In medical inpatients, the IMPROVE risk score had moderate predictive power for 14-d in-hospital bleeding.

SOURCE CITATION: Villiger R, Juillard P, Darbellay Farhoumand P, et al. Prediction of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients: external validation of the IMPROVE bleeding risk score. Thromb Res. 2023;230:37-44. 37634309.

In AF, the effects of DOACs vs. warfarin on death and stroke/systemic embolism vary by baseline CrCl level.

SOURCE CITATION: Harrington J, Carnicelli AP, Hua K, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin across the spectrum of kidney function: patient-level network meta-analyses from COMBINE AF. Circulation. 2023;147:1748-1757. 37042255.

Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review.

Importance: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), comprising apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, are commonly used medications to treat patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Decisions about how to manage DOACs in patients undergoing a surgical or nonsurgical procedure are important to decrease the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism. Observations: For elective surgical or nonsurgical procedures, a standardized approach to perioperative DOAC management involves classifying the risk of procedure-related bleeding as minimal (eg, minor dental or skin procedures), low to moderate (eg, cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair), or high risk (eg, major cancer or joint replacement procedures). For patients undergoing minimal bleeding risk procedures, DOACs may be continued, or if there is concern about excessive bleeding, DOACs may be discontinued on the day of the procedure. Patients undergoing a low to moderate bleeding risk procedure should typically discontinue DOACs 1 day before the operation and restart DOACs 1 day after. Patients undergoing a high bleeding risk procedure should stop DOACs 2 days prior to the operation and restart DOACs 2 days after. With this perioperative DOAC management strategy, rates of thromboembolism (0.2%-0.4%) and major bleeding (1%-2%) are low and delays or cancellations of surgical and nonsurgical procedures are infrequent. Patients taking DOACs who need emergent (<6 hours after presentation) or urgent surgical procedures (6-24 hours after presentation) experience bleeding rates up to 23% and thromboembolism as high as 11%. Laboratory testing to measure preoperative DOAC levels may be useful to determine whether patients should receive a DOAC reversal agent (eg, prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet-α) prior to an emergent or urgent procedure. Conclusions and Relevance: When patients who are taking a DOAC require an elective surgical or nonsurgical procedure, standardized management protocols can be applied that do not require testing DOAC levels or heparin bridging. When patients taking a DOAC require an emergent, urgent, or semiurgent surgical procedure, anticoagulant reversal agents may be appropriate when DOAC levels are elevated or not available.

Risk factors for MACE and bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing surgery: Insights from the bridge trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing elective procedures are at risk for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and symptomatic bleeding. We aimed to identify risk factors to guide perioperative risk stratification. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the "Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients who Require Temporary Interruption of Warfarin Therapy for an Elective Invasive Procedure or Surgery" randomized trial. The primary outcomes were MACE and symptomatic bleeding. Our statistical approach encompassed standard univariate analysis, logistic stepwise regression, and Cox regression models. Additional interaction analyses evaluated the interplay between low-molecular-weight heparin bridge therapy and other identified risk factors. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,813 participants (mean age 71.6 ± 8.8, 73.3 % male), MACE occurred in 25 (1.4 %) individuals, with pre-procedure clopidogrel use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 7.73, 95 % CI 2.63-22.72, p < 0.001) and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 5 (aHR 2.89, 95 % CI 1.26-6.63, p = 0.012) identified as risk factors. Symptomatic bleeding occurred in 57 (3.1 %) individuals, with bridge therapy (aHR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.07-3.19, p = 0.029), renal disease (aHR 2.50, 95 % CI 1.34-4.67, p = 0.004), post-procedure aspirin use (aHR 2.86, 95 % CI 1.66-4.91, p < 0.001), post-procedure nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use excluding aspirin (aHR 3.40, 95 % CI 1.22-9.43, p = 0.019), and major surgery (aHR 3.94, 95 % CI 2.26-6.85, p < 0.001) identified as risk factors. The interactions between risk factors and bridging therapy on MACE and symptomatic bleeding outcomes were not significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We identified predictors for MACE and symptomatic bleeding in AF patients undergoing elective procedures. These insights may help guide perioperative decisions to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes.

