Enoxaparin for symptomatic COVID-19 managed in the ambulatory setting: An individual patient level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC trials.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. METHODS: We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). RESULTS: A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57-1.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13-2.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To conduct an update of the ASCO venous thromboembolism (VTE) guideline. METHODS: After publication of potentially practice-changing clinical trials, identified through ASCO's signals approach to updating, an updated systematic review was performed for two guideline questions: perioperative thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between November 1, 2018, and June 6, 2022. RESULTS: Five RCTs provided information that contributed to changes to the 2019 recommendations. Two RCTs addressed direct factor Xa inhibitors (either rivaroxaban or apixaban) for extended thromboprophylaxis after surgery. Each of these postoperative trials had important limitations but suggested that these two oral anticoagulants are safe and effective in the settings studied. An additional three RCTs addressed apixaban in the setting of VTE treatment. Apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, with a low risk of major bleeding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Apixaban and rivaroxaban were added as options for extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery, with a weak strength of recommendation. Apixaban was also added as an option for the treatment of VTE, with high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American college of chest physicians clinical practice guideline

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. 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. 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. 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

Development of an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with venous thromboembolism: an International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement consensus recommendation.

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled an international working group of venous thromboembolism experts and patient representatives to develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes and outcome measurements for integration into clinical practice and potentially research to support clinical decision making and benchmarking of quality of care. 15 core outcomes important to patients and health-care professionals were selected and categorised into four domains: patient-reported outcomes, long term consequences of the disease, disease-specific complications, and treatment-related complications. The outcomes and outcome measures were designed to apply to all patients with venous thromboembolism aged 16 years or older. A measurement tool package was selected for inclusion in the core standard set, with a minimum number of items to be measured at predefined timepoints, which capture all core outcomes. Additional measures can be introduced to the user by a cascade opt-in system that allows for further assessment if required. This set of outcomes and measurement tools will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centred outcomes in daily practice.

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.

Thromboprophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard of care in unvaccinated, at-risk outpatients with COVID-19 (ETHIC): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with inflammation and an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin have been used in hospitalised and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus standard of care (no enoxaparin) in at-risk outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial (ETHIC) was done at 15 centres in six countries (Belgium, Brazil, India, South Africa, Spain, and the UK). We consecutively enrolled participants aged at least 30 years who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine and had symptomatic, confirmed COVID-19 in the outpatient setting plus at least one risk factor for severe disease. Within 9 days of symptom onset and by use of a web-based random block design (block size either 2 or 4), eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin for 21 days (40 mg once daily if they weighed <100 kg and 40 mg twice daily if they weighed ≥100 kg) or standard of care (without enoxaparin). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause hospitalisation and all-cause mortality at 21 days after randomisation and, in our main analysis, was analysed in the intention-to-treat population, which comprised all patients who were randomly assigned. Safety was also analysed in the intention-to-treat population for our main analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492254, and is complete. FINDINGS: Following the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, this study was terminated early due to slow enrolment and a lower-than-expected event rate. Between Oct 27, 2020, and Nov 8, 2021, 230 patients with COVID-19 were assessed for eligibility, of whom 219 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive standard of care (n=114) or enoxaparin (n=105). 96 (44%) patients were women, 122 (56%) were men, and one patient had missing sex data. 141 (65%) of 218 participants with data on race and ethnicity were White, 60 (28%) were Asian, and 16 (7%) were Black, mixed race, or Arab or Middle Eastern. Median follow-up in both groups was 21 days (IQR 21-21). There was no difference in the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation at 21 days between the enoxaparin group (12 [11%] of 105 patients) and the standard-of-care group (12 [11%] of 114 patients; unadjusted hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·49-2·43]; log-rank p=0·83). At 21 days, two (2%) of 105 patients in the enoxaparin group (one minor bleed and one bleed of unknown severity) and one (1%) of 114 patients in the standard-of-care group (major abnormal uterine bleeding) had a bleeding event. 22 (21%) patients in the enoxaparin group and 13 (11%) patients in the standard-of-care group had adverse events. The most common adverse event in both groups was COVID-19-related pneumonia (six [6%] patients in the enoxaparin group and five [4%] patients in the standard-of-care group). One patient in the enoxaparin group died and their cause of death was unknown. INTERPRETATION: The ETHIC trial results suggest that prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin had no benefit for at-risk outpatients with COVID-19. Although the trial was terminated early, our data, combined with data from similar studies, provide further insights to inform international guidelines and influence clinical practice. FUNDING: The Thrombosis Research Institute and Sanofi UK.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS: The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE. RECOMMENDATIONS: Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Surgery in the obese patient.

