Reducing unnecessary premedication prior to parenteral iron therapy: A quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron carries risks of mild, self-limiting, tryptase-negative Fishbane and complement activation-related pseudo-allergy reactions, with rare reports of anaphylaxis. Historically, high-molecular-weight iron dextran (HMWID) was associated with a higher incidence of anaphylaxis and empiric premedication with antihistamines/corticosteroids have been used to mitigate this risk. HMWID is no longer available and the risk of hypersensitivity reactions with newer IV iron formulations is low. Therefore, the use of routine prophylactic premedication in all patients is not justified but should be considered in high-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Our primary aim was to reduce inappropriate premedication before IV iron administration by 50% so that our institution's hematology providers only prescribe premedications to patients at high risk of having a severe reaction. Interventions included a multidisciplinary education initiative to highlight current evidence against universal administration of premedications and revision of the IV iron informed consent form and electronic order set. RESULTS: We measured the success of our intervention by comparing data collected during a 6-month pre-intervention period (837 infusions) to a 6-month post-intervention period (947 infusions). Inappropriate administration of premedications decreased from 79% in the pre-intervention period compared to 65% in the post-intervention period. We found no significant difference in the number of Fishbane reactions, severe reactions, and emergency room admissions, despite this reduction in premedication use. DISCUSSION: Although we did not reach our goal of a 50% reduction in inappropriate premedication use, opportunities for process improvements were uncovered and are being explored in the next cycle of this quality improvement project.

Dysfibrinogenemia: discrepant results following infusion of purified fibrinogen.

Inherited dysfibrinogenemias are molecular disorders of fibrinogen that affect fibrin polymerization. The majority of cases are asymptomatic, but a significant proportion suffer from increased bleeding or thrombosis. We present two unrelated cases of dysfibrinogenemia, both of whom showed a characteristic discrepancy between fibrinogen activity and the immunologic fibrinogen. In one patient, the dysfibrinogenemia was confirmed by molecular analysis; in the other case, the diagnosis was presumptive based upon laboratory studies. Both patients underwent elective surgery. Both received a highly purified fibrinogen concentrate preoperatively and demonstrated a suboptimal laboratory response to the infusion. Three methods for determining fibrinogen concentration (Clauss fibrinogen, prothrombin-derived fibrinogen, and the viscoelastic functional fibrinogen) were utilized in the case of one patient, and these techniques showed discrepant results with the classic Clauss method giving the lowest concentration. Neither patient experienced excessive bleeding during surgery. Although these discrepancies have been previously described in untreated patients, their manifestation after infusion of purified fibrinogen is less well appreciated.

Burnout in US hematologists and oncologists: impact of compensation models and advanced practice provider support.

Burnout is prevalent throughout medicine. Few large-scale studies have examined the impact of physician compensation or clinical support staff on burnout among hematologists and oncologists. In 2019, the American Society of Hematology conducted a practice survey of hematologists and oncologists in the AMA (American Medical Association) Masterfile; burnout was measured using a validated, single-item burnout instrument from the Physician Work-Life Study, while satisfaction was assessed in several domains using a 5-point Likert scale. The overall survey response rate was 25.2% (n = 631). Of 411 respondents with complete responses in the final analysis, 36.7% (n = 151) were from academic practices and 63.3% (n = 260) from community practices; 29.0% (n = 119) were female. Over one-third (36.5%; n = 150) reported burnout, while 12.0% (n = 50) had a high level of burnout. In weighted multivariate logistic regression models incorporating numerous variables, compensation plans based entirely on relative value unit (RVU) generation were significantly associated with high burnout among academic and community physicians, while the combination of RVU + salary compensation showed no significant association. Female gender was associated with high burnout among academic physicians. High advanced practice provider utilization was inversely associated with high burnout among community physicians. Distinct patterns of career dissatisfaction were observed between academic and community physicians. We propose that the implementation of compensation models not based entirely on clinical productivity increased support for women in academic medicine, and expansion of advanced practice provider support in community practices may address burnout among hematologists and oncologists.

Efficacy and safety of pre-operative insertion of inferior vena cava filter in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review.