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy. METHODS: The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy. DISCUSSION: After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

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.

Recurrence after stopping anticoagulants in women with combined oral contraceptive-associated venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The risk of recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulation for a combined oral contraceptive (COC)-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of recurrent VTE among women with COC-associated VTE, unprovoked VTE and to compare the incidence of recurrent VTE between the two groups. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase Classic +Embase and Medline ALL to July 2020 and citations from included studies were searched. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses of these study types were selected. The analysis was conducted by random-effects model. Nineteen studies were identified including 1537 women [5828 person-years (PY)] with COC-associated VTE and 1974 women (7798 PY) with unprovoked VTE. Studies were at low risk of bias. The incidence rate of VTE recurrence was 1.22/100 PY [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.62, I2  = 6%] in women with COC-associated VTE, 3.89/100 PY (95% CI 2.93-5.17, I2  = 74%) in women with unprovoked VTE and the unadjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.34 (95% CI 0.26-0.46, I2  = 3%). The recurrence risk in women after COC-associated VTE is low and lower than after an unprovoked VTE.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period.

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Secondary Prevention of Stroke Update 2020.

The 2020 update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations (CSBPR) for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke includes current evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions intended for use by clinicians across a broad range of settings. They provide guidance for the prevention of ischemic stroke recurrence through the identification and management of modifiable vascular risk factors. Recommendations address triage, diagnostic testing, lifestyle behaviors, vaping, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, other cardiac conditions, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, and carotid and vertebral artery disease. This update of the previous 2017 guideline contains several new or revised recommendations. Recommendations regarding triage and initial assessment of acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have been simplified, and selected aspects of the etiological stroke workup are revised. Updated treatment recommendations based on new evidence have been made for dual antiplatelet therapy for TIA and minor stroke; anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation; embolic strokes of undetermined source; low-density lipoprotein lowering; hypertriglyceridemia; diabetes treatment; and patent foramen ovale management. A new section has been added to provide practical guidance regarding temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy for surgical procedures. Cancer-associated ischemic stroke is addressed. A section on virtual care delivery of secondary stroke prevention services in included to highlight a shifting paradigm of care delivery made more urgent by the global pandemic. In addition, where appropriate, sex differences as they pertain to treatments have been addressed. The CSBPR include supporting materials such as implementation resources to facilitate the adoption of evidence into practice and performance measures to enable monitoring of uptake and effectiveness of recommendations.

Rates of rebleeding, thrombosis and mortality associated with resumption of anticoagulant therapy after anticoagulant-related bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Data on resuming oral anticoagulants (OACs) after bleeding are primarily from studies involving patients given warfarin, with few data on direct OACs (DOACs). We aimed to characterize prescribing patterns for OACs after OAC-related bleeding and compare the rates of bleeding, thrombosis and mortality in patients who resumed either type of OAC with those who did not. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of adults aged 66 years or older who were admitted to hospital for bleeding while receiving OACs from Apr. 1, 2012, to Mar. 31, 2017, using linked administrative health databases from Ontario. We used competing risk methods to calculate cause-specific adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for thrombosis, bleeding and mortality with resumption of OACs adjusted as a time-varying covariate. We determined time to OAC resumption using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 6793 patients with gastrointestinal (n = 4297, 63.3%), intracranial (n = 805, 11.9%) or other bleeding (n = 1691, 25.0%). At cohort entry, 3874 patients (57.0%) were prescribed warfarin and 2919 patients (43.0%) were prescribed a DOAC. The most common indication for OAC was atrial fibrillation (n = 5557, 81.8%), followed by venous thromboembolism (n = 1367, 20.1%). Oral anticoagulants were resumed in 4792 patients (70.5%) within 365 days of the index bleed. The median time to resumption was 46 (interquartile range 6-550) days. We found that resuming OAC was associated with reduced rates of thrombosis (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.72) and mortality (adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48-0.60), and an increased rate of rebleeding (adjusted HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.64-2.17). INTERPRETATION: We found that resuming OAC is associated with a reduction in thrombosis and mortality but an increase in bleeding. Randomized controlled trials that evaluate the net benefit of strategies for resumption of OAC after a bleeding event are warranted.

