DVT and 15.2% of patients with elevated cTnI and RVD. The use of any two-test strategy had a higher specificity and positive predictive value compared with the use of any test by itself. A combined three-test strategy did not further improve prognostication. For a subgroup analysis of high-risk patients, according to the pulmonary embolism severity index (classes IV and V), positive predictive values of the two-test strategies for PE-related mortality were 25.0%, 24.4% and 20.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In haemodynamically stable patients with acute symptomatic PE, a combination of echocardiography (or troponin testing) and CCUS improved prognostication compared with the use of any test by itself for the identification of those at high risk of PE-related death.