Arterial Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Short Review and Meta-Analysis.

It is well established that the risk of venous thromboembolism is high in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). The frequency of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is unclear, as is the magnitude of these events in comparison with other infections. We searched MEDLINE from February 2020 to February 2022 for prospective or retrospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that reported the number of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute ischemic stroke (AIS), acute limb ischemia (ALI), or other ATE as defined by the original authors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The pooled frequencies were calculated through meta-analysis using random effects model with logit transformation and presented with relative 95% prediction intervals (95% PI). We retrieved a total of 4,547 studies, 36 of which (28 retrospective cohorts, five prospective cohorts and three randomized trials) were finally included in our analysis. The resulting cohort counted 100,949 patients, 2,641 (2.6%) of whom experienced ATE. The pooled ATE frequency was 2.0% (95% PI, 0.4-9.6%). The pooled ATE frequency for AMI, AIS, ALI, and other ATE was 0.8% (95% PI, 0.1-8.1%), 0.9% (95% PI, 0.3-2.9%), 0.2% (95% PI, 0.0-4.2%), and 0.5% (95% PI, 0.1-3.0%), respectively. In comparison with the ATE incidence reported in three studies on non-COVID viral pneumonia, we did not detect a significant difference from the results in our analysis. In conclusion, we found a non-negligible proportion of ATE in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Our results are similar to those found in hospitalized patients with influenza or with non-COVID viral pneumonia.

Unanswered questions in cancer-associated thrombosis.

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Treatment of cancer-associated VTE comes with a heightened risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding that differs by choice of anticoagulant as well as by patient- and disease-specific risk factors. Available data from randomized controlled trials and observational studies in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants are effective, continuing anticoagulation beyond six months is indicated in those with active cancer and that patients who develop 'breakthrough' thrombotic events can be effectively treated. We review the evidence that addresses these key clinical questions and offer pragmatic approaches in individualizing care. While significant investigative efforts over the past decade have made impactful advances, future research is needed to better define the factors that contribute to anticoagulant-related bleeding and VTE recurrence, in order to aid clinical decision-making that improves the care of patients with cancer-associated VTE.

Direct oral anticoagulant plasma levels in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with dexamethasone.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not recommended in COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone because of potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions affecting anticoagulant concentration and activity. To evaluate short- and long-term pharmacokinetic interactions, serial through and peak DOAC plasma levels were prospectively measured during and after dexamethasone therapy, as well as during the acute phase and after recovery from COVID-19 in hospitalized, non-critically ill patients undergoing treatment with DOACs. Thirty-three (18 males, mean age 79 years) consecutive patients received DOACs (17 apixaban, 12 rivaroxaban, 4 edoxaban) for atrial fibrillation (n = 22), venous thromboembolism (n = 10), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1). Twenty-six patients also received dexamethasone at a dose of 6 mg once daily for a median of 14 days. Trough DOAC levels on dexamethasone were within and below expected reference ranges respectively in 87.5 and 8.3% of patients, with no statistically significant differences at 48-72 h and 14-21 days after dexamethasone discontinuation. Peak DOAC levels on dexamethasone were within expected reference ranges in 58.3% of patients, and below ranges in 33.3%, of whom over two thirds had low values also off dexamethasone. No significant differences in DOAC levels were found during hospitalization and after resolution of COVID-19. Overall, 28 patients were discharged alive, and none experienced thrombotic or bleeding events. In this study, dexamethasone administration or acute COVID-19 seemed not to affect DOAC levels in hospitalized, non-critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Risk Assessment Models for Thrombosis and Anticoagulant-Related Bleeding in Ambulatory Cancer Patients.

Cancer patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis, along with an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding with primary and secondary prophylaxis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Decisions on initiation, dosing, and duration of anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis are challenging, as clinicians have to balance patients' individual risk of (recurrent) thrombosis against the risk of bleeding complications. For this purpose, several dedicated risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients have been suggested. However, most of these scores perform poorly and have received limited to no validation. For bleeding and arterial thrombosis, no risk scores have been developed specifically for cancer patients, and treatment decisions remain based on clinical gestalt and rough and unstructured estimation of the risks. The aims of this review are to summarize the characteristics and performance of risk assessment scores for (recurrent) venous thromboembolism and discuss available data on risk assessment for bleeding and arterial thrombosis in the cancer population. This summary can help clinicians in daily practice to make a balanced decision when considering the use of risk assessment models for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Future research attempts should aim at improving risk assessment for arterial thrombosis and anticoagulant-related bleeding in cancer patients.

Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the third update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or an active control intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 3 August 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and contacted content experts and trialists for relevant references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on risk of bias, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six additional randomised controlled trials (3326 participants) for this update, bringing the included study total to 32 (15,678 participants), all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban) may decrease the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.06; 3 studies, 1526 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably increases the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.68; 3 studies, 1494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83; 11 studies, 3931 participants; high-certainty evidence); and probably increased the risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.35; 15 studies, 7282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH resulted in lower symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; 1 study, 439 participants; high-certainty evidence), while LMWH probably lowers symptomatic VTE more than aspirin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 781 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants with multiple myeloma treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis, but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, warfarin may importantly reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20; 1 study, 311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in major bleeding (RR 3.82, 95% CI 0.97 to 15.04; 4 studies, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study evaluated antithrombin versus no antithrombin in children. This study did not report on symptomatic VTE but did report any VTE (symptomatic and incidental VTE). The effect of antithrombin on any VTE and major bleeding is uncertain (any VTE: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.73; major bleeding: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03 to 18.57; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory cancer patients, primary thromboprophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE (low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. LMWH decreases the incidence of symptomatic VTE (high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. Evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants other than direct factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH is limited. More studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary prophylaxis in specific types of chemotherapeutic agents and types of cancer, such as gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95%CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95%CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95%CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95%CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group.

Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients.

The long-term performance of prediction scores for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients has been poorly investigated. We evaluated the discriminatory performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores for the first 3-6 months and for 12 months, and re-assessed scores after 3-6 months to determine the influence of variations in patients' risk classification on performance. Retrospective cohort of ambulatory patients with active cancer who were scheduled to receive first or new line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was symptomatic or incidental VTE. A total of 776 patients were included of whom 540 (70%) had distant metastases. The time-dependent c-statistics of Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores at 6 months were 0.61 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.66), 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.66), and 0.59 (0.52 to 0.66), respectively, with a tendency to decrease during follow-up. None of the scores discriminated between high and low risk patients at the conventional 3-point positivity threshold. The use of a 2-point positivity threshold improved performance of all scores and captured a higher proportion of VTE. The accuracy of risk scores re-assessed at 3-6 months was modest. The Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores are not sufficiently accurate when used at a conventional threshold of 3 points. Performance improves at positivity threshold of 2 points, as evaluated in recent randomized studies on VTE prophylaxis. Score accuracy tends to decrease over time suggesting the need of periodic re-evaluation to estimate possible variation of risk.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the second update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Group Specialised Register (June 2016). In addition, the Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5). Clinical trials registries were searched up to June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five additional randomised controlled trials (2491 participants) in the updated search, considering in this update 26 trials with a total of 12,352 participants, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. One large trial of 3212 participants found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau2 = 0.00%) with a non-statistically significant 44% higher risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.11). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a non-statistically significant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE or on major bleeding when compared with no antithrombin. The direct oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase II dose-finding study that suggested a low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.4%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 13.8%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this second update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin, which is not commercially available, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. The risk of major bleeding associated with LMWH, while not reaching statistical significance, suggest caution and mandate additional studies to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed. We need additional studies investigating targeted primary prophylaxis in people with specific types or stages of cancer associated with a higher risk of VTE.

Unmet needs and barriers in venous thromboembolism education and awareness among people living with cancer: a global survey.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality in subjects with cancer. A global appraisal of cancer-associated VTE education and awareness is not available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate VTE-related education, awareness, and unmet needs from the perspective of people living with cancer using a quantitative and qualitative approach. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from an online-based survey covering multidimensional domains of cancer-associated VTE. Data are presented descriptively. Potential differences across participant subgroups were explored. RESULTS: Among 2262 patients with cancer from 42 countries worldwide, 55.3% received no VTE education throughout their cancer journey, and an additional 8.2% received education at the time of VTE diagnosis only, leading to 63.5% receiving no or inappropriately delayed education. When education was delivered, only 67.8% received instructions to seek medical attention in case of VTE suspicion, and 36.9% reported scarce understanding. One-third of participants (32.4%) felt psychologically distressed when becoming aware of the potential risks and implications connected with cancer-associated VTE. Most responders (78.8%) deemed VTE awareness highly relevant, but almost half expressed concerns about the quality of education received. While overall consistent, findings in selected survey domains appeared to numerically differ across age group, ethnicity, continent of residence, educational level, metastatic status, and VTE history. CONCLUSION: This study involving a large and diverse population of individuals living with cancer identifies important unmet needs in VTE-related education, awareness, and support across healthcare systems globally. These findings unveil multilevel opportunities to expedite patient-centered care in cancer-associated VTE prevention and management.