Risk of stroke and other adverse outcomes in patients with perioperative atrial fibrillation 1 year after non-cardiac surgery.

AIMS: To determine the 1-year risk of stroke and other adverse outcomes in patients with a new diagnosis of perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation (POISE)-1 trial evaluated the effects of metoprolol vs. placebo in 8351 patients, and POISE-2 compared the effect of aspirin vs. placebo, and clonidine vs. placebo in 10 010 patients. These trials included patients with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease who were undergoing non-cardiac surgery. For the purpose of this study, we combined the POISE datasets, excluding 244 patients who were in atrial fibrillation (AF) at the time of randomization. Perioperative atrial fibrillation was defined as new AF that occurred within 30 days after surgery. Our primary outcome was the incidence of stroke at 1 year of follow-up; secondary outcomes were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). We compared outcomes among patients with and without POAF using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Among 18 117 patients (mean age 69 years, 57.4% male), 404 had POAF (2.2%). The stroke incidence 1 year after surgery was 5.58 vs. 1.54 per 100 patient-years in patients with and without POAF, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 3.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00-5.90; P < 0.001. Patients with POAF also had an increased risk of death (incidence 31.37 vs. 9.34; aHR 2.51, 95% CI 2.01-3.14; P < 0.001) and MI (incidence 26.20 vs. 8.23; aHR 5.10, 95% CI 3.91-6.64; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with POAF have a significantly increased risk of stroke, MI, and death at 1 year. Intervention studies are needed to evaluate risk reduction strategies in this high-risk population.

Antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent thrombosis after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

It is uncertain whether antiphospholipid antibodies (APAs) increase the risk of recurrence after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). We tested for anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-ß2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant on 2 occasions ∼6 months apart in 307 patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were part of a prospective cohort study. We then determined if APAs were associated with recurrent thrombosis in the 290 patients who stopped anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer results. Compared with those without an APA, the hazard ratios for recurrent VTE were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.7; P = .09) in the 25.9% of patients with an APA on ≥1 occasions, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-.7; P = .03) in the 9.0% of patients with the same APA on 2 occasions, and 4.5 (95% CI, 1.5-13.0; P = .006) in the 3.8% of patients with 2 or 3 different APA types on either the same or different occasions. There was no association between having an APA and D-dimer levels. We conclude that having the same type of APA on 2 occasions or having >1 type of APA on the same or different occasions is associated with recurrent thrombosis in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who stop anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer tests. APA and D-dimer levels seem to be independent predictors of recurrence in patients with an unprovoked VTE. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00720915.

Perioperative antithrombotic (antiplatelet and anticoagulant) therapy in urological practice: a critical assessment and summary of the clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: The perioperative management of patients who are receiving antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy and require urologic surgery is challenging due to the inherent risk for surgical bleeding and the need to minimize thromboembolic risk. The aim of this review is to assess the quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) on this topic, and to summarize the evidence and associated strength of recommendations relating to perioperative antithrombotic management. METHODS: A pragmatic search of electronic databases and guidelines websites was performed to identify relevant CPGs/CPRs. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality and integrity of the CPGs. RESULTS: The CPGs provided by the European Association of Urology (EAU), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESC/ESA), and the CPRs provided by the International Consultation on Urological Disease (ICUD)/American Urologic Association (AUA) were retrieved and reviewed. The 3 CPGs were critically assessed using the AGREE II instrument. Inconsistent recommendations were provided based on the indication for antithrombotic medication, the antiplatelet/anticoagulant agent and the type of urological procedure. Based on the AGREE II tool for CPG assessment, the EAU CPGs scored higher (83.3 points) compared to the ESC/ESA (75 points) and ACCP CPG (66.7 points). CONCLUSION: The perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in urological patients is potentially challenging but inconsistent CPG of varying quality may create uncertainty as to best practices to minimize thromboembolic and bleeding risk.

