Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implementation strategies.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis implementation strategies are well-studied in some hospitalized medical and surgical patients. Although VTE is associated with substantial mortality and morbidity in trauma patients, implementation strategies for the prevention of VTE in trauma appear to be based on limited evidence. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature on active implementation strategies for VTE prophylaxis administration in hospitalized trauma patients and the impact on VTE events. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in adult hospitalized trauma patients to assess if active VTE prevention implementation strategies change the proportion of patients who received VTE prophylaxis, VTE events, and adverse effects such as bleeding or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia as well as hospital length of stay and the cost of care. An academic medical librarian searched Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until December 2022. Results: Four studies with a total of 1723 patients in the active implementation strategy group (strategies included education, reminders, human and computer alerts, audit and feedback, preprinted orders, and/or root cause analysis) and 1324 in the no active implementation strategy group (guideline creation and dissemination) were included in the analysis. A higher proportion of patients received VTE prophylaxis with an active implementation strategy (OR=2.94, 95% CI (1.68 to 5.15), p<0.01). No significant difference was found in VTE events. Quality was deemed to be low due to bias and inconsistency of studies. Conclusions: Active implementation strategies appeared to improve the proportion of major trauma patients who received VTE prophylaxis. Further implementation studies are needed in trauma to determine effective, sustainable strategies for VTE prevention and to assess secondary outcomes such as bleeding and costs. Level of evidence: Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023390538.

Apixaban for extended postoperative thromboprophylaxis in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolic events represent the second most frequent cause of mortality in cancer patients. Recent literature shows that direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are at least as effective and safe as low molecular weight heparin for postoperative thromboprophylaxis. However, this practice has not been broadly adopted in gynecologic oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban for extended thromboprophylaxis in comparison to enoxaparin after laparotomies for gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: The Gynecologic Oncology Division at a large tertiary center transitioned from enoxaparin 40 mg daily to apixaban 2.5 mg BID for 28 days after laparotomies for gynecologic malignancies in November 2020. This real-world study compared patients post-transition (November 2020 to July 2021 (n = 112)) to a historical cohort (January to November 2020 (n = 144)), using the institutional National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. All Canadian gynecologic oncology centers were surveyed to assess postoperative DOAC utilization. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between groups. No difference was found between total venous thromboembolism rates (4% vs. 3%, p = 0.49). No difference was found in postoperative readmission (5% vs. 6%, p = 0.50). Of the 7 readmissions in the enoxaparin group, one was due to bleeding requiring transfusion; there were no readmissions for bleeding in the apixaban group. No patient required a reoperation for bleeding. Thirteen percent of the 20 Canadian centers have transitioned to extended apixaban thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban for 28-day postoperative thromboprophylaxis was found to be an effective and safe alternative to enoxaparin after laparotomies in a real-world cohort of gynecologic oncology patients.

Implementation science approaches to optimizing venous thromboembolism prevention in patients with traumatic injuries: Findings from the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma.

ABSTRACT: Disease burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE) without pharmacologic prophylaxis is high in trauma patients. Although VTE prophylaxis guidelines exist, studies on real-world use of VTE prophylaxis in trauma shows limited uptake of guideline recommendations. Despite existing guidelines, reports indicate that VTE prophylaxis implementation across trauma centers is lagging. Implementation barriers of VTE prophylaxis in trauma are multifactorial, and VTE prescribing practices require further optimization. Implementation science methods can help standardize and improve care; well-established approaches in medical and surgical hospitalized patients and their effects on clinical outcomes such as VTE and bleeding complications must be investigated because they apply to trauma patients. Nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis medications in hospitalized patients is associated with VTE events and remains a barrier to providing optimal defect-free care. Further investigations are required for VTE prophylaxis implementation across all trauma populations.

