Assessment of Temporary Warfarin Reversal in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices: the KVAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) require interruption of warfarin for invasive procedures, but parenteral bridging is associated with many complications. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) can temporarily restore hemostasis in patients undergoing anticoagulation with warfarin. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the strategy of using variable-dose 4F-PCC to immediately and temporarily reverse warfarin before invasive procedures without holding warfarin in patients with LVADs. The duration of effect of 4F-PCC on factor levels and time to reestablish therapeutic anticoagulation post procedure were assessed. METHODS: Adult patients with LVADs and planned invasive procedures were enrolled from a single center. Warfarin was continued uninterrupted. The 4F-PCC dose administered immediately pre-procedure was based on study protocol. International normalized ratio (INR)- and vitamin K-dependent factor levels were collected before and during the 48 hours after 4F-PCC administration. The use of parenteral bridging, International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) and thromboembolic events at 7 and 30 days were collected. RESULTS: In 21 episodes of 4F-PCC reversal, median baseline INR was 2.7 (IQR 2.2-3.2). The median dosage of 4F-PCC administered was 1794 units (IQR 1536-2130). At 24 and 48 hours post 4F-PCC administration, median INRs were 1.8 (IQR 1.7-2.0) and 2.0 (IQR 1.9-2.4). Two patients required postoperative bridging. One patient experienced major bleeding within 72 hours, and 2 experienced CRNMB within 30 days. There were no thromboembolic events. Baseline and post 4F-PCC vitamin K-dependent factor levels corresponded with changes in INR values. The median time to achieve therapeutic INR post-procedure was 2.5 days (IQR, 1-4). CONCLUSION: Administration of 4F-PCC for temporary reversal of warfarin for invasive procedures in patients with LVADs allowed for continued warfarin dosing with minimal use of post-intervention bridging, limited bleeding and no thromboembolic events.

Avatrombopag for adults with early versus chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

Avatrombopag is a newer thrombopoietin receptor agonist (TPO-RA) currently approved to treat chronic ITP (duration >12 months). No studies have yet evaluated the safety and effectiveness of avatrombopag in newly diagnosed ITP (duration <3 months) or persistent ITP (duration 3-12 months), and so its use in these populations is presently off-label worldwide. We hypothesize that avatrombopag has similar safety and effectiveness irrespective of ITP disease phase. To evaluate this, we performed a multicenter observational cohort study of adults with ITP treated with avatrombopag, comparing patient outcomes by disease phase (newly diagnosed/persistent versus chronic). Seventy-five patients were included, 23 with newly diagnosed/persistent ITP (17.7 patient-years of avatrombopag treatment) and 52 with chronic ITP (65.3 patient-years of avatrombopag treatment). On avatrombopag, 91% of newly diagnosed/persistent patients versus 96% of chronic patients (p = .58) achieved a platelet response (≥50 × 109 /L) and 86% versus 81% of patients (p = .78) achieved a complete response (≥100 × 109 /L). Median platelet counts on avatrombopag were similar between the two groups (165 × 109 /L vs. 129 × 109 /L, p = .57). Response durability was high and similar in both groups. No patients in the newly diagnosed/persistent group had a major bleeding event, thromboembolic event or avatrombopag discontinuation for adverse events, compared with 4, 1, and 2, respectively, in the chronic group. Thrombocytosis (platelets ≥400 × 109 /L) incidence was similar in the two groups. No other drug-related adverse events occurred in either group. Avatrombopag was safe and effective in patients with newly diagnosed and persistent ITP, with outcomes numerically, statistically, and clinically similar to patients receiving avatrombopag for chronic ITP.

Perioperative risks associated with administration of andexanet alfa during emergency cardiac surgery with circulatory arrest.

