Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism and creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min.

The few studies that compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) vs. warfarin in the setting of advanced renal insufficiency have focused on patients with atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this observational, matched, cohort study of patients was to assess the effectiveness and safety of DOAC vs. warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 30 mL/min. This observational, cohort study included patients with VTE and CrCl < 30 mL/min who were newly initiated on a DOAC or warfarin between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. DOAC patients were matched up to 1:2 to warfarin patients. Primary outcome was a composite of recurrent VTE, clinically-relevant bleeding, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. Adjusted conditional, multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess outcomes. 626 DOAC patients were matched to 1071 warfarin patients. DOAC patients had a higher mean age, higher mean baseline CrCl, and were less likely to have been receiving dialysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the composite outcome between groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.47) or in the individual components of the composite (all HR 95% CI crossed 1.00). Identification of statistically non-significant rates of bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes suggest that the use of DOAC or warfarin is reasonable in patients with VTE and CrCl < 30 mL/min.

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

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

Thromboembolism and anticoagulant therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: interim clinical guidance from the anticoagulation forum.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral infection that can, in severe cases, result in cytokine storm, systemic inflammatory response and coagulopathy that is prognostic of poor outcomes. While some, but not all, laboratory findings appear similar to sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC), COVID-19- induced coagulopathy (CIC) appears to be more prothrombotic than hemorrhagic. It has been postulated that CIC may be an uncontrolled immunothrombotic response to COVID-19, and there is growing evidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events in these critically ill patients. Clinicians around the globe are challenged with rapidly identifying reasonable diagnostic, monitoring and anticoagulant strategies to safely and effectively manage these patients. Thoughtful use of proven, evidence-based approaches must be carefully balanced with integration of rapidly emerging evidence and growing experience. The goal of this document is to provide guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum, a North American organization of anticoagulation providers, regarding use of anticoagulant therapies in patients with COVID-19. We discuss in-hospital and post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, treatment of suspected but unconfirmed VTE, laboratory monitoring of COVID-19, associated anticoagulant therapies, and essential elements for optimized transitions of care specific to patients with COVID-19.

Predictors of perioperative major bleeding in patients who interrupt warfarin for an elective surgery or procedure: Analysis of the BRIDGE trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of low-molecular weight heparin bridge therapy during warfarin interruption for elective surgery/procedures increases bleeding. Other predictors of bleeding in this setting are not well described. METHODS: BRIDGE was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of bridge therapy with dalteparin 100 IU/kg twice daily in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring warfarin interruption. Bleeding outcomes were documented from the time of warfarin interruption until up to 37 days postprocedure. Multiple logistic regression and time-dependent hazard models were used to identify major bleeding predictors. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,813 patients of whom 895 received bridging and 918 received placebo. Median patient age was 72.6 years, and 73.3% were male. Forty-one major bleeding events occurred at a median time of 7.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-18.0 days) postprocedure. Bridge therapy was a baseline predictor of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=2.4, 95% CI: 1.2-4.8), as were a history of renal disease (OR=2.9, 95% CI: 1.4-6.0), and high-bleeding risk procedures (vs low-bleeding risk procedures) (OR=2.9, 95% CI: 1.4-5.9). Perioperative aspirin use (OR=3.6, 95% CI: 1.1-11.9) and postprocedure international normalized ratio >3.0 (OR=2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.1) were time-dependent predictors of major bleeding. Major bleeding was most common in the first 10 days compared with 11-37 days postprocedure (OR=3.5, 95% CI: 1.8-6.9). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to bridge therapy, perioperative aspirin use, postprocedure international normalized ratio >3.0, a history of renal failure, and having a high-bleeding risk procedure increase the risk of major bleeding around the time of an elective surgery/procedure requiring warfarin interruption.

The influence of fibrate initiation on INR and warfarin dose in patients receiving chronic warfarin therapy.