: A systematic literature search was performed and patients were selected as obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery or obese patients undergoing nonbariatric surgical procedures. In addition, patients were stratified according to low risk of venous thromboembolism and high risk of venous thromboembolism (age >55 years, BMI >55 kg m, history of venous thromboembolism, venous disease, sleep apnoea, hypercoagulability or pulmonary hypertension). Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism was analysed depending on the type of modality: compression devices of the lower extremities (including intermittent pneumatic compression and graduated compression stockings), pharmacological prophylaxis or inferior vena cava filters. Two prospective studies compared mechanical devices and pharmacological prophylaxis vs. a mechanical device alone without significant differences. A few randomised controlled studies and most of the prospective nonrandomised studies showed that low-dose low molecular weight heparin (3000 to 4000 anti-Xa IU 12 h subcutaneously) was acceptable for obese patients with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism, but a higher dose of low molecular weight heparin (4000 to 6000 anti-Xa IU 12 h subcutaneously) should be proposed for obese patients with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism. Extended prophylaxis for 10 to 15 days was well tolerated for obese patients with a high risk of venous thromboembolism in the postdischarge period. The safety and efficacy of inferior vena cava filters in bariatric surgical patients is highly heterogeneous. There were no randomised trials that analysed prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in obese patients undergoing nonbariatric surgery. Higher doses of anticoagulants could be proposed for obese patients with a BMI more than 40 kg m. The lack of good quality randomised trials with a low risk of bias did not allow us to propose strong recommendations.

Rivaroxaban in the treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of recurrences: a practical approach.

Anticoagulation therapy is the standard treatment of patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Until recently, treatment of VTE was based on parenteral or low-molecular-weight heparin for initial therapy (5-10 days) and oral vitamin K antagonists for long-term therapy. Those treatments have some limitations, including parenteral administration (heparins), the need for frequent monitoring and dose adjustments, interactions with several medications, and dietary restrictions (vitamin K antagonists). Rivaroxaban is a new oral direct factor Xa inhibitor with a wide therapeutic window, predictable anticoagulant effect, no food interactions, and few drug interactions. Consequently, no periodic monitoring of anticoagulation is needed, and fixed doses can be prescribed. EINSTEIN program demonstrated that rivaroxaban was as effective as and significantly safer than standard therapy for treatment of VTE. Rivaroxaban was recently authorized so doubts exist about how to use it in daily clinical practice. This document aims to clarify common questions formulated by clinicians regarding the use of this new drug.

Outcomes in neurosurgical patients who develop venous thromboembolism: a review of the RIETE registry.

OBJECTIVES: Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) database was used to investigate whether neurosurgical patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) were more likely to die of bleeding or VTE and the influence of anticoagulation on these outcomes. METHODS: Clinical characteristics, treatment details, and 3-month outcomes were assessed in those who developed VTE after neurosurgery. RESULTS: Of 40 663 patients enrolled, 392 (0.96%) had VTE in less than 60 days after neurosurgery. Most patients in the cohort (89%) received initial therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin, (33% received subtherapeutic doses). In the first week, 10 (2.6%) patients died (8 with pulmonary embolism [PE], no bleeding deaths; P = .005). After the first week, 20 (5.1%) patients died (2 with fatal bleeding, none from PE). Overall, this cohort was more likely to develop a fatal PE than a fatal bleed (8 vs 2 deaths, P = .058). CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgical patients developing VTE were more likely to die from PE than from bleeding in the first week, despite anticoagulation.