This case report describes the perioperative course of a patient undergoing emergency repair of acute type A thoracic aortic dissection. Andexanet alfa was administered intraoperatively to obtain a dry operative field for right axillary artery exposure and cannulation. Andexanet alfa-induced heparin resistance resulted in cardiopulmonary bypass circuit and pericardial thrombosis requiring more than 400,000 units of unfractionated heparin and antithrombin III to overcome. Postoperatively, excessive chest tube output was observed secondary to protracted heparin rebound requiring continuous dosing of protamine. This case demonstrates the significant challenging perioperative, not just intraoperative, hazards associated with intraoperative andexanet alfa use during emergency cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Recent Advances, Unmet Needs, and Future Direction.

Cancer-associated thrombosis, with the incidence rising over the years, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Recent advances in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) include the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which provide a more convenient and effective option than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Nonetheless, important unmet needs remain including an increased risk of bleeding in certain patient subgroups such as those with gastroesophageal cancer, concerns about drug-drug interactions, and management of patients with severe renal impairment. Although DOACs are more convenient than LMWH, persistence can decline over time. Factor XI inhibitors have potential safety advantages over DOACs because factor XI appears to be essential for thrombosis but not hemostasis. In phase II trials, some factor XI inhibitors were superior to enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after knee replacement surgery without increasing the risk of bleeding. Ongoing trials are assessing the efficacy and safety of factor XI inhibitors for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Apixaban for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend consideration of the use of oral edoxaban or rivaroxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. However, the benefit of these oral agents is limited by the increased risk of bleeding associated with their use. METHODS: This was a multinational, randomized, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority trial with blinded central outcome adjudication. We randomly assigned consecutive patients with cancer who had symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive oral apixaban (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily for the first 7 days, followed by 5 mg twice daily) or subcutaneous dalteparin (at a dose of 200 IU per kilogram of body weight once daily for the first month, followed by 150 IU per kilogram once daily). The treatments were administered for 6 months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed recurrent venous thromboembolism during the trial period. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) in the apixaban group and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding occurred in 22 patients (3.8%) in the apixaban group and in 23 patients (4.0%) in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.69; P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Oral apixaban was noninferior to subcutaneous dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism without an increased risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance; Caravaggio ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03045406.).

What Role Does Microthrombosis Play in Long COVID?

Soon after the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), unexplained sustained fatigue, cognitive disturbance, and muscle ache/weakness were reported in patients who had recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. This abnormal condition has been recognized as "long COVID (postacute sequelae of COVID-19 [PASC])" with a prevalence estimated to be from 10 to 20% of convalescent patients. Although the pathophysiology of PASC has been studied, the exact mechanism remains obscure. Microclots in circulation can represent one of the possible causes of PASC. Although hypercoagulability and thrombosis are critical mechanisms of acute COVID-19, recent studies have reported that thromboinflammation continues in some patients, even after the virus has cleared. Viral spike proteins and RNA can be detected months after patients have recovered, findings that may be responsible for persistent thromboinflammation and the development of microclots. Despite this theory, long-term results of anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and vascular endothelial protection are inconsistent, and could not always show beneficial treatment effects. In summary, PASC reflects a heterogeneous condition, and microclots cannot explain all the presenting symptoms. After clarification of the pathomechanisms of each symptom, a symptom- or biomarker-based stratified approach should be considered for future studies.