The association between anticoagulation and adverse outcomes after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among older outpatients: A population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation may improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 when started early in the course of illness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets of outpatients aged ≥65 years old testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1 and December 31, 2020 in Ontario, Canada. The key exposure was anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants before COVID-19 diagnosis. We calculated propensity scores and used matching weights (MWs) to reduce baseline differences between anticoagulated and non-anticoagulated patients. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization within 60 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and cumulative incidence functions to estimate risk of the primary and component outcomes at 60 days. RESULTS: We studied 23,159 outpatients (mean age 78.5 years; 13,474 [58.2%] female), among whom 3200 (13.8%) deaths and 3183 (13.7%) hospitalizations occurred within 60 days of the SARS-CoV-2 test. After application of MWs, the 60-day risk of death or hospitalization was 29.2% (95% CI 27.4%-31.2%) for anticoagulated individuals and 32.1% (95% CI 30.7%-33.5%) without anticoagulation (absolute risk difference [ARD], -2.9%; p = 0.005). Anticoagulation was also associated with a lower risk of death: 18.6% (95% CI 17.0%-20.2%) with anticoagulation and 20.9% (95% CI 19.7%-22.2%) in non-anticoagulated patients (ARD -2.3%; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients aged ≥65 years, oral anticoagulation at the time of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was associated with a lower risk of a composite of death or hospitalization within 60 days.

The clot thickens-enhanced integration of stroke and thrombosis training.

There is significant overlap between knowledge and its clinical application in stroke and thrombosis & vascular medicine. Formal integration of training is, however, not standard. After the hyperacute phase of management, personalized medical decisions are often needed regarding antithrombotics and anticoagulants that leverage clinical practice parameters from both disciplines with a unique emphasis on minimizing neurologic treatment complications. We completed an ad hoc survey of adult thrombosis fellowships at several North American centers. We discovered that direct integration of training programs is not prevalent, suggesting a role for more deliberate integration of training programs. We provide a framework and resources for consideration that directly improve, by design, integrated clinical experiences during training, harnessing the strengths in both stroke and thrombosis programs.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

Initiation of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation by primary care physicians: Results of a telephone survey.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed for over 80% of patients who start anticoagulant therapy for a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). Inappropriate DOAC prescriptions are associated with increased mortality. However, limited data exist as to what proportion of primary care physicians (PCPs) initiate anticoagulation in patients with new AF and the extent of their DOAC knowledge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected PCPs in Ontario, Canada. Our primary objective was to determine the percentage of PCPs who initiate anticoagulation in new AF patients and the proportion of patients they initiate on DOACs. Our secondary objectives were to assess PCPs' knowledge about DOACs and to identify educational opportunities to address any knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Our survey included 50 respondents. After making a new AF diagnosis, 66% of PCPs stated that they usually initiate anticoagulation themselves and 84% prescribed a DOAC at least 75% of the time. Potential DOAC knowledge gaps included: administration considerations, off-label dosing, concomitant use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and use in valvular AF. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs initiate anticoagulants for AF and prescribe DOACs for the vast majority of new patients. PCPs were well versed in certain aspects of DOAC prescribing, however, a number of knowledge gaps were identified. PCPs may benefit from targeted education in these areas to improve patient outcomes in AF.

Effectiveness of interventions for the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients at risk of venous thromboembolism: an updated abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalised medical and surgical patients at risk of VTE. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, DARE, EED, LILACS and clinicaltrials.gov without language restrictions from inception to 7 January 2017, as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of system-wide interventions such as alerts, multifaceted, education, and preprinted orders when compared with no intervention, existing policy or another intervention. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs involving 35 997 participants. Eleven RCTs had data available for meta-analysis. Compared with control, we found absolute increase in the prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (21% increase, 95% CI [15% to 275%]) and multifaceted interventions (4% increase, 95% CI [3% to 11%]), absolute increase in the prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts (16% increase, 95% CI [12% to 20%]) and relative risk reductions (risk ratio 64%, 95% CI [47% to 86%]) in the incidence of symptomatic VTE associated with alerts. Computer alerts were found to be more effective than human alerts, and multifaceted interventions with an alert component appeared to be more effective than multifaceted interventions without, although comparative pooled analyses were not feasible. The quality of evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be low to moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Alerts increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis, and decreased the incidence of symptomatic VTE. Multifaceted interventions increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis but were found to be less effective than alerts interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CD008201.

