Outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants with aspirin vs warfarin with aspirin: a registry-based cohort study.

Background: For patients anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin and on aspirin (ASA) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism, it is unclear if bleeding outcomes differ. Objectives: To assess bleeding rates for ASA with DOACs vs warfarin and one another. Methods: Registry-based cohort study of patients followed by a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan using data from 2009 to 2022. The study included adults on ASA with warfarin or DOACs for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement. Results: After propensity matching by anticoagulant class, we compared 2 groups of 1467 patients followed for a median of 18.0 months. Any bleeding and nonmajor bleeding was increased with DOACs + ASA compared with warfarin + ASA (32.2 vs 27.8 and 27.1 vs 22.9 events/100 patient-years; relative risks [RRs], 1.1 and 1.2; 95% CIs, 1.1-1.2 and 1.1-1.3, respectively). After matching by drug, patients on apixaban + ASA vs warfarin + ASA had more bleeding (31.2 vs 27.8 events/100 patient-years; RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.2) and nonmajor bleeding but less major bleeding (3.8 vs 4.7 events/100 patient-years; RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0) and emergency room visits for bleeding. Patients on rivaroxaban + ASA vs warfarin + ASA had more bleeding (39.3 vs 26.3 events/100 patient-years, RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), nonmajor bleeding, and thrombosis. Patients on apixaban + ASA vs rivaroxaban + ASA had significantly less bleeding (22.5 vs 39.3/100 patient-years; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7), nonmajor bleeding, major bleeding (2.1 vs 5.5 events/100 patient-years; RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6), emergency room visits for bleeding, and thrombotic events. Conclusion: Patients on DOAC + ASA without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement had more nonmajor bleeding but otherwise similar outcomes compared with warfarin + ASA. Patients treated with rivaroxaban + ASA experienced more adverse clinical events compared with warfarin + ASA or apixaban + ASA.

Awareness of peripheral IV catheters among nurses, physicians, and trainees: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) are the most frequently used invasive device in hospitalized patients. These devices are not benign and are associated with complications. However, clinician awareness of them is variable and poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational point prevalence study to assess awareness of PIV presence among clinicians caring for hospitalized patients in 4 hospitals between May 2018 and February 2019 located in Michigan, USA. We first assessed patients for the presence of a PIV then interviewed their providers. Differences in awareness by provider type were assessed via χ² tests; P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed on Stata MP v16. RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients and 4,003 providers were interviewed. Nurses had the greatest awareness of overall PIV presence, 98.6%, while attendings were correct 88.1% of the time. Nurses were more likely to correctly assess PIV presence and exact location than physicians (67.7% vs <30% for all others). Awareness of PIV presence did not significantly vary in patients on contact precautions or those receiving infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the ubiquity of PIVs and known complications, methods to increase awareness to ensure appropriate care and removal are necessary.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Prevalence of Guideline-Discordant Aspirin Use and Associated Adverse Events in Patients on Warfarin for Mechanical Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: For patients on warfarin for mechanical heart valve replacement, the 2020 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines recommend only adding aspirin in patients with a specific indication for antiplatelet therapy. This contrasts with prior guidelines, which recommended concomitant aspirin therapy. We sought to assess the prevalence of guideline-discordant aspirin use among patients on warfarin for mechanical heart valve replacement and to compare adverse event rates among patients with and without concomitant aspirin. METHODS: Patients on warfarin for mechanical heart valve replacement were identified from the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative registry. Patients with myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass within the past 12 months were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on aspirin use. Patient characteristics and bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria, with 341 (76.8%) on concomitant aspirin. The aspirin group was older (50.6 vs 46.3 years, P = .028) and had more hypertension (57.8% vs 46.6%, P = .046) but other patient characteristics were similar. The aspirin group had a higher rate of bleeding events (28.3 vs 13.3 per 100 patient-years, P < .001) and bleed-related emergency department visits (11.8 vs 2.9 per 100 patient-years, P = .001) compared with the non-aspirin group. There was no observed difference in rates of ischemic stroke (0.56 vs 0.48 per 100 patient-years, P = .89). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients on warfarin for mechanical heart valve replacement are on guideline-discordant aspirin. Aspirin deprescribing in select patients may safely reduce bleeding events.