Clinically stable covid-19 patients presenting to acute unscheduled episodic care venues have increased risk of hospitalization: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessment for risks associated with acute stable COVID-19 is important to optimize clinical trial enrollment and target patients for scarce therapeutics. To assess whether healthcare system engagement location is an independent predictor of outcomes we performed a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention trial. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B trial that was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and August 2021. Participants were enrolled through acute unscheduled episodic care (AUEC) enrollment location (emergency department, or urgent care clinic visit) compared to minimal contact (MC) enrollment (electronic contact from test center lists of positive patients).We report the primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalizations, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic arterial thromboembolism, or death among stable outpatients stratified by enrollment setting, AUEC versus MC. A propensity score for AUEC enrollment was created, and Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to compare the primary outcome by enrollment location. RESULTS: Among the 657 ACTIV-4B patients randomized, 533 (81.1%) with known enrollment setting data were included in this analysis, 227 from AUEC settings and 306 from MC settings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from COVID test, age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and body mass index were associated with AUEC enrollment. Irrespective of trial treatment allocation, patients enrolled at an AUEC setting were 10-times more likely to suffer from the adjudicated primary outcome, 7.9% vs. 0.7%; p < 0.001, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Upon Cox regression analysis adjustment patients enrolled at an AUEC setting remained at significant risk of the primary composite outcome, HR 3.40 (95% CI 1.46, 7.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinically stable COVID-19 presenting to an AUEC enrollment setting represent a population at increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis complications, hospitalization for cardiopulmonary events, or death, when adjusted for other risk factors, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Future outpatient therapeutic trials and clinical therapeutic delivery programs of clinically stable COVID-19 patients may focus on inclusion of higher-risk patient populations from AUEC engagement locations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Thrombosis-Related Loss of Arterial Lines in the First Wave of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with severe respiratory distress requiring intensive care unit (ICU)-level care. Such care often requires placement of an arterial line for monitoring of pulmonary disease progression, hemodynamics, and laboratory tests. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, experienced physicians anecdotally reported multiple attempts, decreased insertion durations, and greater need for replacement of arterial lines in patients with COVID-19 due to persistent thrombosis. Because invasive procedures in patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk for caregiver infection, better defining difficulties in maintaining arterial lines in COVID-19 patients is important. We sought to explore the association between COVID-19 infection and arterial line thrombosis in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this primary exploratory analysis, a multivariable Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model was used to retrospectively estimate the association between critically ill COVID-19 (versus sepsis/acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]) patients and the risk of arterial line removal for thrombosis (with arterial line removal for any other reason treated as a competing risk). As a sensitivity analysis, we compared the number of arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days between critically ill COVID-19 and sepsis/ARDS patients using multivariable negative binomial regression. RESULTS: We retrospectively identified 119 patients and 200 arterial line insertions in patients with COVID-19 and 54 patients and 68 arterial line insertions with non-COVID ARDS. Using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model, we found the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for arterial line clot to be 2.18 (1.06-4.46) for arterial lines placed in COVID-19 patients versus non-COVID-19 sepsis/ARDS patients ( P = .034). Patients with COVID-19 had 36.3 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days compared to 19.1 arterial line clots per 1000 arterial line days in patients without COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI], 1.78 [0.94-3.39]; P = .078). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that arterial line complications due to thrombosis are more likely in COVID-19 patients and supports the need for further research on the association between COVID-19 and arterial line dysfunction requiring replacement.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Recurrent VTE in Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with cancer who have venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended to prevent recurrent VTE. The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate DOACs, compared with LMWH, for preventing recurrent VTE and for rates of bleeding in patients with cancer following an initial VTE event. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 67 oncology practices in the US that enrolled 671 patients with cancer (any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia) who had a new clinical or radiological diagnosis of VTE. Enrollment occurred from December 2016 to April 2020. Final follow-up was in November 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a DOAC (n = 335) or LMWH (n = 336) and were followed up for 6 months or until death. Physicians and patients selected any DOAC or any LMWH (or fondaparinux) and physicians selected drug doses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the recurrent VTE rate at 6 months. Noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC vs LMWH was defined by the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference of a DOAC relative to LMWH of less than 3% in the randomized cohort that received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. The 6 prespecified secondary outcomes included major bleeding, which was assessed using a 2.5% noninferiority margin. Results: Between December 2016 and April 2020, 671 participants were randomized and 638 (95%) completed the trial (median age, 64 years; 353 women [55%]). Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose. Among those randomized to LMWH, 308 received at least 1 dose. Rates of recurrent VTE were 6.1% in the DOAC group and 8.8% in the LMWH group (difference, -2.7%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 0.7%) consistent with the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Of 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, none were statistically significant. Major bleeding occurred in 5.2% of participants in the DOAC group and 5.6% in the LMWH group (difference, -0.4%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 2.5%) and did not meet the noninferiority criterion. Severe adverse events occurred in 33.8% of participants in the DOAC group and 35.1% in the LMWH group. The most common serious adverse events were anemia and death. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE over 6-month follow-up. These findings support use of a DOAC to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744092.

Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, and PARTICIPANTS: This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS: Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.

2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.

The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group of experts aimed at establishing global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. The 2013, 2016, and 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines have been made available through a free, web-based mobile phone application. The 2022 clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a literature review up to Jan 1, 2022, include guidance for patients with cancer and with COVID-19. Key recommendations (grade 1A or 1B) include: (1) low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the initial (first 10 days) treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; (2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and maintenance treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in patients who are not at high risk of gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding, in the absence of strong drug-drug interactions or of gastrointestinal absorption impairment; (3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to treat cancer-associated thrombosis; (4) extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWHs to prevent postoperative venous thromboembolism after major abdominopelvic surgery in patients not at high risk of bleeding; and (5) primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who are treated with anticancer therapy and have a low risk of bleeding.

COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced infection can be associated with a coagulopathy, findings consistent with infection-induced inflammatory changes as observed in patients with disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC). The lack of prior immunity to COVID-19 has resulted in large numbers of infected patients across the globe and uncertainty regarding management of the complications that arise in the course of this viral illness. The lungs are the target organ for COVID-19; patients develop acute lung injury that can progress to respiratory failure, although multiorgan failure can also occur. The initial coagulopathy of COVID-19 presents with prominent elevation of D-dimer and fibrin/fibrinogen-degradation products, whereas abnormalities in prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, and platelet counts are relatively uncommon in initial presentations. Coagulation test screening, including the measurement of D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, is suggested. COVID-19-associated coagulopathy should be managed as it would be for any critically ill patient, following the established practice of using thromboembolic prophylaxis for critically ill hospitalized patients, and standard supportive care measures for those with sepsis-induced coagulopathy or DIC. Although D-dimer, sepsis physiology, and consumptive coagulopathy are indicators of mortality, current data do not suggest the use of full-intensity anticoagulation doses unless otherwise clinically indicated. Even though there is an associated coagulopathy with COVID-19, bleeding manifestations, even in those with DIC, have not been reported. If bleeding does occur, standard guidelines for the management of DIC and bleeding should be followed.

Renal function and clinical outcome of patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism randomized to receive apixaban or dalteparin. Results from the Caravaggio trial

The effect of renal impairment (RI) on risk of bleeding and recurrent thrombosis in cancer patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is undefined. We ran a prespecified analysis of the randomized Caravaggio study to evaluate the role of RI as a risk factor for bleeding or recurrence in patients treated with dalteparin or apixaban for cancerassociated VTE. RI was graded as moderate (creatinine clearance between 30-59 mL/minute; 275 patients) and mild (between 60- 89 mL/minute; 444 patients). In the 1142 patients included in this analysis, the incidence of major bleeding was similar in patients with moderate vs. no or mild RI (HR 1.06-95% CI: 0.53-2.11), with no difference in the relative safety of apixaban and dalteparin. Recurrent VTE was not different in moderate vs. no or mild RI (HR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.38-1.20); in moderate RI, apixaban reduced recurrent VTE compared to dalteparin (HR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.96; P for interaction 0.1085). At multivariate analysis, no association was found between variation of renal function over time and major bleeding or recurrent VTE. Advanced or metastatic cancer was the only independent predictor of major bleeding (HR=2.84, 95% CI: 1.20-6.71), with no effect of treatment with apixaban or dalteparin. In our study, in cancer patients treated with apixaban or dalteparin, moderate RI was not associated with major bleeding or recurrent VTE. In patients with moderate renal failure, the safety profile of apixaban was confirmed with the potential for improved efficacy in comparison to dalteparin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03045406.