Several drug interaction compendia report a risk of warfarin potentiation after initiation of a fibrate; however, the evidence of this interaction is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate warfarin dose and international normalized ratio (INR) response among a large sample of patients receiving chronic warfarin who initiated a fibrate. This was a retrospective, one-sample, pre-to-post study. Adult patients who were receiving chronic warfarin therapy at the time of gemfibrozil or fenofibrate dispensing between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2016 were included. Patients had at least one and two therapeutic INRs during the 90 days prior to (baseline) and after (follow-up), respectively, fibrate initiation. Comparison of stable warfarin dose:INR ratio between the baseline and follow-up periods and assessment of safety outcomes during follow-up were performed. There were 321 patients included. Patients were predominantly male (62.6%) with an indication of atrial fibrillation (44.2%). The mean warfarin dose:INR ratio was equivalent between the baseline and follow-up periods (13.4 mg/INR [± 6.9] vs. 13.5 mg/INR [± 7.5], respectively, p = 0.711). Rates of thromboembolism, bleeding, and all-cause mortality in the 90-day follow up were 0, 0.6, and 1.2%, respectively. Although individual patients may have labile INRs after fibrate initiation, no significant interaction between fibrate and warfarin in a large sample of real world patients was identified. The utility of additional INR monitoring after fibrate initiation in otherwise stable patients receiving chronic warfarin therapy is unclear.

Guidance for the practical management of warfarin therapy in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. The treatment of VTE is undergoing tremendous changes with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants and clinicians need to understand new treatment paradigms. This article, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. Well-managed warfarin therapy remains an important anticoagulant option and it is hoped that anticoagulation providers will find the guidance contained in this article increases their ability to achieve optimal outcomes for their patients with VTE Pivotal practical questions pertaining to this topic were developed by consensus of the authors and were derived from evidence-based consensus statements whenever possible. The medical literature was reviewed and summarized using guidance statements that reflect the consensus opinion(s) of all authors and the endorsement of the Anticoagulation Forum's Board of Directors. In an effort to provide practical and implementable information about VTE and its treatment, guidance statements pertaining to choosing good candidates for warfarin therapy, warfarin initiation, optimizing warfarin control, invasive procedure management, excessive anticoagulation, subtherapeutic anticoagulation, drug interactions, switching between anticoagulants, and care transitions are provided.

Clinical outcomes and adherence to guideline recommendations during the initial treatment of acute venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guidelines for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been formally assessed in the United States, specifically in the subset of patients with renal impairment. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate adherence to CHEST VTE treatment guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with acute VTE between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, for the primary outcome of adherence to CHEST VTE treatment guidelines defined as (1) patients receiving an appropriate parenteral anticoagulant and dose based on renal function and weight, (2) at least 5 days of parenteral anticoagulation during warfarin initiation, and (3) an international normalized ratio (INR) value ≥2 documented before discontinuing parenteral agents. Secondary outcomes included recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding across renal function categories. RESULTS: Of the 1683 patients included in the final analysis, 1483 (88%) had complete data for all 3 elements of the primary outcome (dose, overlap duration, and INR ≥2.0). VTE guideline adherence was identified in 95% (1408/1483) of these patients. There were 20 major bleeds overall, which occurred in 1.1%, 1.1%, and 1.3% in patients with CrCl <30 mL/min, 30 to 59 mL/min, and ≥60 mL/min, respectively (P = 0.929). Also, 7 recurrent VTE events occurred-3 in patients with CrCl values of 30 to 59 mL/min (0.5%) and 4 in patients with CrCl ≥60 mL/min (0.4%; P = 0.797 across groups). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to CHEST guidelines was high and resulted in low rates of bleeding and recurrent VTE complications across renal function categories. Further studies of patients with CrCl <30 mL/min are needed.

Frequency of monitoring, non-adherence, and other topics dear to an anticoagulation clinic provider.

