Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: Compendium and Review of CHEST Guidelines 2012-2021.

The CHEST Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism Disease evidence-based guidelines are now updated in a more frequent, focused manner. Guidance statements from the most recent full guidelines and two subsequent updates have not been gathered into a single source. An international panel of experts with experience in prior antithrombotic therapy guideline development reviewed the 2012 CHEST antithrombotic therapy guidelines and its two subsequent updates. All guideline statements and their associated patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions were assembled. A modified Delphi process was used to select statements considered relevant to current clinical care. The panel further endorsed minor phrasing changes to match the standard language for guidance statements using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) format endorsed by the CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee. The panel appended comments after statements deemed as relevant, including suggesting that statements be updated in future guidelines because of interval evidence. We include 58 guidance statements from prior versions of the antithrombotic therapy guidelines, with updated phrasing as needed to adhere to contemporary nomenclature. Statements were classified as strong or weak recommendations based on high-certainty, moderate-certainty, and low-certainty evidence using GRADE methodology. The panel suggested that five statements are no longer relevant to current practice. As CHEST continues to update guidance statements relevant to antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, this article serves as a unified collection of currently relevant statements from the preceding three guidelines. Suggestions have been made to update specific statements in future publications.

Developmental or Procedural Vena Cava Interruption and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.

The inferior vena cava (IVC) and superior vena cava are the main conduits of the systemic venous circulation into the right atrium. Developmental or procedural interruptions of vena cava might predispose to stasis and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) distal to the anomaly and may impact the subsequent rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to review the various etiologies of developmental or procedural vena cava interruption and their impact on venous thromboembolism. A systematic search was performed in PubMed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines per each clinical question. For management questions with no high-quality evidence and no mutual agreements between authors, Delphi methods were used. IVC agenesis is the most common form of congenital vena cava interruption, is associated with an increased risk of DVT, and should be suspected in young patients with unexpected extensive bilateral DVT. Surgical techniques for vena cava interruption (ligation, clipping, and plication) to prevent PE have been largely abandoned due to short-term procedural risks and long-term complications, although survivors of prior procedures are occasionally encountered. Vena cava filters are now the most commonly used method of procedural interruption, frequently placed in the infrarenal IVC. The most agreed-upon indication for vena cava filters is for patients with acute venous thromboembolism and coexisting contraindications to anticoagulation. Familiarity with different forms of vena cava interruption and their local and systemic adverse effects is important to minimize complications and thrombotic events.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Arterial Thrombosis and Thromboembolism in COVID-19: An American College of Chest Physicians Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Evidence increasingly shows that the risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Several organizations have released guidelines for the management of COVID-19-related coagulopathy and prevention of VTE. However, an urgent need exists for practical guidance on the management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in this setting. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the current available evidence informing the prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that address urgent clinical questions regarding prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. Using MEDLINE via PubMed, a literature search was conducted and references were screened for inclusion. Data from included studies were summarized and reviewed by the panel. Consensus for the direction and strength of recommendations was achieved using a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The review and analysis of the literature based on 11 PICO questions resulted in 11 recommendations. Overall, a low quality of evidence specific to the population with COVID-19 was found. Consequently, many of the recommendations were based on indirect evidence and prior guidelines in similar populations without COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The existing evidence and panel consensus do not suggest a major departure from the management of arterial thrombosis according to recommendations predating the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on the optimal strategies for prevention and management of arterial thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 are sparse. More high-quality evidence is needed to inform management strategies in these patients.

Well-being at a Military Medical School and Implications for Military Retention.

INTRODUCTION: Physical and psychological well-being play a critical role in the academic and professional development of medical students and can alter the trajectory of a student's quality of personal and professional life. Military medical students, given their dual role as officer and student, experience unique stressors and issues that may play a role in their future intentions to continue military service, as well as practice medicine. As such, this study explores well-being across the 4 years of medical school at Uniformed Services University (USU) and how well-being relates to a student's likelihood to continue serving in the military and practicing medicine. METHODS: In September 2019, 678 USU medical students were invited to complete a survey consisting of three sections-the Medical Student Well-being Index (MSWBI), a single-item burnout measure, and six questions regarding their likelihood of staying in the military and medical practice. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and contingency table analysis. Additionally, thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses included as part of the likelihood questions. RESULTS: Our MSWBI and burnout scores suggest that the overall state of well-being among medical students at USU is comparable to other studies of the medical student population. ANOVA revealed class differences among the four cohorts, highlighted by improved well-being scores as students transitioned from clerkships to their fourth-year curriculum. Fewer clinical students (MS3s and MS4s), compared to pre-clerkship students, indicated a desire to stay in the military. In contrast, a higher percentage of clinical students seemed to "reconsider" their medical career choice compared to their pre-clerkship student counterparts. "Medicine-oriented" likelihood questions were associated with four unique MSWBI items, whereas "military-oriented" likelihood questions were associated with one unique MSWBI item. CONCLUSION: The present study found that the overall state of well-being in USU medical students is satisfactory, but opportunities for improvement exist. Medical student well-being seemed to have a stronger association with medicine-oriented likelihood items than with military-oriented likelihood items. To obtain and refine best practices for strengthening engagement and commitment, future research should examine if and how military and medical contexts converge and diverge throughout training. This may enhance the medical school and training experience and, ultimately, reinforce, or strengthen, the desire and commitment to practice and serve in military medicine.

Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data. RESULTS: Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020. INTERPRETATION: Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American college of chest physicians clinical practice guideline

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management

Executive Summary: Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Executive Summary Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline

Background The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug.