The safety of oral anticoagulants registry (SOAR): A national, ED-based study of the evaluation and management of bleeding and bleeding concerns due to the use of oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE: The Safety of Oral Anticoagulants Registry (SOAR) was designed to describe the evaluation and management of patients with oral anticoagulant (OAC)-related major bleeding or bleeding concerns who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute illness or injury. Patients in the ED are increasingly taking anticoagulants, which can cause bleeding-related complications as well as impact the acute management of related or unrelated clinical issues that prompt presentation. Modifications of emergency evaluation and management due to anticoagulation have not previously been studied. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational in-hospital study of patients who were judged to be experiencing an active OAC effect and had (a) an obvious bleeding event or (b) were deemed at risk for serious bleeding spontaneously, after injury, or during an indicated invasive procedure. Diagnostic testing, therapies employed, and clinical outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Thirty-one US hospitals contributed data to SOAR. Of 1513 subjects, acute hemorrhage (AH) qualified 78%, while 22% had a bleeding concern (BC). Warfarin was the index OAC in 37.3%, dabigatran in 13.3%, and an anti-Factor Xa in 49.4%. The most common sites of AH were gastrointestinal (51.0%) and intracranial (26.8%). In warfarin-treated patients, the mean (IQR) presenting INR was 3.1 (2.2, 4.8) in AH patients and 3.9 (2.4, 7.2) in BC patients. Three-fifths of SOAR patients were treated with factor repletion or specific reversal agents, and those patients had a longer length of stay. In addition, seven (0.76%) of the treated patients experienced an in-hospital thrombotic complication; two of these seven died on the index admission, both of fatal pulmonary embolism. Vitamin K was used and dosed inconsistently in both warfarin and NOAC cohorts. CONCLUSION: Care of anticoagulated patients in the acute care setting is inconsistent, reflecting the diversity of presentation. As the prevalence of OAC use increases with the aging of the US population, further study and targeted educational efforts are needed to drive more evidence-based care of these patients.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.

Description: This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations. Methods: An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional. Recommendations: Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at a high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding during anticoagulant therapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group aimed at establishing a global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer last updated its evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in 2016 with a free, web-based mobile phone application, which was subsequently endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a systematic review of the literature published up to December, 2018, are presented along with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation scale methods, with the support of the French National Cancer Institute. These guidelines were reviewed by an expanded international advisory committee and endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Results from head-to-head clinical trials that compared direct oral anticoagulant with low-molecular-weight heparin are also summarised, along with new evidence for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer.

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in at-risk patient groups: pregnancy, elderly and obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) accounts for an estimated 900,000 cases per year in the US alone and constitutes a considerable burden on healthcare systems across the globe. OBJECTIVE: To understand why the burden is so high, qualitative and quantitative research was carried out to gain insights from experts, guidelines and published studies on the unmet clinical needs and therapeutic strategies in VTE prevention and treatment in three populations identified as being at increased risk of VTE and in whom VTE prevention and treatment were regarded as suboptimal: pregnant women, the elderly and obese patients. METHODOLOGY: A gap analysis methodology was created to highlight unmet needs in VTE management and to discover the patient populations considered most at risk. A questionnaire was devised to guide qualitative interviews with 44 thrombosis and haemostasis experts, and a review of the literature on VTE in the specific patient groups from 2015 to 2017 was completed. This was followed by a Think Tank meeting where the results from the research were discussed. RESULTS: This review highlights the insights gained and examines in detail the unmet needs with regard to VTE risk-assessment tools, biomarkers, patient stratification methods, and anticoagulant and dosing regimens in pregnant women, the elderly and obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: Specifically, in pregnant women at high risk of VTE, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the therapy of choice, but it remains unclear how to use anticoagulants when VTE risk is intermediate. In elderly patients, evaluation of the benefit of VTE prophylaxis against the bleeding risk is particularly important, and a head-to-head comparison of efficacy and safety of LMWH versus direct oral anticoagulants is needed. Finally, in obese patients, lack of guidance on anticoagulant dose adjustment to body weight has emerged as a major obstacle in effective prophylaxis and treatment of VTE.