Anticoagulant Management and Outcomes in Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Complicated by Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on anticoagulant management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) after spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively all cases diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for spontaneous ICH at our center during 15 years. Anticoagulation management outcomes were (1) timing after ICH of anticoagulant initiation for VTE treatment, (2) use of immediate therapeutic dosing or stepwise dose escalation, and (3) the proportion achieving therapeutic dose. Primary clinical effectiveness outcome was recurrent VTE. Primary safety outcome was expanding ICH. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 cases with VTE after 11 days (median; interquartile range [IQR]: 7-22) from the diagnosis of ICH. Forty patients (39%) achieved therapeutic anticoagulation 21.5 days (median; IQR: 14-34 days) from the ICH. Of those, 14 (35%; 14% of total) received immediately therapeutic dose and 26 (65%; 25% of total) had stepwise escalation. Anticoagulation was more aggressive in patients with VTE >14 days after admission versus those with earlier VTE diagnosis. Twenty-two patients (21%) experienced recurrent/progressive VTE-less frequently among patients with treatment escalation within 7 days or with no escalation than with escalation >7 days from the VTE. There were 19 deaths 6 days (median; IQR: 3.5-15) after the index VTE, with significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate among patients without escalation in anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Prompt therapeutic anticoagulation for acute VTE seems safe when occurring more than 14 days after spontaneous ICH. For VTE occurring earlier, it might also be safe with therapeutic anticoagulation, but stepwise dose escalation to therapeutic within a 7-day period might be preferable.

Drug-drug interactions between direct oral anticoagulants and anticonvulsants and clinical outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. However, DOACs have important potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with several classes of drugs. In particular, antiepileptic (AE) drugs may induce cytochrome P450 3A4 or P-glycoprotein. Co-administration of DOACs and AE drugs may result in lower DOAC drug levels and reduced DOAC efficacy. However, the clinical significance of such DDIs is uncertain. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to generate an updated review of these DDIs and their clinical relevance, given the rapidly evolving knowledge relating to DOAC and AE DDIs. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies reporting clinical adverse outcomes (thrombotic events, bleeding events, and all-cause mortality) in patients concomitantly taking DOACs and AE drugs. Results: We retrieved 874 studies of which 15 were deemed eligible for this review, including 4 congress abstracts, 3 case reports, 2 letters to the editor, 5 retrospective cohorts, and 1 prospective cohort study. No randomized clinical trials were found. Most of the included studies reported thrombotic events, 3 studies reported major bleeding, and one study reported all-cause mortality associated with DOAC and AE drug administration. Substantial differences in the study designs did not allow for a meta-analysis to be performed. Conclusion: The current literature assessing these adverse clinical outcomes from DOAC and AE drug co-administration is limited. Although the available data point to a possible increased risk of thrombotic events, they are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Well-designed clinical studies are of utmost importance.

Anamnestic frailty phenotype and adverse outcomes in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: Validation and comparative performance with frailty phenotype.

AIMS: The anamnestic frailty phenotype (AFP) is a quick, instrument-free tool derived from frailty phenotype (FP). We prospectively evaluated the discriminative capacity and prognostic value of AFP in ambulatory patients receiving DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE), and compared AFP performance with that of FP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), were estimated for bleeding, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated in frail versus non-frail patients. Of 236 patients (median age 78 years), 98 (42%) and 89 (38%) were classified as frail according to FP and AFP, respectively (Kappa= 0.76). Frailty, as assessed by AFP, was associated with higher risk of bleeding (RR 2.3; 95%CI, 1.2 to 4.6), and mortality (RR 4.4; 95%CI, 1.3 to 19.7). Similarly, to FP, AFP exhibited modest sensitivity and specificity, but high NPV that was 91% (95%CI, 85 to 95) for bleeding, 98% (95%CI, 94 to 100) for thromboembolism, and 98% (95%CI, 94 to 100) for mortality. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving DOACs for AF or VTE, AFP was associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. AFP exhibited modest sensitivity and specificity, but excellent NPV. If confirmed, these findings suggest that AFP may represent a rapid, easy-to-use and unexpensive tool that may potentially help identify patients at lower risk for adverse outcomes and tailor anticoagulation management.