Use and Outcomes of Peripheral Vasopressors in Early Sepsis-Induced Hypotension Across Michigan Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors traditionally are administered via central access, but newer data suggest that peripheral administration may be safe and may avoid delays and complications associated with central line placement. RESEARCH QUESTION: How commonly are vasopressors initiated through peripheral IV lines in routine practice? Is vasopressor initiation route associated with in-hospital mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults hospitalized with sepsis (November 2020-September 2022) at 29 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. We assessed route of early vasopressor initiation, factors and outcomes associated with peripheral initiation, and timing of central line placement. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-four patients received vasopressors within 6 h of hospital arrival and were included in this study. Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common (400/594 [67.3%]). Patients with peripheral vs central initiation were similar; BMI was the only patient factor associated independently with initiation route (adjusted OR [aOR] of peripheral initiation [per 1-kg/m2 increase], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .015). The specific hospital showed a large impact on initiation route (median OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07). Compared with central initiation, peripheral initiation was faster (median, 2.5 h vs 2.7 h from hospital arrival; P = .002), but was associated with less initial norepinephrine use (84.3% vs 96.8%; P = .001). We found no independent association between initiation route and in-hospital mortality (32.3% vs 42.2%; aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.39-1.12). No tissue injury from peripheral vasopressors was documented. Of patients with peripheral initiation, 135 of 400 patients (33.8%) never received a central line. INTERPRETATION: Peripheral vasopressor initiation was common across Michigan hospitals and had practical benefits, including expedited vasopressor administration and avoidance of central line placement in one-third of patients. However, the findings of wide practice variation that was not explained by patient case mix and lower use of first-line norepinephrine with peripheral administration suggest that additional standardization may be needed.

Institutional Structures and Processes to Support Sepsis Care: A Multihospital Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify opportunities for improving hospital-based sepsis care and to inform an ongoing statewide quality improvement initiative in Michigan. DESIGN: Surveys on hospital sepsis processes, including a self-assessment of practices using a 3-point Likert scale, were administered to 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, at two time points (2020, 2022). Forty-eight hospitals also submitted sepsis protocols for structured review. SETTING: Multicenter quality improvement consortium. SUBJECTS: Fifty-one hospitals in Michigan. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the included hospitals, 92.2% (n = 47/51) were nonprofit, 88.2% (n = 45/51) urban, 11.8% (n = 6/51) rural, and 80.4% (n = 41/51) teaching hospitals. One hundred percent (n = 51/51) responded to the survey, and 94.1% (n = 48/51) provided a sepsis policy/protocol. All surveyed hospitals used at least one quality improvement approach, including audit/feedback (98.0%, n = 50/51) and/or clinician education (68.6%, n = 35/51). Protocols included the Sepsis-1 (18.8%, n = 9/48) or Sepsis-2 (31.3%, n = 15/48) definitions; none (n = 0/48) used Sepsis-3. All hospitals (n = 51/51) used at least one process to facilitate rapid sepsis treatment, including order sets (96.1%, n = 49/51) and/or stocking of commonly used antibiotics in at least one clinical setting (92.2%, n = 47/51). Treatment protocols included guidance on antimicrobial therapy (68.8%, n = 33/48), fluid resuscitation (70.8%, n = 34/48), and vasopressor administration (62.5%, n = 30/48). On self-assessment, hospitals reported the lowest scores for peridischarge practices, including screening for cognitive impairment (2.0%, n = 1/51 responded "we are good at this") and providing anticipatory guidance (3.9%, n = 2/51). There were no meaningful associations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle performance with differences in hospital characteristics or sepsis policy document characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals used audit/feedback, order sets, and clinician education to facilitate sepsis care. Hospitals did not consistently incorporate organ dysfunction criteria into sepsis definitions. Existing processes focused on early recognition and treatment rather than recovery-based practices.

Management of Anticoagulation/Antiplatelet Medication and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Elective Spine Surgery: Concise Clinical Recommendations Based on a Modified Delphi Process.