Historically, there has been limited data informing practical matters encountered in day-to-day warfarin management. Several studies have recently explored topics that address several of these gaps in the literature. Extending INR recheck intervals to 12 weeks is feasible with comparable time-in-therapeutic range compared to traditional 4 week intervals. Patients more likely to maintain stable anticoagulation are older, have an INR target of 2-3 (versus higher targets), and do not have heart failure. Unsurprisingly, non-adherence with reliably taking warfarin is associated with poor anticoagulation control. In addition, non-adherence with INR monitoring is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. Evidence-based interventions to improve adherence are lacking. When managing a modestly out of range INR value in previously stable warfarin patients, providers have a few options: 1) change the maintenance warfarin dose, 2) give a one-time dose adjustment, followed by resumption of the previous warfarin dose, or 3) continue the same warfarin dose with no adjustment. Each of these options can be successful, particularly when paired with increased INR monitoring. Bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for a single subtherapeutic INR is not warranted for most patients. The 9th edition of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis chapter "Evidence-Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy" reviews these and many new and practical recommendations for anticoagulation clinic providers.

The Impact of Clinical Pharmacy Services on Direct Oral Anticoagulant Medication Selection and Dosing in the Ambulatory Care Setting.

Background: Off-label dosing of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is both common and associated with adverse patient outcomes. Evidence describing best practices to support optimal direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing is limited. Objective: To describe the impact of clinical pharmacist intervention on DOAC prescribing. Methods: This retrospective study was a descriptive analysis conducted within an integrated healthcare system with a centralized, pharmacist-led Anticoagulation Management Service (AMS). Patients prescribed a DOAC between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included. Pharmacy dispensing reports were generated for pharmacist review and anticoagulant drug therapy changes were recommended to physicians where appropriate. The primary objective was to describe the number and type of recommendations made. Secondary objectives were to determine the provider acceptance rate based on the intervention type and on clinical vs formulary recommendations. Results: Clinical pharmacists made 147 recommendations for 2331 unique patients included in the analysis. Twenty-three recommendations (16%) were to decrease the dose, 46 (31%) were to increase the dose, 14 (10%) were to change the medication due to clinical scenario, 62 (42%) were to change the medication due to cost, and 2 (1%) were another issue. One hundred twenty-three (84%) recommendations were accepted. The provider acceptance rate was similar for clinical and formulary recommendations (85% and 82% respectively). Conclusion: Implementation of report-driven clinical pharmacist intervention led to an improvement in appropriate DOAC medication selection and dosing.

Association of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Management Strategies With Clinical Outcomes for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: Anticoagulation management services (AMSs; ie, warfarin clinics) have evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: To compare outcomes associated with 3 DOAC care models for preventing adverse anticoagulation-related outcomes among patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 44 746 adult patients with a diagnosis of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 through May 2023. Exposures: Each KP region used an AMS to manage warfarin but used distinct approaches to DOAC care: (1) usual care (UC) by the prescribing clinician, (2) UC plus an automated population management tool (PMT), or (3) pharmacist-managed AMS care. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were estimated. Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirectly compared using warfarin as a common comparator within each region and then directly compared across regions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients were followed up until the first occurrence of an outcome (composite of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death), discontinuation of KP membership, or December 31, 2020. Results: Overall, 44 746 patients were included: 6182 in the UC care model (3297 DOAC; 2885 warfarin), 33 625 in the UC plus PMT care model (21 891 DOAC; 11 734 warfarin), and 4939 in the AMS care model (2089 DOAC; 2850 warfarin). Baseline characteristics (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [10.6] years, 56.1% male, 67.2% non-Hispanic White, median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex] score of 3 [IQR, 2-5]) were well balanced after IPTW. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, patients who received the UC plus PMT or AMS care model did not have significantly better outcomes than those who received UC. The incidence rate of the composite outcome was 5.4% per year for DOAC and 9.1% per year for warfarin for those in the UC group, 6.1% per year for DOAC and 10.5% per year for those in the UC plus PMT group, and 5.1% per year for DOAC and 8.0% per year for those in the AMS group. The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome comparing DOAC vs warfarin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.05) in the UC group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the UC plus PMT group, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in the AMS group (P = .62 for heterogeneity across care models). When directly comparing patients receiving DOAC, the IPTW-adjusted HR was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) for the UC plus PMT group vs the UC group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.02) for the AMS group vs the UC group. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study did not find appreciably better outcomes for patients receiving DOAC who were managed by either a UC plus PMT or AMS care model compared with UC.