Anticoagulant prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism following severe traumatic brain injury: A prospective observational study and systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), however, anticoagulant prophylaxis remains controversial due to concerns of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) progression. We examined anticoagulant prophylaxis practice patterns at a major trauma centre and determined risk estimates for VTE and ICH progression classified by timing of anticoagulant initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 1-year prospective analysis of consecutive patients with severe TBI admitted to a Level-I trauma centre was conducted. In addition, we systematically reviewed the literature to identify studies on VTE and anticoagulant prophylaxis after severe TBI. RESULTS: 64 severe TBI patients were included. 83% of patients received anticoagulant prophylaxis, initiated ≥3d post-TBI in 67%. The in-hospital VTE incidence was 16% and there was no significant difference between patients who received early (<3d) versus late (≥3d) prophylaxis (10% vs. 16%). Rates of ICH progression (0% vs. 7%) were similar between groups. Our systematic review identified 5 studies with VTE rates ranging from 5 to 10% with prophylaxis, to 11-30% without prophylaxis. The effect of timing of anticoagulant prophylaxis initiation on ICH progression was not reported in any study. CONCLUSION: VTE is a common complication after severe TBI. Anticoagulant prophylaxis is often started late (≥3d) post-injury. Randomized trials are justifiable and necessary to provide practice guidance with regards to optimal timing of anticoagulant prophylaxis.

Low-molecular-weight heparin venous thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction: A subgroup analysis of the PROTECT trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial. METHODS: We studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression. RESULTS: In patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone.

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective, and cost-effective, thromboprophylaxis remains underused or inappropriately used. Our previous review suggested that system-wide interventions, such as education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions were more effective at improving the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis than relying on individual providers' behaviors. However, 47 of the 55 included studies in our previous review were observational in design. Thus, an update to our systematic review, focused on the higher level of evidence of RCTs only, was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of VTE in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE, focusing on RCTs only. SEARCH METHODS: Our research librarian conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE Ovid, and subsequently translated it to CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Ovid, BIOSIS Previews Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; in the Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED; in the Cochrane Library), LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 7 January 2017. We also screened reference lists of relevant review articles. We identified 12,920 potentially relevant records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all types of RCTs, with random or quasi-random methods of allocation of interventions, which either randomized individuals (e.g. parallel group, cross-over, or factorial design RCTs), or groups of individuals (cluster RCTs (CRTs)), which aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis, or decrease the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded observational studies, studies in which the intervention was simply distribution of published guidelines, and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. Studies could be in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on the following outcomes: the number of participants who received prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis (as defined by study authors), the occurrence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic), mortality, and safety outcomes, such as bleeding. We categorized the interventions into alerts (computer or human alerts), multifaceted interventions (combination of interventions that could include an alert component), educational interventions (e.g. grand rounds, courses), and preprinted orders (written predefined orders completed by the physician on paper or electronically). We meta-analyzed data across RCTs using a random-effects model. For CRTs, we pooled effect estimates (risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for clustering, when possible. We pooled results if three or more trials were available for a particular intervention. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: From the 12,920 records identified by our search, we included 13 RCTs (N = 35,997 participants) in our qualitative analysis and 11 RCTs (N = 33,207 participants) in our meta-analyses. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (RD 21%, 95% CI 15% to 27%; three studies; 5057 participants; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). The substantial statistical heterogeneity may be in part explained by patient types, type of hospital, and type of alert. Subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis.Multifaceted interventions were associated with a small increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (cluster-adjusted RD 4%, 95% CI 2% to 6%; five studies; 9198 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted interventions with an alert component were found to be more effective than multifaceted interventions that did not include an alert, although there were not enough studies to conduct a pooled analysis. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received appropriate prophylaxis (RD 16%, 95% CI 12% to 20%; three studies; 1820 participants; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). Alerts were also associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE at three months (RR 64%, 95% CI 47% to 86%; three studies; 5353 participants; I² = 15%; low-certainty evidence). Computer alerts were associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed RCTs that implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed at improving thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. We found increased prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and increased prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts. While multifaceted interventions were found to be less effective than alerts, a multifaceted intervention with an alert was more effective than one without an alert. Alerts, particularly computer alerts, were associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE at three months, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.Our analysis was underpowered to assess the effect on mortality and safety outcomes, such as bleeding.The incomplete reporting of relevant study design features did not allow complete assessment of the certainty of the evidence. However, the certainty of the evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be better than for our previous review (low- to moderate-certainty evidence, compared to very low-certainty evidence for most outcomes). The results of our updated review will help physicians, hospital administrators, and policy makers make practical decisions about adopting specific system-wide measures to improve prescription of thromboprophylaxis, and ultimately prevent VTE in hospitalized patients.