STUDY DESIGN: Delphi method. OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the following questions: (1) When should anticoagulation/antiplatelet (AC/AP) medication be stopped before elective spine surgery?; (2) When should AC/AP medication be restarted after elective spine surgery?; (3) When, how, and in whom should venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis be started after elective spinal surgery? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VTE can lead to significant morbidity after adult spine surgery, yet postoperative VTE prophylaxis practices vary considerably. The management of preoperative AC/AP medication is similarly heterogeneous. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Delphi method of consensus development consisting of three rounds (January 26, 2021, to June 21, 2021). RESULTS: Twenty-one spine surgeons were invited, and 20 surgeons completed all rounds of questioning. Consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved in 26/27 items. Group consensus stated that preoperative Direct Oral Anticoagulants should be stopped two days before surgery, warfarin stopped five days before surgery, and all remaining AC/AP medication and aspirin should be stopped seven days before surgery. For restarting AC/AP medication postoperatively, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 5/5 risk factors (VTE history/cardiac/ambulation status/anterior approach/operation). The low/medium/high thresholds were POD7/POD5/POD2, respectively. For VTE chemoprophylaxis, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 12/13 risk factors (age/BMI/VTE history/cardiac/cancer/hormone therapy/operation/anterior approach/staged separate days/staged same days/operative time/transfusion). The one area that did not gain consensus was same-day staged surgery. The low-threshold/medium-threshold/high-threshold ranges were postoperative day 5 (POD5) or none/POD3-4/POD1-2, respectively. Additional VTE chemoprophylaxis considerations that gained consensus were POD1 defined as the morning after surgery regardless of operating finishing time, enoxaparin as the medication of choice, and standardized, rather than weight-based, dose given once per day. CONCLUSIONS: In the first known Delphi study to address anticoagulation/antiplatelet recommendations for elective spine surgery (preoperatively and postoperatively); our Delphi consensus recommendations from 20 spine surgeons achieved consensus on 26/27 items. These results will potentially help standardize the management of preoperative AC/AP medication and VTE chemoprophylaxis after adult elective spine surgery.

The risk of major bleeding in patients with factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A gene mutation while on extended anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Thrombophilia predisposes to venous thromboembolism (VTE) because of acquired or hereditary factors. Among them, it has been suggested that gene mutations of the factor V Leiden (FVL) or prothrombin G20210A mutation (PGM) might reduce the risk of bleeding, but little data exist for patients treated using anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether thrombophilia is protective against bleeding. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational, prospective cohort study evaluated adults receiving long-term anticoagulants after a VTE event. We analyzed the incidence of major bleeding as the primary outcome, according to the genotype for FVL and PGM (wild-type and heterozygous/homozygous carriers). RESULTS: Of 2260 patients with genotype testing, during a median follow-up of 3 years, 106 patients experienced a major bleeding event (17 intracranial and 7 fatal). Among 439 carriers of FVL, 19 experienced major bleeding and there were no differences between any mutation vs wild-type (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [0.53-1.49]; p = .66). The comparison of major bleeding events between the 158 patients with any-PGM mutation (heterozygous or homozygous) vs wild-type also showed a nonstatistically significant difference with HR of 0.53 (0.19-1.43), p = .21. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that major bleeds or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were statistically less likely for patients with either FVL and/or PGM compared with patients with both wild-type factor V and prothrombin genes (HR, 0.73; 95% CI = 0.55-0.97; p = .03). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that thrombophilia, defined as the presence of either FVL or the prothrombin G20210A mutation, is related with a lower rate of major/clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding while on anticoagulants in the extended treatment for VTE.

Adverse events in low versus normal body weight patients prescribed apixaban for atrial fibrillation.

Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in low weight patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear due to few low body weight patients enrolled in clinical trials. To assess bleeding and thrombotic event rates for patients with AF that are prescribed apixaban and have a low versus normal body weight. We analyzed patients with AF prescribed apixaban from 2017 to 2020 with at least 12 months of follow-up. Patients were divided into low [< 60 kg (kg)] and normal (60-100 kg) weight cohorts. Bleeding and thrombotic event rates were compared. Poisson regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted adverse event rates. A total of 545 patients met inclusion criteria. In the unadjusted analysis, there was an increase in non-major bleeding events requiring an Emergency Department visit more often in the low versus normal weight cohort (10.8 versus 7.4 per 100 patient-years, p = 0.15). Thrombotic event rates also occurred more often in the lower versus normal weight cohort (2.4 versus 0.9 per 100 patient-years, p = 0.09). However, adjusted analysis found no statistically significant difference in bleeding or thrombotic events between low and normal weight cohorts. The adjusted hazard ratio for bleeding was similar between the two weight cohorts. The use of apixaban in low body weight patients was not associated with higher rates of bleeding or thrombotic events, compared to those with normal body weight, after adjusting for potential confounding covariates. Larger studies may offer further insight into the overall safety and efficacy of DOAC therapy in these patients.

Length of Anticoagulation in Provoked Venous Thromboembolism: A Multicenter Study of How Real-World Practice Mirrors Guideline Recommendations.