Outcomes and predictors of very stable INR control during chronic anticoagulation therapy.

For patients on warfarin therapy, an international normalized ratio (INR) recall interval not exceeding 4 weeks has traditionally been recommended. Less frequent INR monitoring may be feasible in stable patients. We sought to identify patients with stable INRs (defined as having INR values exclusively within the INR range) and comparator patients (defined as at least one INR outside the INR range) in a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Occurrences of thromboembolism, bleeding, and death were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of stable INR control. There were 2504 stable and 3569 comparator patients. The combined rates of bleeding and thromboembolism were significantly lower in stable patients. Independent predictors of stable INR control were age older than 70 years and the absence of comorbid heart failure and diabetes. Stable patients were significantly less likely to have target INR of 3.0 or higher or chronic diseases. We hypothesize that many patients demonstrating stable INR control could be safely treated with INR recall intervals greater than the traditional 4 weeks.

Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity were underrepresented in studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study compared clinical outcomes in patients with NVAF and weighing >120 kg and ≤120 kg who were receiving dabigatran. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, matched, longitudinal cohort study included patients from three integrated healthcare delivery systems. Patients ≥18 years of age with NVAF were included if between September 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 they received dabigatran. Patients >120 kg and ≤120 kg were matched up to 1:6 on age, sex, and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Data were extracted from administrative databases. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, clinically-relevant bleeding, systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 777 and 3522 patients >120 kg and ≤120 kg, respectively, were matched. The >120 kg group tended to be younger with a higher burden of chronic disease. There was no difference between groups in the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.37) or individual components of the composite. A subanalysis of clinically-relevant bleeding identified that patients >120 kg were at a greater risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (AHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF and >120 kg, dabigatran use was associated with a small increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding but no differences in stroke, mortality or clinically-relevant bleeding. These findings suggest that dabigatran use is reasonable in patients with NVAF and weight >120 kg.

Oral vitamin K versus placebo to correct excessive anticoagulation in patients receiving warfarin: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose oral vitamin K decreases the international normalized ratio (INR) in overanticoagulated patients who receive warfarin therapy. Its effects on bleeding events are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To see whether low-dose oral vitamin K reduces bleeding events over 90 days in patients with warfarin-associated coagulopathy. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, and participants were allocated to trial groups by using sequentially numbered study drug containers. Patients, caregivers, and those who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 14 anticoagulant therapy clinics in Canada, the United States, and Italy. PATIENTS: Nonbleeding patients with INR values of 4.5 to 10.0. INTERVENTION: Oral vitamin K, 1.25 mg (355 patients randomly assigned; 347 analyzed), or matching placebo (369 patients randomly assigned; 365 analyzed). MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding events (primary outcome), thromboembolism, and death (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 56 patients (15.8%) in the vitamin K group and 60 patients (16.3%) in the placebo group had at least 1 bleeding complication (absolute difference, -0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -6.1 to 5.1 percentage points]); major bleeding events occurred in 9 patients (2.5%) in the vitamin K group and 4 patients (1.1%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points [CI, -0.8 to 3.7 percentage points]). Thromboembolism occurred in 4 patients (1.1%) in the vitamin K group and 3 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, -1.4 to 2.0 percentage points]). Other adverse effects were not assessed. The day after treatment, the INR had decreased by a mean of 1.4 in the placebo group and 2.8 in the vitamin K group (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Patients who were actively bleeding were not included, and warfarin dosing after enrollment was not mandated or followed. CONCLUSION: Low-dose oral vitamin K did not reduce bleeding in warfarin recipients with INRs of 4.5 to 10.0. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Italian Ministry of Universities and Research.