Prophylactic placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters prior to performing bariatric surgery is an intervention of unclear safety and efficacy with disagreement between current practice guidelines. To better characterize the risk and benefit of IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery based on the current evidence. A systematic review of the literature of patients with prophylactic IVC filter insertion prior to bariatric surgery was performed and 32 studies were identified for inclusion into the review, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed including the high-quality included studies. Seven high quality studies reported thrombotic events in patients undergoing bariatric surgery who had an IVCF and a control group which allowed for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio of venous thrombotic events in the IVC filter population versus the group without IVC filters was 1.57 (95%CI 0.89, 2.76). Among high quality studies 5 reported major bleeding with a rate of 0.76% and 6 reported on IVC filter complications with a rate of 0.67%. Overall no significant reduction in the rate of venous thrombosis was found with prophylactic IVC filter insertion. Use of IVC filters for prophylaxis remains a concern given the lack of clear efficacy in this setting and a small but present complication risk.

Time is Blood: The Impact of Diagnostic Delays on Acquired Hemophilia A.

Background and objective Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is an uncommon autoimmune bleeding disorder caused by the formation of neutralizing antibodies against endogenous factor VIII (FVIII). Delays between the onset of symptoms and the correct diagnosis of the condition lead to poor outcomes and a higher mortality rate. In this study, we aimed to analyze the impact of delays in diagnosis on AHA patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at a single hospital system between March 1, 2010, and January 17, 2017, which included six patients meeting the criteria for AHA diagnosis. Results Initial analysis revealed a median age of 79.5 years and a median time to diagnosis from the onset of bleeding of 14 days. Among the six patients, three had cancer (bladder, renal, and prostate) and three had unknown etiologies. One of the patients died prior to the initiation of a bypassing agent. The remaining five patients received recombinant FVIIa (NovoSeven®, Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark), and two of those five required a second-line bypassing agent, recombinant porcine sequence FVIII (Obizur®, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Tokyo, Japan) for refractory bleeding. All five patients achieved hemostasis; however, three died within a year, and none of the patients survived for five years. Four of these five patients died directly from bleeding complications. Conclusions Based on our study findings and review of the literature, we propose an algorithm to potentially aid in the early diagnosis and treatment of AHA in emergency and non-specialized settings.

Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease: Developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, American Heart Association, Society for Vascular Surgery, and Society for Vascular Medicine.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in the treatment of patients with or at substantial risk of venous thromboembolic disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel developed key questions to address in the guideline, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Evidence was graded based on a standard methodology, which was used to inform the development of recommendations. RESULTS: The systematic review identified a total of 34 studies that provided the evidence base for the guideline. The expert panel agreed on 18 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence on the use of IVC filters in patients with or at risk of venous thromboembolic disease varies in strength and quality, the panel provides recommendations for the use of IVC filters in a variety of clinical scenarios. Additional research is needed to optimize care for this patient population.

Systems-based hematology: highlighting successes and next steps.

Systems-based hematology is dedicated to improving care delivery for patients with blood disorders. First defined by the American Society of Hematology in 2015, the idea of a systems-based hematologist arose from evolving pressures in the health care system and increasing recognition of opportunities to optimize the quality and cost effectiveness of hematologic care. In this review, we begin with a proposed framework to formalize the discussion of the range of initiatives within systems-based hematology. Classification by 2 criteria, project scope and method of intervention, facilitates comparison between initiatives and supports dialogue for future efforts. Next, we present published examples of successful systems-based initiatives in the field of hematology, including efforts to improve stewardship in the diagnosis and management of complex hematologic disorders (eg, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombophilias), the development of programs to promote appropriate use of hematologic therapies (eg, blood products, inferior vena cava filters, and anticoagulation), changes in care delivery infrastructure to improve access to hematologic expertise (eg, electronic consultation and disorder-specific care pathways), and others. The range of projects illustrates the broad potential for interventions and highlights different metrics used to quantify improvements in care delivery. We conclude with a discussion about future directions for the field of systems-based hematology, including extension to malignant disorders and the need to define, expand, and support career pathways.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Associations between hematology/oncology fellows' training and mentorship experiences and hematology-only career plans.

As the adult hematology and oncology fellowship training pathways have merged in the United States and concerns have arisen about the aging of practicing hematologists, the American Society of Hematology and hematology education leaders are looking to improve their understanding of the factors that contribute to fellows' plans to enter hematology-only careers. With the support of the American Society of Hematology, we collected and analyzed data from a survey of hematology/oncology fellows (n = 626) to examine the relationship between training and mentorship experiences and fellows' plans to enter hematology-only careers. Fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans. After controlling for prior interest in hematology and demographic characteristics, exposure to hematology patients in medical school and fellowship, hematology research experiences, and hematology mentorship (research collaboration and career coaching) were positively and significantly associated with hematology-only career plans. These findings suggest that increasing opportunities for exposure to hematology patients, research opportunities and mentors throughout training could be helpful in building a strong pipeline of potential hematologists.