Activated Clotting Times Demonstrate Weak Correlation With Heparin Dosing in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal monitoring strategy for anticoagulation management in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains a clinical controversy. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Anticoagulation Guidelines suggest that multiple anticoagulation assays may be needed but do not specify a preferred management strategy. STUDY QUESTION: In adult ECMO patients, which anticoagulation assays demonstrate the highest correlation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) dose requirements? STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients cannulated to ECMO between February 2013 and July 2015. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the correlation between activated clotting time (ACT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and anti-Xa and UFH dose. Secondary outcomes included correlations between anticoagulation assays. Correlations were calculated for the entire cohort, with subgroup analysis of venoarterial and venovenous ECMO patients. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included in the analysis, 26 initially cannulated to venoarterial ECMO and 22 to veno-venous ECMO. The median duration of ECMO therapy was 7 days. Mean UFH requirements were 1149 units/h or 15.3 units/kg/h. Total UFH dose was most correlated with anti-Xa levels (r = 0.467), whereas weight-based heparin dose was most correlated with aPTT (0.405). For correlations between anticoagulation assays, anti-Xa and aPTT were more highly correlated with each other (r = 0.633) compared with ACT. CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients requiring ECMO, anti-Xa and aPTT monitoring were correlated more closely with UFH dosing than ACT.

Evaluation of the use of direct oral anticoagulants for the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Historically, treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) includes a non-heparin parenteral anticoagulant with bridging to warfarin once platelets recover. Data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for HIT treatment are limited. Given the paucity of evidence for the use of DOACs in HIT, the aim of this study is to describe the prescribing patterns of DOACs for HIT at our institution. This is a single center, retrospective chart evaluation of patients admitted from January 2017 to October 2020 with a confirmed diagnosis of HIT. Twenty-six patients were identified; 21 patients (81%) received initial parenteral treatment and 5 patients (19.2%) with initial DOAC treatment. The most frequently used DOAC was apixaban at the VTE treatment dose [15 (57.7%)] followed by the reduced dose of apixaban [5 (19.2%)]. Of the patients initially treated with a parenteral agent, 11 (42.3%) were transitioned to a DOAC after platelet recovery, 7 (26.9%) transitioned as platelets were steadily increasing, and 3 (11.5%) transitioned at the time of discharge (prior to platelet recovery). Platelet recovery was achieved in 23 patients (88.5%) at a median of 5 days (IQR 2.8-8.3) after HIT diagnosis. No new thrombotic or bleeding events occurred within 30 days of HIT diagnosis. In our patients treated with a DOAC for HIT, no progression of HIT was observed. Apixaban was the most frequently utilized DOAC. Most patients received a parenteral anticoagulant prior to DOAC initiation. All patients managed with a DOAC as initial treatment achieved platelet recovery within 30 days of HIT diagnosis.

Approach to Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Challenging Situations and Knowledge Gaps.

Malignancy is a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is estimated that up to 20% of patients with cancer may develop VTE at some time in their cancer journey. Cancer-associated VTE can lead to hospitalizations, morbidity, delayed cancer treatment, and mortality. The optimal prevention and management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is of utmost importance. Direct oral anticoagulants have been recommended as first-line therapy for VTE treatment in the general population and their efficacy has recently been demonstrated in the cancer population, leading to increased use. However, patients with cancer have unique challenges and comorbidities that can lead to increased risks and concerns with anticoagulation. Herein we will discuss commonly encountered challenges in patients with CAT, review available literature, and provide practice suggestions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article aims to specifically address cancer-associated thrombosis issues for which there is limited or absent evidence to guide best practice, for circumstances that pose unique challenges for clinicians, and for directions when the literature is conflicting. It reviews pertinent data for each selected topic and provides guidance for patient management based on the best available evidence and experiences from the panel.

Prediction and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thromboembolism.