Adherence to and persistence with direct oral anticoagulant therapy among patients with new onset venous thromboembolism receiving extended anticoagulant therapy and followed by a centralized anticoagulation service.

BACKGROUND: Extended direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy may be required for patients with a venous thromboembolism (VTE); thus, DOAC adherence may impact the risk of recurrent VTE or bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Adult patients with a VTE who were initiated on a DOAC between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017 for a cumulative >90 days of therapy were included. Adherence, measured with the proportion of days covered (PDC), was assessed during the six, 12, and 18 months after initiation. Patients were assigned to PDC ≥ 80% (adherent) or PDC < 80% (non-adherent) groups during the 1- to 6-month follow-up period. Rates of recurrent VTE and hemorrhagic events were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were included. The mean PDC were 96.0% (±8.0%), 94.7% (±8.2%), and 94.4% (±7.7%) during the 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups, respectively, with 17 (5.6%) and 288 (94.4%) patients classified as non-adherent and adherent, respectively. Patients in the non-adherent group were more likely to have had a recurrent VTE during the 1- to 6-month (11.8% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.007) and 1- to 12-month follow-ups (16.6% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.030). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the rates of bleeding during any follow-up periods (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had >90 days of initial DOAC therapy, adherence to DOAC therapy was high throughout the 18-month follow-up while DOAC non-adherence (i.e., PDC < 80%) increased the risk of recurrent VTE.

Vitamin K versus warfarin interruption alone in patients without bleeding and an international normalized ratio > 10.

BACKGROUND: Reversal of an international normalized ratio (INR) > 10 with vitamin K is recommended in patients experiencing bleeding; however, information on outcomes with reversal using vitamin K in non-bleeding patients is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and safety outcomes between non-bleeding patients receiving warfarin with an INR > 10 who did and did not receive a prescription for vitamin K. PATIENTS/METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in an integrated health-care delivery system. Adult patients receiving warfarin therapy who experienced an INR > 10 without bleeding between 01/01/2006 and 06/30/2018 were included. Patients were assessed for an outpatient dispensing or in-office administration of vitamin K on the day of or the day after an INR > 10 and then clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and time to INR < 4 within the next 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 809 patients was included with 332 and 477 who were and were not dispensed vitamin K, respectively. Overall, mean patient age was 71.7 years, 60.1% were female and the mean INR was 10.4 at presentation. There were no differences between groups in 30-day rates of bleeding or thromboembolism (both P > .05). Patients dispensed vitamin K had a higher likelihood of mortality (15.1% versus 10.1%, P = .032, adjusted odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.57). Overall, time to an INR < 4 was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Vitamin K administration was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in asymptomatic patients with an INR > 10.

Temporal trends in first-line outpatient anticoagulation treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer consisted, historically, of unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). With recent clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) showing similar efficacy as LMWH, little is known about anticoagulant prescribing patterns in patients with cancer and a VTE. This study characterized the temporal trends in first-line outpatient anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated VTE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of patients who were hospitalized for a cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) between 01/01/2000 and 10/31/2017 identified patients from the cancer registries at two regions of an integrated healthcare delivery system. The primary outcome was the trend in age- and sex-adjusted rates of first-line anticoagulant therapy during the 30 days post-hospital discharge. Therapies were categorized as 1) injectable LMWH monotherapy, 2) warfarin ± injectable, 3) injectable fondaparinux monotherapy, or 4) DOAC ± injectable. RESULTS: Overall, 9816 patients were included with a mean age of 66 ± 13 years and 54% were female. From 2000 to 2003, warfarin ± injectable was used in ≈90% of cases. After 2003, there was a steady decline in warfarin use (25% in 2017) corresponding with increased LMWH use: 11% in 2003 to 55% in 2017. The DOAC ± injectable use has rapidly increased from <1% in 2014 to 20% in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: From 2000 to 2017, first-line anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated VTE has experienced a substantial increase in LMWH and DOAC use with a resultant decline in warfarin use.

Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulant, Patient, and Surgery Characteristics on Clinical Outcomes in the Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation Study.