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Neurosurgery.

: Although there are numerous publications addressing venous thromboembolism and its prevention in neurosurgery, there are relatively few high-quality studies to guide decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis. In patients undergoing craniotomy, we recommend that if intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is used, it should be applied before the surgical procedure or on admission (Grade 1C). In craniotomy patients at particularly high risk for venous thromboembolism, we suggest considering the initiation of mechanical thromboprophylaxis with IPC preoperatively with addition of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) postoperatively when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be decreased (Grade 2C). In patients with non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, we suggest thromboprophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C). For patients who have had non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage, we suggest giving consideration to commencement of LMWH or low-dose unfractionated heparin when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be low (Grade 2C). We suggest continuing thromboprophylaxis until full mobilisation of the patient (Grade 2C). For patients undergoing spinal surgery with no additional risk factors, we suggest no active thromboprophylaxis intervention apart from early mobilisation (Grade 2C). For patients undergoing spinal surgery with additional risk factors, we recommend starting mechanical thromboprophylaxis with IPC (Grade 1C), and we suggest the addition of LMWH postoperatively when the risk of bleeding is presumed to be decreased (Grade 2C).

Development and evaluation of a continuing pharmacy education (CPE) program in thrombosis management.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A continuing education (CE) course in thrombosis management for pharmacists was developed through the Office of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) at the University of Toronto to address pharmacists' needs for the knowledge and skills to provide care to patients receiving anticoagulants. This article describes the development of the course as well as the evaluation designed to assess its impact on pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and changes in practice. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A three-day course was developed. Outcomes were evaluated using a feedback questionnaire, pre- and post-session quizzes and semi-structured interviews conducted six months after course completion. Participant satisfaction, knowledge acquisition and perceived change in knowledge, skills and practice were evaluated. FINDINGS: Thirty-seven pharmacists enrolled in the program, 21 of whom participated in a semi-structured interview. More than 90% reported that the program exceeded their expectations. Pharmacists' knowledge in thrombosis care improved significantly after each day of the course. Participants felt the greatest benefits of the program were increases in knowledge and confidence and the opportunity to network. The case-based discussions and practical tips gained from experts and peers were highly ranked. Participants strongly agreed that they were applying what they learned in the course to clinical practice, and they provided numerous examples of how their practice changed because of the program. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY: The development of this CE course demonstrates application of best practices in continuing education. The evaluation of the program suggests that a CE course in thrombosis improves pharmacist knowledge, confidence and ability to incorporate what was learned into practice. This course design and evaluation can serve as a model for other CE courses for pharmacists as this field continues to grow and encourages thoughtful use of theoretical principles and well-designed evaluation for continual improvement of CE.

Inferior vena cava filter use and patient safety: legacy or science?