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Update to the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often exhibit markers of a hypercoagulable state and have an increased incidence of VTE. In response, CHEST issued rapid clinical guidance regarding prevention of VTE. Over the past 18 months the quality of the evidence has improved. We thus sought to incorporate this evidence and update our recommendations as necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This update focuses on the optimal approach to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. The original questions were used to guide the search, using MEDLINE via PubMed. Eight randomized controlled trials and one observational study were included. Meta-analysis, using a random effects model, was performed. The panel created summaries using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. Updated guidance statements were drafted, and a modified Delphi approach was used to obtain consensus. RESULTS: We provide separate guidance statements for VTE prevention for hospitalized patients with acute (moderate) illness and critically ill patients in the ICU. However, we divided each original question and resulting recommendation into two questions: standard prophylaxis vs therapeutic (or escalated dose) prophylaxis and standard prophylaxis vs intermediate dose prophylaxis. This led to a change in one recommendation, and an upgrading of three additional recommendations based upon higher quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in care for patients with COVID-19 have improved overall outcomes. Despite this, rates of VTE in these patients remain elevated. Critically ill patients should receive standard thromboprophylaxis for VTE, and moderately ill patients with a low bleeding risk might benefit from therapeutic heparin. We see no role for intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis in either setting.

7-Year Experience with Automated Pupillometry and Direct Integration With the Hospital Electronic Medical Record.

INTRODUCTION: Manual pupillary assessments are an integral part of the neurologic evaluation in critically ill patients. Automated pupillometry provides reliable, consistent, and accurate measurement of the light response. We established a computer interface that allows for direct download of pupillometer information to our hospital electronic medical record (EMR). Here, we report our single-center experience. METHODS: An interface allowing direct download of pupillometer data to our EMR was developed. We then performed a prospective study using an electronic survey distributed to nurses that used pupillometers in 2015, 2018, and 2020 using a 5-point Likert-style format to evaluate the acceptance of this implementation. RESULTS: In 2015, 22 nurses were surveyed, with 50% of the respondents citing lack of pupillometers and 41% citing the labor intensity associated with data entry as the reason for the reluctance to use the pupillometer. The number of nurse responses in 2018 increased to 123, with 78% of nurses finding that the direct download to hospital EMR improved the efficiency of their neurologic exams. In 2020, 108 nurses responded with similar responses to those in 2018. We added 3 additional questions regarding utility of the pupillometer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifty-eight percent of nurses were reassured of the neurologic exam when using the pupillometer in lieu of a full exam to limit infectious exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the implementation of a direct interface to download pupillometer data to the EMR. The positive effect on nursing workflow and documentation of pupillary findings is discussed.

Executive summary: antithrombotic terapy for VTE disease: Second update of the CHEST guideline and expert panel report

This is the second update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Patients, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously. We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high, moderate, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE methodology. The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of venous thromboembolism from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of post-thrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements are added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or first update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the first update. New evidence has emerged since 2016 which further informs the standard of care for patients with venous thromboembolism. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations.

Antithrombotic therapy for VTE Disease: Second update of the CHEST guideline and expert panel report

This is the 2nd update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously. We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high-, moderate-, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of VTE from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of postthrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements have been added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or 1st update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the 1st update. New evidence has emerged since 2016 that further informs the standard of care for patients with VTE. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations.

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: Second Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: This is the 2nd update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously. METHODS: We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high-, moderate-, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. RESULTS: The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of VTE from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of postthrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements have been added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or 1st update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the 1st update. CONCLUSION: New evidence has emerged since 2016 that further informs the standard of care for patients with VTE. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations.

Executive Summary: Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: Second Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: This is the 2nd update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously. METHODS: We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high-, moderate-, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. RESULTS: The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of VTE from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of postthrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements have been added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or 1st update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the 1st update. CONCLUSION: New evidence has emerged since 2016 that further informs the standard of care for patients with VTE. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations.

Stroke Preventability in Large Vessel Occlusion Treated With Mechanical Thrombectomy.

Objective: The preventability of strokes treated by mechanical thrombectomy is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyze stroke preventability for patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of 300 patients (mean ± SE age 69 ± 0.9 years, range 18-97 years; 53% male) treated with mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion from January 2008 to March 2019. We collected data including demographics, NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at onset, and (beginning in 2015) classified 90-day outcome by modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Patients were evaluated using a Stroke Preventability Score (SPS, 0 to 10 points) based on how well patients had been treated given their hypertension, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, and prior stroke history. We examined the relationship of SPS with NIHSS at stroke onset and with mRS outcome at 90 days. Results: SPS was calculated for 272 of the 300 patients, with mean ± SE of 2.1 ± 0.1 (range 0-8); 89 (33%) had no preventability (score 0), 120 (44%) had low preventability (score 1-3), and 63 (23%) had high preventability (score 4 or higher). SPS was significantly correlated with age (r = 0.32, p < 0.0001), while NIHSS (n = 267) was significantly higher (p = 0.03) for patients with high stroke preventability vs. low/no preventability [18.8 ± 0.92 (n = 62) vs. 16.5 ± 0.51 (n = 205)]. Among 118 patients with mRS, outcome was significantly worse (p = 0.04) in patients with high stroke preventability vs. low/no preventability [4.7 ± 0.29 (n = 28) vs. 3.8 ± 0.21 (n = 90)]. The vast majority of patients with high stroke preventability had inadequately treated atrial fibrillation (85%, 53/62). Conclusions: Nearly one quarter of stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy had highly preventable strokes. While stroke preventability showed some relationship to stroke severity at onset and outcome after treatment, preventability had the strongest association with age. These findings emphasize the need for improved stroke prevention in the elderly.