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups. OBJECTIVE: To present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected from experts, clinical practice guidelines and original studies on the unmet needs in thromboprophylaxis, and on the treatment of VTE in two high-risk patient groups: patients with cancer and the critically ill. METHODOLOGY: To identify specific unmet needs in the management of VTE, a methodology was designed and implemented that assessed gaps in prophylaxis and treatment of VTE through interviews with 44 experts in the field of thrombosis and haemostasis, and through a review of current guidelines and seminal studies to substantiate the insights provided by the experts. The research findings were then analysed, discussed and consolidated by a multidisciplinary group of experts. RESULTS: The gap analysis methodology identified shortcomings in the VTE risk assessment tools, patient stratification approaches for prophylaxis, and the suboptimal use of anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Specifically, patients with cancer need better VTE risk assessment tools to tailor primary thromboprophylaxis to tumour types and disease stages, and the potential for drug-drug interactions needs to be considered. In critically ill patients, unfractionated heparin is not advised as a first-line treatment option, and the strength of evidence is increasing for direct oral anticoagulants as a treatment option over low-molecular-weight heparins.

Deep vein thrombosis: update on diagnosis and management.

Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) requires a multifaceted approach that includes clinical assessment, evaluation of pre-test probability, and objective diagnostic testing. Common symptoms and signs of DVT are pain, swelling, erythema and dilated veins in the affected limb. The pre-test probability of DVT can be assessed using a clinical decision rule that stratifies DVT into "unlikely" or "likely". If DVT is "unlikely", refer for D-dimer test. If the D-dimer level is normal, DVT can be excluded; if the D-dimer level is increased, refer for compression ultrasound. If DVT is "likely", refer for compression ultrasound. When DVT is confirmed, anticoagulation is indicated to control symptoms, prevent progression and reduce the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation may consist of a parenteral anticoagulant overlapped by warfarin or followed by a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) (dabigatran or edoxaban), or of a DOAC (apixaban or rivaroxaban) without initial parenteral therapy. DOACs are the preferred treatment for DVT because they are at least as effective, safer and more convenient than warfarin. DOACs may require dose reduction or avoidance in patients with renal dysfunction, and should be avoided in pregnancy. Recent evidence shows that DVT in patients with cancer may be treated with edoxaban (after discontinuation of 5 days of initial heparin or low molecular weight heparin [LMWH]) or rivaroxaban if patients prefer not to have daily injections of LMWH, but the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is higher with DOACs than with LMWH in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Pulmonary embolism: update on diagnosis and management.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition, mandating urgent diagnosis and treatment. The symptoms of PE may be non-specific; diagnosis therefore relies on a clinical assessment and objective diagnostic testing. A clinical decision rule can determine the pre-test probability of PE. If PE is "unlikely", refer for a D-dimer test. If the D-dimer result is normal, PE can be excluded. If D-dimer levels are increased, refer for chest imaging. If PE is "likely", refer for chest imaging. Imaging with computed tomography pulmonary angiogram is accurate and preferred for diagnosing PE, but may detect asymptomatic PE of uncertain clinical significance. Imaging with ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scan is associated with lower radiation exposure than computed tomography pulmonary angiogram, and may be preferred in younger patients and pregnancy. A low probability or high probability VQ scan is helpful for ruling out or confirming PE, respectively; however, an intermediate probability VQ scan requires further investigation. The direct oral anticoagulants have expanded the anticoagulation options for PE. These are the preferred anticoagulant for most patients with PE because they are associated with a lower risk of bleeding, and have the practical advantages of fixed dosage, no need for routine monitoring, and fewer drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Initial parenteral treatment is required before dabigatran and edoxaban.