Age- versus clinical pretest probability-adjusted D-dimer to rule out lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis in ambulatory patients with active cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), D-dimer thresholds adjusted to age or clinical pretest probability (CPTP) increase the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be safely excluded compared to a standard approach using a fixed D-dimer threshold. Performance of these diagnostic strategies among cancer patients is uncertain. AIM: To compare the performance of age- and CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approaches among cancer outpatients with clinically suspected DVT, and derive a cancer-specific CPTP rule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory patients with active cancer and clinically suspected DVT of the lower extremity underwent CPTP assessment using the Wells rule, D-dimer testing, and whole-leg compression ultrasonography. Patients with normal ultrasonography were followed-up for 3 months for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Upon referral, DVT was diagnosed in 48 of 239 (20.1 %) patients. The age-adjusted approach showed higher specificity and efficiency than the standard approach. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted strategies, the CPTP-adjusted approach had 35 % and 21 % higher specificity, and 34 % and 21 % higher efficiency, respectively. Failure rate, sensitivity, and predictive values were similar across strategies. A simplified CPTP score derived from the Wells rule reduced unnecessary imaging with similar accuracy and efficiency, but higher failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of ambulatory cancer patients with clinically suspected DVT, the CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approach held the highest specificity and efficiency, potentially safely reducing unnecessary ultrasonography examinations compared to other approaches. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the use of a simplified clinical prediction rule in this setting.

Prognostic role of different findings at echocardiography in acute pulmonary embolism: a critical review and meta-analysis.

Background: Right ventricle dysfunction (RVD) at echocardiography predicts mortality in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but heterogeneous definitions of RVD have been used. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the role of different definitions of RVD and of individual parameters of RVD as predictors of death. Methods: A systematic search for studies including patients with confirmed PE reporting on right ventricle (RV) assessment at echocardiography and death in the acute phase was performed. The primary study outcome was death in-hospital or at 30 days. Results: RVD at echocardiography, regardless of its definition, was associated with increased risk of death (risk ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.24-1.79, I2=64%) and PE-related death (risk ratio 3.77, 95% CI 1.61-8.80, I2=0%) in all-comers with PE, and with death in haemodynamically stable patients (risk ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.15-2.00, I2=73%). The association with death was confirmed for RVD defined as the presence of at least one criterion or at least two criteria for RV overload. In all-comers with PE, increased RV/left ventricle (LV) ratio (risk ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.90-2.39) and abnormal tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (risk ratio 2.29 CI 1.45-3.59) but not increased RV diameter were associated with death; in haemodynamically stable patients, neither RV/LV ratio (risk ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.91-1.35) nor TAPSE (risk ratio 2.29, 95% CI 0.97-5.44) were significantly associated with death. Conclusion: Echocardiography showing RVD is a useful tool for risk stratification in all-comers with acute PE and in haemodynamically stable patients. The prognostic value of individual parameters of RVD in haemodynamically stable patients remains controversial.

Antithrombotic treatment for retinal vein occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) represents a common thrombotic disorder. OBJECTIVES: In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in RVO. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to December 2021 for observational studies and randomized controlled trials including patients with RVO. Efficacy outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity improvement, recurrent RVO, fluorescein angiography improvement, cardiovascular events, and safety outcomes were major bleeding and intraocular bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1422 patients (15 studies) were included. Antiplatelet therapy was administered to 477 patients (13 studies), anticoagulant therapy to 312 patients (12 studies), and 609 (7 studies) patients received no antithrombotic treatment. The treatment duration ranged between 0.5 and 3 months. The median follow-up duration was 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was reported in 58% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%-69%) overall, 64% (95% CI, 58%-71%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 33% (95% CI, 21%-47%) in those on antiplatelet therapy. The rates of recurrent RVO was 11% (95% CI, 7%-17%), 7% (95% CI, 2%-19%), and 15% (95% CI, 8%-28%), respectively. The rate of recurrent RVO in untreated patients was 9% (95% CI, 6%-14%). The rate of major bleeding was 5% (95% CI, 3%-9%) overall, 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 7% (95% CI, 2%-23%) in those on antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy was associated with higher visual acuity improvement and fewer recurrent RVO events than antiplatelet therapy, at the cost of an acceptable proportion of bleeding complications.