Background For more than a decade, guidelines have recommended a limited 3 months of anticoagulation for the treatment of provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). How closely real-world practice follows guideline recommendations is not well described. Methods and Results In our multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated trends in anticoagulation duration for patients enrolled in the MAQI2 (Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative) registry who were receiving anticoagulation for a provoked VTE. The MAQI2 registry comprises 6 centers in Michigan that manage patients' long-term anticoagulation. We identified 474 patients on warfarin and 302 patients on direct oral anticoagulants who were receiving anticoagulation for a primary indication of provoked VTE between 2008 and 2020. Using a predefined threshold of 120 days (3 months plus a buffer period), predictors of extended anticoagulant use were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Most patients received >120 days of anticoagulation, regardless of which medication was used. The median (25th-75th percentile) length of treatment for patients taking warfarin was 142 (91-234) days and for direct oral anticoagulants was 180 (101-360) days. Recurrent VTE (odds ratio [OR], 2.75 [95% CI, 1.67-4.53]), history of myocardial infarction (OR, 3.92 [95% CI, 1.32-11.7]), and direct oral anticoagulant rather than warfarin use (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.59-3.08]) were independently associated with prolonged anticoagulation. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with provoked VTE, most patients received anticoagulation for longer than the guideline-recommended 3 months. This demonstrates a potential opportunity to improve care delivery and reduce anticoagulant-associated bleeding risk.

Eligibility for Posthospitalization Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35-day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results Using a 35-hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID-19 (MI-COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus-related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%-39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all-cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI-COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Assessment of an Intervention to Reduce Aspirin Prescribing for Patients Receiving Warfarin for Anticoagulation.

Importance: For some patients receiving warfarin, adding aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) increases bleeding risk with unclear treatment benefit. Reducing excess aspirin use could be associated with improved clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess changes in aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombosis event rates among patients treated with warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post observational quality improvement study was conducted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, at a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan among 6738 adults taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without an apparent indication for concomitant aspirin. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 26, 2020, to June 14, 2021. Intervention: Primary care professionals for patients taking aspirin were asked whether an ongoing combination aspirin and warfarin treatment was indicated. If not, then aspirin was discontinued with the approval of the managing clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were assessed before and after intervention for the primary analysis and before and after 24 months before the intervention (when rates of aspirin use first began to decrease) for the secondary analysis. Outcomes included the rate of aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombotic outcomes. An interrupted time series analysis assessed cumulative monthly event rates over time. Results: A total of 6738 patients treated with warfarin (3160 men [46.9%]; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [16.2] years) were followed up for a median of 6.7 months (IQR, 3.2-19.3 months). Aspirin use decreased slightly from a baseline mean use of 29.4% (95% CI, 28.9%-29.9%) to 27.1% (95% CI, 26.1%-28.0%) during the 24 months before the intervention (P < .001 for slope before and after 24 months before the intervention) with an accelerated decrease after the intervention (mean aspirin use, 15.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-16.8%; P = .001 for slope before and after intervention). In the primary analysis, the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in major bleeding events per month (preintervention, 0.31%; 95% CI, 0.27%-0.34%; postintervention, 0.21%; 95% CI, 0.14%-0.28%; P = .03 for difference in slope before and after intervention). No change was observed in mean percentage of patients having a thrombotic event from before to after the intervention (0.21% vs 0.24%; P = .34 for difference in slope). In the secondary analysis, reducing aspirin use (starting 24 months before the intervention) was associated with decreases in mean percentage of patients having any bleeding event (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = .02 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), mean percentage of patients having a major bleeding event (0.31% vs 0.25%; P = .001 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), and mean percentage of patients with an emergency department visit for bleeding (0.99% vs 0.67%; P = .04 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), with no change in mean percentage of patients with a thrombotic event (0.20% vs 0.23%; P = .36 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement intervention was associated with an acceleration of a preexisting decrease in aspirin use among patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a clear indication for aspirin therapy. Reductions in aspirin use were associated with reduced bleeding. This study suggests that an anticoagulation clinic-based aspirin deimplementation intervention can improve guideline-concordant aspirin use.