Venous thromboprophylaxis duration and adherence to international guidelines in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery: results of the international, longitudinal, observational DEIMOS registry.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is major health problem worldwide with substantial morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess post-operative VTE prophylaxis duration and adherence to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) 2008 guidelines in patients having undergone major orthopaedic surgery (MOS). METHODS: This multinational, longitudinal, observational registry recruited consecutive patients (≥ 18 years of age) who underwent total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), and hip fracture surgery (HFS). There were 3 study visits: at admission to hospital, at discharge, and 4/6 weeks after surgery. Data on demographics, medical history, VTE risk factors, type and duration of mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis, complications, and adherence to the ACCP 2008 guidelines were collected using case report forms. RESULTS: Between October 2009 and July 2011, 2162 eligible patients were analyzed: THR: 646, TKR: 740, HFS: 776 (mean age [SD]: 64.5 [15.0] years; female: 61.3%; and mean hospitalization duration [SD]: 9.1 [8.2] days). VTE prophylaxis was prescribed to 96.2% of patients during hospitalization and 89.7% of patients after hospital discharge. Prophylaxis was prescribed according to the ACCP 2008 guidelines in 85.7% of patients during hospitalization and 63.4% of patients after hospital discharge. The main reasons for non-adherence to guidelines were no prescription and inadequate duration of prophylaxis. The low molecular weight heparin-enoxaparin-was the most commonly prescribed prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: We observed a gap between real life VTE prophylaxis and the ACCP 2008 recommendations. Improved prescription of extended thromboprophylaxis is warranted to ensure adherence to international guidelines.

Should we follow the 9th ACCP guidelines for VTE prevention in surgical patients?

The 9th edition of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on antithrombotic therapy and prevention, includes relevant changes compared to previous versions. In the 9th ACCP, leadership of most chapters was given to methodologists who were familiar with the GRADE methodology. All topic panelists underwent a selection process paying particular attention to their financial and intellectual conflicts of interests. In the 9th ACCP guidelines, evidence has been explicitly presented in many evidence profiles and summary of evidence tables. In order to get a more balanced trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects of the alternative prevention and therapeutic interventions, there has been an increased emphasis on clinically relevant events, as opposed to previous surrogate asymptomatic outcomes. In addition, there has been a systematic review and survey on patient values and preferences for thrombotic and bleeding outcomes. As a result of the above changes, the strength of most recommendations has been downgraded compared to previous editions. The main changes regarding prevention on nonorthopedic surgical patients include the adoption of two risk assessment models. The only recommendation that has been upgraded is to extend prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for four weeks after abdominal or pelvic cancer surgery. A controversial modification in orthopedic patients is recommendation in favor of the use of aspirin after hip or knee arthroplasty. New oral anticoagulants are recommended, but LMWH are suggested as the preferred option. Extending pharmacological prophylaxis for up to 35days rather than 10-14days is now suggested for patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.

Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: VTE is a common cause of preventable death in surgical patients. METHODS: We developed recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients by using systematic methods as described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. RESULTS: We describe several alternatives for stratifying the risk of VTE in general and abdominal-pelvic surgical patients. When the risk for VTE is very low (< 0.5%), we recommend that no specific pharmacologic (Grade 1B) or mechanical (Grade 2C) prophylaxis be used other than early ambulation. For patients at low risk for VTE (∼1.5%), we suggest mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), over no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at moderate risk for VTE (∼3%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (Grade 2B), low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B), or mechanical prophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C) over no prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for VTE (∼6%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH (Grade 1B) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B) over no prophylaxis. In these patients, we suggest adding mechanical prophylaxis with elastic stockings or IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at high risk for VTE undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer, we recommend extended-duration, postoperative, pharmacologic prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWH over limited-duration prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For patients at moderate to high risk for VTE who are at high risk for major bleeding complications or those in whom the consequences of bleeding are believed to be particularly severe, we suggest use of mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with IPC, over no prophylaxis until the risk of bleeding diminishes and pharmacologic prophylaxis may be initiated (Grade 2C). For patients in all risk groups, we suggest that an inferior vena cava filter not be used for primary VTE prevention (Grade 2C) and that surveillance with venous compression ultrasonography should not be performed (Grade 2C). We developed similar recommendations for other nonorthopedic surgical populations. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients will consider the risks of VTE and bleeding complications as well as the values and preferences of individual patients.