RESUMO
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-documented complication of both solid and hematologic malignancies, but there are fewer data on allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. Therefore, we studied the incidence, risk factors, and impact of VTE on post-HCT outcomes in a contemporary cohort. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent allogeneic HCT between 1/2014 and 8/2019 to identify patients with post-HCT VTE. Patient, disease, and transplant-related risk factors for VTE were investigated using competing risk analysis. A total of 431 patients were included in this study. Median (IQR) age in years was 59 (46-65) at transplant. The most common indication for transplant was acute myelogenous leukemia (49.4%). Within our cohort, 64 patients (14.8%) developed post-HCT VTE with a median (IQR) follow up time of 24.6 (8.4- 47.1) months. The cumulative incidence of VTE was 4.2% at 6-month, 9.0% at 12-month, 12.6% at 24-month and 13.8% at 36-months. In multivariable analysis, older age (HR per 10-year increase, 95% CI: 1.36, 1.09-1.70) history of VTE (HR, 95% CI : 1.95, 1.09-3.49), and grade 2-4 acute GVHD (HR, 95% CI: 1.75, 1.05-2.94) were independently associated with VTE. VTE was significantly associated with an increased risk of non-relapse mortality (NRM) (HR4.09, 95% CI 2.47-6.74) and decreased overall survival (OS) (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.48-3.24). VTE is an important complication after allogeneic HCT and is significantly associated with increased NRM and decreased OS. Older patients, those with prior VTE, and patients with acute GVHD are at increased risk for development of VTE after HCT.
RESUMO
Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing cancer-associated blood clots. Mailey L. Wilks, DNP, APRN, NP-C, led a session at JADPRO Live Virtual 2021 on the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, available anticoagulants, with a focus on direct oral anticoagulants, and what advanced practitioners should know about the prevention and the treatment of venous thromboembolism.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) has a self-limited clinical course. However, these studies excluded cancer patients, who remain a high-risk population. In addition, studies to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of IDDVT in cancer patients have been limited. Here, we report outcomes from our experience in treating cancer-associated IDDVT versus proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated a cohort of patients referred to our cancer-associated thrombosis clinic from August 2014 through May 2018. We compared clinical characteristics, anticoagulation prescription, VTE recurrence, overall survival, major bleeding, and subsequent hospital admission between cancer patients with IDDVT and proximal VTE. A propensity score matching method was used to reduce bias from confounding variables. RESULTS: Of 1100 patients referred to the clinic, 124 IDDVT and 178 proximal VTE events were analyzed. After propensity score matching, 96 patients were included in each cohort. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent VTE between cancer patients with proximal VTE vs IDDVT, with or without matching (matched: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-1.92; P = .58). There was no difference in overall survival between cancer patients with proximal VTE vs. IDDVT with or without matching (matched: HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.82; P = .45). Furthermore, subsequent hospital admissions and major bleeding events were similar between patients with proximal VTE events versus IDDVT. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients with IDDVT have similar outcomes as their proximal counterparts, including rate of recurrence and overall survival. These findings suggest treatment of cancer-associated IDDVT should mirror treatment of proximal events.