Outcomes in patients undergoing periprocedural interruption of warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinical outcomes following a temporary interruption of warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for a surgical procedure are not well described. Differences in patient characteristics from practice-based cohorts have not typically been accounted for in prior analyses. AIM: To describe risk-adjusted differences in postoperative outcomes following an interruption of warfarin vs DOACs. METHODS: Patients receiving care at six anticoagulation clinics participating in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative were included if they had at least one oral anticoagulant interruption for a procedure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline differences between the warfarin cohort and DOAC cohort. Bleeding and thromboembolic events within 30 days following the procedure were compared between the IPTW cohorts using the Poisson distribution test. RESULTS: A total of 525 DOAC patients were matched with 1323 warfarin patients, of which 923 were nonbridged warfarin patients and 400 were bridged warfarin patients. The occurrence of postoperative minor bleeding (10.8% vs. 4.7%, p < .001), major bleeding (2.9% vs. 1.1%, p = .01) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (6.5% vs. 3.0%, p = .002) was greater in the DOAC cohort compared with the nonbridged warfarin cohort. The rates of postoperative bleeding outcomes were similar between the DOAC and the bridged warfarin cohorts. CONCLUSION: Perioperative interruption of DOACs, compared with warfarin without bridging, is associated with a higher incidence of 30-day minor bleeds, major bleeds, and CRNMBs. Further research investigating the perioperative outcomes of these two classes of anticoagulants is warranted.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Changing the paradigm in the care for acute pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged as a multidisciplinary, multispecialty team of experts in the care of highly complex symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a centralized unique activation process, providing rapid multimodality assessment and risk stratification, formulating the best individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, streamlining the care in challenging clinical case scenarios (e.g., intermediate-high risk and high-risk PE), and facilitating the implementation of the recommended therapeutic strategies on time. PERTs are currently changing how complex acute PE cases are approached. The structure, organization, and function of a given PERT may vary from hospital to hospital, depending on local expertise, specific resources, and infrastructure for a given academic hospital center. Current emerging data demonstrate the value of PERTs in improving time to PE diagnosis; shorter time to initiation of anticoagulation reducing hospital length of stay; increasing use of advanced therapies without an increase in bleeding; and in some reports, decreasing mortality. Importantly, PERTs are positively impacting outcomes by changing the paradigm of care for acute PE through global adoption by the health-care community.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.

Predicting major bleeding during extended anticoagulation for unprovoked or weakly provoked venous thromboembolism.

No clinical prediction model has been specifically developed or validated to identify patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) who are at high risk of major bleeding during extended anticoagulation. In a prospective multinational cohort study of patients with unprovoked VTE receiving extended anticoagulation after completing ≥3 months of initial treatment, we derived a new clinical prediction model using a multivariable Cox regression model based on 22 prespecified candidate predictors for the primary outcome of major bleeding. This model was then compared with modified versions of 5 existing clinical scores. A total of 118 major bleeding events occurred in 2516 patients (annual risk, 1.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.1). The incidences of major bleeding events per 100 person-years in high-risk and non-high-risk patients, respectively, were 3.9 (95% CI, 3.0-5.1) and 1.1 (0.8-1.4) using the newly derived creatinine, hemoglobin, age, and use of antiplatelet agent (CHAP) model; 3.3 (2.6-4.1) and 1.0 (0.7-1.3) using modified ACCP score, 5.3 (0.6-19.2) and 1.7 (1.4-2.0) using modified RIETE score, 3.1 (2.3-3.9) and 1.1 (0.9-1.5) using modified VTE-BLEED score, 5.2 (3.3-7.8) and 1.5 (1.2-1.8) using modified HAS-BLED score, and 4.8 (1.3-12.4) and 1.7 (1.4-2.0) using modified outpatient bleeding index score. Modified versions of the ACCP, VTE-BLEED, and HAS-BLED scores help identify patients with unprovoked VTE who are at high risk of major bleeding and should be considered for discontinuation of anticoagulation after 3 to 6 months of initial treatment. The CHAP model may further improve estimation of bleeding risk by using continuous predictor variables, but external validation is required before its implementation in clinical practice.

Thromboembolic prevention and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: updated clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Thromboembolism is a common and deadly consequence of COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients. Based on clinical evidence pre-dating the COVID-19 pandemic and early observational reports, expert consensus and guidance documents have strongly encouraged the use of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection. More recently, multiple clinical trials and larger observational studies have provided evidence for tailoring the approach to thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19. This document provides updated guidance for the use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19 from the Anticoagulation Forum, the leading North American organization of anticoagulation providers. We discuss ambulatory, in-hospital, and post-hospital thromboprophylaxis strategies as well as provide guidance for patients with thrombotic conditions who are considering COVID-19 vaccination.