There has been a dramatic increase in vena cava filter (VCF) use over the past 20 years in the absence of evidence that filters provide a net patient benefit or are required in most cases. This increase is largely attributable to the availability of retrievable filters and expanded indications, particularly as primary prophylaxis in patients thought to be at high risk of pulmonary embolism. Substantial variability in VCF use, unrelated to patient clinical factors, has been shown between hospitals, from region to region, and among various countries. Despite the lack of direct evidence for the benefit of VCFs for any indication, it is appropriate to insert a retrievable VCF in patients with a recent proximal deep vein thrombosis and an absolute contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation and then to remove the filter once the bleeding risk decreases and the patient has been anticoagulated. Unfortunately, a high proportion of retrievable filters are not removed, even after the reason for their placement has long passed. Retrievable filters are associated with substantial rates of complications if they are not removed, including penetration of the vena caval wall, fracture and embolization of filter fragments, and caval occlusion. Patient safety priorities and medical-legal concerns mandate careful selection of patients for VCF placement and removal shortly after anticoagulation has been initiated.

Association Between Use of Antithrombotic Medication and Hematuria-Related Complications.

Importance: Antithrombotic medications are among the most commonly prescribed medications. Objective: To characterize rates of hematuria-related complications among patients taking antithrombotic medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based, retrospective cohort study including all citizens in Ontario, Canada, aged 66 years and older between 2002 and 2014. The final follow-up date was December 31, 2014. Exposures: Receipt of an oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hematuria-related complications, defined as emergency department visit, hospitalization, or a urologic procedure to investigate or manage gross hematuria. Results: Among 2 518 064 patients, 808 897 (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [6.8] years; 428 531 [53%] women) received at least 1 prescription for an antithrombotic agent over the study period. Over a median follow-up of 7.3 years, the rates of hematuria-related complications were 123.95 events per 1000 person-years among patients actively exposed to antithrombotic agents vs 80.17 events per 1000 person-years among patients not exposed to these drugs (difference, 43.8; 95% CI, 43.0-44.6; P < .001, and incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.42-1.46). The rates of complications among exposed vs unexposed patients (80.17 events/1000 person-years) were 105.78 for urologic procedures (difference, 33.5; 95% CI, 32.8-34.3; P < .001, and IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39), 11.12 for hospitalizations (difference, 5.7; 95% CI, 5.5-5.9; P < .001, and IRR, 2.03; 95% CI, 2.00-2.06), and 7.05 for emergency department visits (difference, 4.5; 95% CI, 4.3-4.7; P < .001, and IRR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.74-2.86). Compared with patients who were unexposed to thrombotic agents, the rates of hematuria-related complications were 191.61 events per 1000 person-years (difference, 117.3; 95% CI, 112.8-121.8) for those exposed to both an anticoagulant and antiplatelet agent (IRR, 10.48; 95% CI, 8.16-13.45), 140.92 (difference, 57.7; 95% CI, 56.9-58.4) for those exposed to anticoagulants (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.59), and 110.72 (difference, 26.5; 95% CI, 25.9-27.0) for those exposed to antiplatelet agents (IRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.33). Patients exposed to antithrombotic agents, compared with patients not exposed to these drugs, were more likely to be diagnosed as having bladder cancer within 6 months (0.70% vs 0.38%; odds ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.79-1.92). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults in Ontario, Canada, use of antithrombotic medications, compared with nonuse of these medications, was significantly associated with higher rates of hematuria-related complications (including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and urologic procedures to manage gross hematuria).

The TOronto ThromboProphylaxis Patient Safety Initiative (TOPPS): A cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common and most preventable complications of hospital stay, review of the literature demonstrates large evidence-care gaps for VTE prevention. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine if a multi-component quality improvement (QI) strategy, including the support of hospital leadership, use of order sets, audit and feedback, and active pharmacy involvement, could increase the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for hip fracture surgery (HFS), major general surgery (MGS) and acute medical illness (MED). METHODS: TOPPS was a cluster randomized trial involving eight hospitals. After a baseline data collection phase, one of the three patient groups at each site was randomized to the targeted QI intervention while the other two groups served as controls. In the next phase, an additional patient group at each site was randomized to the intervention while the third group remained controls. Standardized chart audits were conducted to assess the rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use. RESULTS: At baseline, the rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis were 79% in HFS, 43% in MGS and 31% in MED. By the end of phase 3, 89% of HFS, 65% of MGS and 70% of MED patients were receiving appropriate prophylaxis. Improvement was greater in the intervention groups compared to controls (85% vs. 76% in HFS; 67% vs. 54% in MGS; 64% vs. 62% in MED) and this difference reached significance in the MGS group (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a multi-component intervention can be effective in improving the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis.