Introduction The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) Study assessed a standardized perioperative management strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation who were taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and required an elective surgery or procedure. The aim of this substudy is to analyze the safety of this management strategy across different patient subgroups, according to four presurgical variables: (1) DOAC type and dose, (2) surgery/procedure bleed risk, (3) patient renal function, and (4) age. Methods Clinical outcomes analyzed included major bleeding (MB), arterial thromboembolism, any bleeding, and any thromboembolism. We used descriptive statistics to summarize clinical outcomes, where the frequency, proportion, and 95% confidence interval were reported. Fisher's exact tests were used for testing the null hypothesis of independence between the clinical outcome and patient characteristic, where the test p -values were reported. Results There were 3,007 patients with atrial fibrillation requiring perioperative DOAC management. There was no significant difference in bleeding or thromboembolic outcomes according to DOAC type/dose regimen, renal function, or patient age. The rate of MB was significantly higher with high bleed risk procedures than low bleed risk procedures in apixaban-treated patients (2.9 vs. 0.59%; p < 0.01), but not in dabigatran-treated patients (0.88 vs. 0.91%; p = 1.0) or rivaroxaban-treated patients (2.9 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.06). The risk for thromboembolism did not differ according to surgery/procedure-related bleed risk. Conclusion Our results suggest that in DOAC-treated patients who received standardized perioperative management, surgical bleed risk is an important determinant of bleeding but not thromboembolic outcomes, although this finding was not consistent across all DOACs. There were no differences in bleeding and thromboembolism according to DOAC type and dose, renal function, or age.

Predictors of Bleeding in the Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation Study.

Background In the PAUSE (Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation) Study, a simple, standardized, perioperative interruption strategy was provided for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Our objective was to define the factors associated with perioperative bleeding. Methods and Results We analyzed bleeding as the composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Putative predictors of bleeding, and preoperative DOAC level were prospectively collected during recruitment. We used stratified logistic regression models for analysis. All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.6.0. There were 3007 patients requiring perioperative DOAC interruption. More than one third of the included patients underwent a high bleeding risk procedure. The 30-day rates of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 3.02% in apixaban (n=1257), 2.84% in dabigatran (n=668), and 4.16% for rivaroxaban (n=1082). Multivariate analysis stratified by region found more bleeding for hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI 1.07-2.99; P=0.027), and prior bleeding (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.71; P=0.021). Surgical bleed risk classification (high- versus low-risk) as a predictor of bleeding was only significant in the univariate analysis. The prediction model for major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding had an area under the curve of 0.71, and the preoperative DOAC level did not improve the area under the curve of the model. Conclusions In patients treated with DOACs who required an elective surgery/procedure and were managed with standardized DOAC interruption and resumption, there we did not find reversible risk factors for bleeding, suggesting that adjustment of the PAUSE management protocol to mitigate against bleeding is not needed.

Home vs hospital treatment of low-risk venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Increasing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of managing low-risk deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) in outpatient settings. We performed a systematic review to assess safety and effectiveness of managing patients with DVT or PE at home compared with the hospital. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective cohort studies. Two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts of identified citations and extracted data from relevant full-text papers. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Seven RCTs (1922 patients) were included in meta-analyses on managing patients with DVT. Pooled estimates indicated decreased risk of PE (RR = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.93) and recurrent DVT (RR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90) for home management, both with moderate certainty of the evidence. Reductions in mortality and major bleeding were not significant, both with low certainty of the evidence. Two RCTs (445 patients) were included in meta-analyses on home management of low-risk patients with PE. Pooled estimates indicated no significant difference in all-cause mortality, recurrent PE, and major bleeding, all with low certainty of the evidence. Results of pooled estimates from 3 prospective cohort studies (234 patients) on home management of PE showed similar results. Our findings indicate that low-risk DVT patients had similar or lower risk of patient-important outcomes with home treatment compared with hospital treatment. In patients with low-risk PE, there was important uncertainty about a difference between home and hospital treatment.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.