Etiology and Management of Upper-Extremity Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Cancer Patients.

Central venous access devices are a critical instrument in the treatment and supportive care delivery for oncology patients. Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a common complication of central venous access devices in oncology patients. Risk factors for CRT include patient-, device-, and treatment-related risk factors. Treatment of CRT is indicated to reduce symptoms, prevent catheter malfunction, prevent recurrent DVT or thromboembolic pulmonary embolism, and minimize the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome. Minimal prospective data exist on the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thromboses in cancer patients. As such recommendations largely are derived from data in the lower-extremity DVT and PE studies in cancer and non-cancer patients. Based on the available literature, primary pharmacologic prophylaxis against CRT is not recommended in cancer patients. Treatment options for CRT include catheter removal, anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or surgical thrombectomy. Current evidence-based guidelines recommend LMWH as the anticoagulant of choice. However, recent data showing efficacy and safety of DOACs in cancer-related VTE may be extrapolated to treatment of CRT in cancer patients. In patients with CRT, catheter removal should be pursued if continued vascular access is no longer needed, the catheter is dysfunctional, a catheter-associated infection is present, or if CRT symptoms do not resolve with anticoagulation alone. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is reserved for rare severe cases of CRT. Herein we discuss the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and general management of CRT in cancer patients.

Inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a national practice patterns survey of U.S. Trauma centers.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients are being increasingly used despite a lack of strong clinical data in support of their efficacy and conflicting clinical practice guidelines. This national survey elucidates practice patterns of IVCF use across U.S. trauma centers. A web-based survey was administered to members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma between September 2011 and October 2011. The survey queried: 1) background and professional practice; 2) trauma patient population; 3) IVCF placement; 4) IVCF retrieval and follow-up; and 5) pharmacologic prophylaxis. Two hundred eighty-one of 1059 eligible providers completed the survey (27%). Respondents were from a wide spectrum of training backgrounds and clinical practice settings. IVCFs were used by 98.9 per cent of respondents. IVCFs in patients without known venous thromboembolism were considered by 93.2 per cent of respondents. Indications and timing of IVCF retrieval vary. Follow-up care of patients with IVCFs was not uniform. An IVCF registry was maintained by 38 per cent of trauma programs. Adjunctive pharmacologic prophylaxis was used by 96.8 per cent of respondents. This study elucidates the gaps and variations in contemporary practices of IVCF use in trauma patients. Identification of best practices in IVCF use and retrieval awaits well-designed comparative effectiveness studies.

Five hematologic tests and treatments to question.

Choosing Wisely(®) is a medical stewardship initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with professional medical societies in the United States. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) released its first Choosing Wisely(®) list in 2013. Using the same evidence-based methodology as in 2013, ASH has identified 5 additional tests and treatments that should be questioned by clinicians and patients under specific, indicated circumstances. The ASH 2014 Choosing Wisely(®) recommendations include: (1) do not anticoagulate for more than 3 months in patients experiencing a first venous thromboembolic event in the setting of major, transient risk factors for venous thromboembolism; (2) do not routinely transfuse for chronic anemia or uncomplicated pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease; (3) do not perform baseline or surveillance computed tomography scans in patients with asymptomatic, early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia; (4) do not test or treat for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia if the clinical pretest probability of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is low; and (5) do not treat patients with immune thrombocytopenia unless they are bleeding or have very low platelet counts.

Five hematologic tests and treatments to question.

Choosing Wisely® is a medical stewardship initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with professional medical societies in the United States. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) released its first Choosing Wisely® list in 2013. Using the same evidence-based methodology as in 2013, ASH has identified 5 additional tests and treatments that should be questioned by clinicians and patients under specific, indicated circumstances. The ASH 2014 Choosing Wisely® recommendations include: (1) do not anticoagulate for more than 3 months in patients experiencing a first venous thromboembolic event in the setting of major, transient risk factors for venous thromboembolism; (2) do not routinely transfuse for chronic anemia or uncomplicated pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease; (3) do not perform baseline or surveillance computed tomography scans in patients with asymptomatic, early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia; (4) do not test or treat for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia if the clinical pretest probability of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is low; and (5) do not treat patients with immune thrombocytopenia unless they are bleeding or have very low platelet counts.