Functional and Exercise Limitations After a First Episode of Pulmonary Embolism: Results of the ELOPE Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the frequency and predictors of exercise limitation after pulmonary embolism (PE) and to assess its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and dyspnea. METHODS: One hundred patients with acute PE were recruited at five Canadian hospitals from 2010 to 2013. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was performed at 1 and 12 months. Quality of life (QoL), dyspnea, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), residual clot burden (perfusion scan, CT pulmonary angiography), cardiac function (echocardiography), and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were measured during follow-up. The prespecified primary outcome was percent predicted peak oxygen uptake (Vo2 peak) < 80% at 1-year CPET. RESULTS: At 1 year, 40 of 86 patients (46.5%) had percent predicted Vo2 peak < 80% on CPET, which was associated with significantly worse generic health-related QoL (HRQoL), PE-specific HRQoL and dyspnea scores, and significantly reduced 6MWD at 1 year. Predictors of the primary outcome included male sex (relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.1), age (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99 per 1-year age increase), BMI (RR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.2 per 1 kg/m2 BMI increase), and smoking history (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9), as well as percent predicted Vo2 peak < 80% on CPET at 1 month (RR, 3.8; 95% CI,1.9-7.2), and 6MWD at 1 month (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9 per 30-m increased walking distance). Baseline or residual clot burden was not associated with the primary outcome. Mean PFT and echocardiographic results (pulmonary artery pressure, right and left ventricular systolic function) at 1 year were similarly within normal limits in both patients with exercise limitations and those without such limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of patients with PE have exercise limitation at 1 year that adversely influences HRQoL, dyspnea, and walking distance. CPET or 6MWD testing at 1 month may help to identify patients with a higher risk of exercise limitation at 1 year after PE. Based on our results, we believe that the deconditioning that occurs after acute PE could underlie this exercise limitation, but we cannot exclude the fact that this may have been present before PE. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01174628; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin to prevent pulmonary embolism following major trauma: A propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of delayed mortality in patients with severe injury. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is often favored over unfractionated heparin (UH) for thromboprophylaxis, evidence is lacking to demonstrate an effect on the occurrence of PE. This study compared the effectiveness of LMWH versus UH to prevent PE in patients following major trauma. METHODS: Data for adults with severe injury who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH were derived from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2012-2015). Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days were excluded. Rates of PE were compared between propensity-matched LMWH and UH groups. Subgroup analyses included patients with blunt multisystem injury, penetrating truncal injury, shock, severe traumatic brain injury, and isolated orthopedic injury. A center-level analysis was performed to determine if practices with respect to choice of prophylaxis type influence hospital PE rates. RESULTS: We identified 153,474 patients at 217 trauma centers who received thromboprophylaxis with LMWH or UH. Low-molecular-weight heparin was given in 74% of patients. Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1.8%. Propensity score matching yielded a well-balanced cohort of 75,920 patients. After matching, LMWH was associated with a significantly lower rate of PE compared with UH (1.4% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.63). This finding was consistent across injury subgroups. Trauma centers in the highest quartile of LMWH utilization (median LMWH use, 95%) reported significantly fewer PE compared with centers in the lowest quartile (median LMWH use, 39%; 1.2% vs. 2.0%; odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH (vs. UH) was associated with significantly lower risk of PE. Trauma centers favoring LMWH-based prophylaxis strategies reported lower rates of PE. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be the anticoagulant agent of choice for prevention of PE in patients with major trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.