Venous and arterial thromboembolism are prevalent, highly burdensome, and associated with risk of worse outcomes for patients with cancer. Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely across specific cancer subpopulations. The ability to predict risk of cancer-associated VTE is critical because an optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy is best achieved by targeting high-risk patients with cancer and avoiding prophylaxis in patients with cancer at low risk for VTE. A validated risk tool for solid tumors has been available for a decade. Newer tools have focused on specific populations, such as patients with multiple myeloma. Emerging studies continue to optimize risk prediction approaches in patients with cancer. Recent randomized trials have specifically addressed risk-adapted thromboprophylaxis using direct oral anticoagulants, and revised guidelines have included these new data to formulate recommendations for outpatient thromboprophylaxis. Implementation science approaches to enhance use of outpatient prophylaxis in the context of these guideline changes are under way. However, major knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of data for inpatient thromboprophylaxis in the cancer setting and a lack of formal tools for identifying risk of bleeding. This review describes optimal approaches to risk prediction and patient selection for primary pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis of cancer-associated VTE, addresses barriers to implementing these practices, and highlights strategies to overcome them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) varies widely among patients with cancer. Individual risk can be determined using validated approaches. Inpatient and postsurgical thromboprophylaxis is more widely accepted. However, most patients with cancer develop VTE in the outpatient setting. Recent randomized trials have demonstrated benefit to risk-adapted outpatient thromboprophylaxis. High-risk patients may therefore be considered for outpatient thromboprophylaxis as recommended by recently updated guidelines. System-wide implementation approaches are necessary to improve compliance with prophylaxis.

Update on Guidelines for the Management of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Over the past 2 decades, enormous advances have been made in the management of CAT. The growing evidence base informing practice has led to the publication of a number of guidelines and guidance documents on the diagnosis and treatment of CAT. The goal of this review is to examine the latest versions of evidence-based guidelines, highlighting the differences and similarities in their methodology, their disease-specific content, and recommendations for management. Our analysis shows that for most clinical topics, the different guidelines provide roughly similar management advice. However, there are a number of important clinical topics in CAT that are not currently covered by the existing guidelines. We think inclusion of these topics in future versions of the guidelines will facilitate ongoing efforts to optimize the care of patients with CAT. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in patients with cancer. This review examines the differences and similarities of the current CAT guidelines methods and recommendations. Current guidelines largely agree on many aspects of CAT management. However, there are a number of topics in CAT that are not currently included in guidelines where evidence-based guidance would be very helpful for clinicians. Coverage of these topics in future guidelines is encouraged to optimize clinical practice.

Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin or Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Patient Selection, Controversies, and Caveats.

The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is challenging because these patients have increased risks of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding, along with patient-specific and cancer-related factors that influence the approach to treatment. Historically, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), given for both initial and long-term treatment, has been the preferred approach recommended by practice guidelines. Most recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines indicate that the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are preferred for patients without gastric or gastroesophageal lesions. DOACs have been associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal and possibly genitourinary cancers, and DOACs should either not be used (especially in those with intact intraluminal tumors) or be used with caution in patients with these cancers. Fatal or life-threatening bleeding occurs with similar frequency with DOACs or LMWH, and most major bleeding with DOACs can be managed with transfusion and standard measures. The patient's willingness and ability to comply with LMWH injections, and their treatment preference, should also be considered. Patients with cancer who have VTE should be treated with anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 months. Anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely while cancer is active or under treatment or if there are persistent risk factors for recurrent VTE. This article summarizes the evidence from clinical trials of LMWH and DOACs that underpins the NCCN guideline recommendations, addresses several controversies and caveats regarding anticoagulant treatment, and offers evidence-based, practical suggestions on patient selection for treatment with DOACs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several randomized trials support the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). These agents come with unique risks and patient- and cancer-specific variables that must be evaluated during the course of a patient's cancer care. This narrative review discusses findings from clinical trials of low-molecular-weight heparin and DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, evidence that supports the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. A personalized approach to treatment is proposed that addresses patient selection for treatment with DOACs, factors that influence efficacy and safety, controversies and caveats, and suggestions for their resolution in clinical practice.