Clinical course and treatment of incidentally detected splanchnic vein thrombosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance and management of incidental splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) remain poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical course of incidental SVT in comparison with symptomatic SVT and assess the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment in incidental SVT. METHODS: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials or prospective studies published up to June 2021. Efficacy outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Incidence rate ratios and 95% CIs for incidental vs symptomatic SVT were estimated before and after propensity-score matching. Multivariable Cox models were used considering anticoagulant treatment as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: In total, 493 patients with incidental SVT and 493 propensity-matched patients with symptomatic SVT were analyzed. Patients with incidental SVT were less likely to receive anticoagulant treatment (72.4% vs 83.6%). Incidence rate ratios (95% CI) for major bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause mortality in patients with incidental SVT compared with symptomatic SVT were 1.3 (0.8, 2.2), 2.0 (1.2, 3.3), and 0.5 (0.4, 0.7), respectively. In patients with incidental SVT, anticoagulant therapy was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.71), recurrent VTE (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.35). CONCLUSION: Patients with incidental SVT appeared to have a similar risk of major bleeding, a higher risk of recurrent thrombosis, but lower all-cause mortality than patients with symptomatic SVT. Anticoagulant therapy seemed safe and effective in patients with incidental SVT.

Carbamazepine, phenytoin, and oral anticoagulants: Drug-drug interaction and clinical events in a retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine and phenytoin are potent inducers of enzymes that metabolize oral anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical impact of drug-drug interactions between these anticonvulsants and oral anticoagulants, and whether they affect the treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data on patients cotreated with carbamazepine or phenytoin and an oral anticoagulant were retrospectively retrieved from medical records from 2011 to 2020. Outcomes were time in therapeutic range (TTR), DOAC levels, thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 85 patients (37% female, median age 68 years) treated with carbamazepine (n = 43 [51%]) or phenytoin (n = 42 [49%]), 53 (62%) were initially treated with VKAs and 32 (38%) with DOACs. TTR in VKA patients was 63%, which improved in year 2. Four of seven trough and five of 12 peak DOAC plasma levels were lower than expected. The incidence rate (95% confidence interval) per 100 person-years for thromboembolism was 3.6 (3.1-4.2) for VKA patients and 4.4 (3.5-5.6) for DOAC patients; for major bleeding 1.8 (1.5-2.1) and 1.5 (1.2-1.9), and for all-cause mortality 3.6 (3.1-4.2) and 1.5 (1.2-1.9), respectively. Incidence rates between VKAs and DOACs and between carbamazepine and phenytoin were similar. CONCLUSION: There was a high incidence of thromboembolism in patients cotreated with anticoagulants and carbamazepine or phenytoin. The incidence rates of thrombotic and bleeding events were similar between VKA and DOAC patients. DOAC levels were lower than expected in 47% of cases tested, without correlation with clinical outcomes.

Extended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that may persist beyond the currently recommended period of 6 to 14 days of thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of extended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. The efficacy outcome was a composite of asymptomatic or symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related death. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Summary risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials enrolling 33718 patients were included. Of 4330 (12.8%) patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, 2152 (49.7%) received extended thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks with betrixaban (n = 405, 18.8%), enoxaparin (n = 198, 9.2%), or rivaroxaban (n = 1549, 72.0%), and 2178 (50.3%) received standard venous thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin. VTE risk was lower in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving extended thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.04; 13 fewer per 1000), whereas the increase in major bleeding seemed trivial when compared with standard prophylaxis (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.31 to 3.95; 1 more per 1000). CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, the net clinical benefit may favor extended venous thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks over standard thromboprophylaxis.

Frailty phenotype as a predictor of bleeding and mortality in ambulatory patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Limited prospective data exist about the clinical relevance of frailty in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether frailty phenotype identifies DOAC-treated patients at higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive, adult outpatients treated with DOACs for AF or VTE were prospectively enrolled. Patients were classified as frail, pre-frail, or non-frail according to frailty phenotype. Study outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, including major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding, arterial and venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: 236 patients (median age 78 years, 44% females) were included, of whom 156 (66%) had AF and 80 (34%) VTE. Ninety-eight (41%) patients were frail, 115 (49%) pre-frail, and 23 (10%) non-frail. Inappropriately high or low dose DOAC was used in 33% of frail and in 20% of non-frail or pre-frail patients. Over a median follow-up of 304 days, the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolism, and mortality were 20%, 4%, 9% in frail, and 10%, 3%, and 2% in pre-frail, respectively, while no study outcome occurred among non-frail patients. Risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) for these outcomes in frail versus pre-frail and non-frail patients were respectively 2.5 (1.8, 3.7), 1.9 (0.9, 4.0), and 6.3 (2.9, 13.6). CONCLUSION: In a prospective cohort of ambulatory patients receiving DOAC treatment for AF or VTE, frailty phenotype identified patients at higher risk of bleeding and all-cause mortality. Frailty assessment could be valuable to guide targeted interventions potentially improving patient prognosis.