Vena cava filters for management of venous thromboembolism: a clinical review.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the common cause of morbidity and mortality. Vena cava filters (VCF) represent an important alternative to anticoagulation for management of VTE. VCF use has increased dramatically with the availability of retrievable filters. Since indiscriminate use of VCF can be associated with net patient harm, knowledge of the risks and benefits of these devices is essential to optimal evidence-based practice. In this review, we will examine the characteristics of available permanent and optional VCF, their efficacy and safety in management of VTE and discuss appropriate, extended and unsubstantiated indications for VCF use. We will also review the clinical outcomes of VCF in alternative placement sites (supra-renal inferior vena cava and superior vena cava) and in specialized patient populations (bariatric surgery, cancer, etc.), recommendations regarding anticoagulation for prevention of thrombosis as well as recommended follow up for patients with VCF.

A pilot study on the randomization of inferior vena cava filter placement for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Placement of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (pIVCFs) for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in high-risk trauma patients (HRTPs) are widely practiced despite the lack of Level I data supporting this use. We report the 2-year interim analysis of the Filters in Trauma pilot study. METHODS: This is a single institution, prospective randomized controlled pilot feasibility study in a Level I trauma center. HRTPs were identified for pIVCF placement by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines. From November 2008 to November 2010, HRTPs were enrolled and randomized to either pIVCF or no pIVCF. All patients received pharmacologic prophylaxis when safe. Primary outcomes included feasibility objectives and secondary outcomes were incidence of PE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and death. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 38 enrolled patients were eligible for analysis. The baseline sociodemographic characteristics were balanced between the both groups. Results of the feasibility objectives included: time from admission to enrollment (mean, 47.4 hours ± 22.0 hours), time from enrollment to randomization (mean, 4.8 hours ± 9.1 hours), time from randomization to IVCF placement (mean, 16.9 hours ± 9.2 hours), adherence to weekly compression ultrasound within first month (IVCF group = 44.4%; non-IVCF group = 62.5%), and 1-month clinical follow-up (IVCF group = 83.3%; non-IVCF group = 100%). At 6-month follow-up, one PE in the nonfilter group and one DVT in the filter group had occurred. One non-PE-related death occurred in the filter group. Barriers to enrollment included inability to obtain informed consent due to patient refusal or no next of kin identified and delayed notification of eligibility status. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study demonstrates for the first time that a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of pIVCFs in trauma patients is feasible. This pilot data will be used to inform the design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial to determine the incidence of PE and DVT in HRTPs receiving pIVCFs versus no pIVCF.

ASH evidence-based guidelines: what is the role of inferior vena cava filters in the perioperative prevention of venous thromboembolism in bariatric surgery patients?

A 38-year-old morbidly obese male (BMI > 50 kg/m(2)) presents for an elective gastric bypass surgery. He has no personal or family history of venous thromboembolism or hypercoaguability. You are asked by his primary team whether he should receive a retrievable inferior vena cava filter preoperatively for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Gemcitabine-induced reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome: a case report and review of the literature.

Gemcitabine is a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent for a variety of tumor types. Although this nucleoside analogue antineoplastic agent is similar in structure to cytarabine, central nervous system toxicities have rarely been attributed to gemcitabine. Reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS) is a rare but increasingly identifiable clinicoradiologic process in cancer patients associated with cytotoxic and immunosuppressive agents. The syndrome is characterized by acute to subacute onset of headache, nausea, vomiting, altered mental status, seizures, stupor, and visual disturbances. The pathophysiology of RPLS continues to remain controversial but likely involves loss of cerebrovascular autoregulation leading to arteriole leakage. Radiologically, posterior occipital white matter edema is noted, with characteristic findings on magnetic resonance imaging. Often the syndrome is reversible with treatment of concurrent hypertension or removal of the causative agent; however, failure to quickly recognize the syndrome and discontinue the offending agent may result in profound and permanent central nervous system dysfunction or death. This article describes a case of RPLS attributed to gemcitabine use for pancreatic cancer. Such a descriptive case serves as a platform for the discussion of the syndrome, proposed mechanisms of central nervous system damage, and review of the currently available literature on the topic. With increased awareness of RPLS by oncologists and other medical providers, cancer patient care may be improved and further insight into this complication of therapy through continued research may be gained.