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.

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.

Reducing the hospital burden of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: impact of an avoid-heparin program.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction occurring in up to 5% of patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH). We examined the impact of a hospital-wide strategy for avoiding heparin on the incidence of HIT, HIT with thrombosis (HITT), and HIT-related costs. The Avoid-Heparin Initiative, implemented at a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, since 2006, involved replacing UFH with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for prophylactic and therapeutic indications. Consecutive cases with suspected HIT from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed. Rates of suspected HIT, adjudicated HIT, and HITT, along with HIT-related expenditures were compared in the pre-intervention (2003-2005) and the avoid-heparin (2007-2012) phases. The annual rate of suspected HIT decreased 42%, from 85.5 per 10 000 admissions in the pre-intervention phase to 49.0 per 10 000 admissions in the avoid-heparin phase ( ITALIC! P< .001). The annual rate of patients with a positive HIT assay decreased 63% from 16.5 to 6.1 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001), adjudicated HIT decreased 79% from 10.7 to 2.2 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001), and HITT decreased 91% from 4.6 to 0.4 per 10 000 admissions ( ITALIC! P< .001). Hospital HIT-related expenditures decreased by $266 938 per year in the avoid-heparin phase. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating the success and feasibility of a hospital-wide HIT prevention strategy.

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).

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).

Consensus statements on the risk, prevention, and treatment of venous thromboembolism in inflammatory bowel disease: Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines for the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) from the American College of Chest Physicians do not address patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a group with a high risk of both VTE and gastrointestinal bleeding. We present recommendations for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with IBD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on VTE in IBD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform, then finalized and voted on by a working group of adult and pediatric gastroenterologists and thrombosis specialists. RESULTS: IBD patients have an approximately 3-fold higher risk of VTE compared with individuals without IBD, and disease flares further increase this risk. Anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis is recommended for IBD patients who are hospitalized with IBD flares without active bleeding and is suggested when bleeding is nonsevere. Anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis is suggested during moderate-severe IBD flares in outpatients with a history of VTE provoked by an IBD flare or an unprovoked VTE, but not otherwise. The recommended duration of anticoagulation after a first VTE is based on the presence of provoking factors. Specific suggestions are made for the prevention and treatment of VTE in pediatric and pregnant IBD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using the American College of Chest Physicians' guidelines as a foundation, we have integrated evidence from IBD studies to develop specific recommendations for the management of VTE in this high-risk population.

Failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis: risk factors in medical-surgical critically ill patients*.

OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors for failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Multivariable regression analysis of thrombosis predictors from a randomized thromboprophylaxis trial. SETTING: Sixty-seven medical-surgical ICUs in six countries. PATIENTS: Three thousand seven hundred forty-six medical-surgical critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin at standard doses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Independent predictors for venous thromboembolism, proximal leg deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism developing during critical illness were assessed. A total of 289 patients (7.7%) developed venous thromboembolism. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis failure as measured by development of venous thromboembolism included a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; p = 0.04) and body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10-point increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35; p = 0.01). Increasing body mass index was also a predictor for developing proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; p = 0.007), which occurred in 182 patients (4.9%). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 47 patients (1.3%) and was associated with body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.83; p = 0.035) and vasopressor use (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.35; p = 0.046). Low-molecular-weight heparin (in comparison to unfractionated heparin) thromboprophylaxis lowered pulmonary embolism risk (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p = 0.034) while statin use in the preceding week lowered the risk of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Failure of standard thromboprophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is more likely in ICU patients with elevated body mass index, those with a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, and those receiving vasopressors. Alternate management or incremental risk reduction strategies may be needed in such patients.

Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: The effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, as compared with unfractionated heparin, on venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and other outcomes are uncertain in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we tested the superiority of dalteparin over unfractionated heparin by randomly assigning 3764 patients to receive either subcutaneous dalteparin (at a dose of 5000 IU once daily) plus placebo once daily (for parallel-group twice-daily injections) or unfractionated heparin (at a dose of 5000 IU twice daily) while they were in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome, proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, was diagnosed on compression ultrasonography performed within 2 days after admission, twice weekly, and as clinically indicated. Additional testing for venous thromboembolism was performed as clinically indicated. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of proximal leg deep-vein thrombosis, which occurred in 96 of 1873 patients (5.1%) receiving dalteparin versus 109 of 1873 patients (5.8%) receiving unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio in the dalteparin group, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.23; P=0.57). The proportion of patients with pulmonary emboli was significantly lower with dalteparin (24 patients, 1.3%) than with unfractionated heparin (43 patients, 2.3%) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.88; P=0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P=0.98) or death in the hospital (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P=0.21). In prespecified per-protocol analyses, the results were similar to those of the main analyses, but fewer patients receiving dalteparin had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.98; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients, dalteparin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in decreasing the incidence of proximal deep-vein thrombosis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROTECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00182143.).

Is venous thromboprophylaxis necessary in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for a gynecologic malignancy?

OBJECTIVES: Current recommendations for the use of venous thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for a gynecologic malignancy are derived from patients undergoing open surgery. Our objective was to determine the 30-day prevalence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) after laparoscopic gynecologic oncology procedures in patients who received no thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: Between January 2006 and September 2013, women who underwent MIS for endometrial, cervical or ovarian cancer at a single institution were included. Data on patient demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, perioperative characteristics, use of thromboprophylaxis, and diagnosis of VTE were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: Of the 419 patients who underwent MIS for a gynecologic cancer, 352 (84%) received no VTE prophylaxis. At least a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (simple or radical) or pelvic lymph node dissection was performed in 95% of these patients. The median length of surgery was 137 min and 95% of patients were discharged home within 1 day of surgery. The rate of VTE in the 352 untreated patients was 0.57% (1 pulmonary embolism and 1 deep vein thrombosis). There were no VTE diagnosed within 30 days of surgery in the 67 patients who received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The rate of VTE is low in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for a gynecologic malignancy despite no VTE prophylaxis. The benefits of routine use of VTE prophylaxis in this population are questionable.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Rehabilitation: a Review and Practice Suggestions.

ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of acute hospital care, and this extends to in-patient rehabilitation. The timely use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in patients who are at risk is a strong, evidence-based patient safety priority that has reduced clinically important VTE, associated mortality and costs of care. While there has been extensive research on optimal approaches to VTE prophylaxis in acute care, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence specific to patients in the rehabilitation setting, and there are no clinical practice guidelines that make recommendations for (or against) thromboprophylaxis across the broad spectrum of rehabilitation patients. Herein, we provide an evidence-informed review of the topic with practice suggestions. We conducted a series of literature searches to assess the risks of VTE and its prevention related to in-patient rehabilitation as well as in major rehabilitation subgroups. Mobilization alone does not eliminate the risk of VTE after another thrombotic insult. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the principal current modalities of thromboprophylaxis. Based on the literature, we make suggestions for VTE prevention and include an approach for consideration by rehabilitation units that can be aligned with local practice.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), assessed in terms of: 1. Increase in the proportion of patients who receive prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis 2. Reduction in risk of symptomatic VTE3. Reduction in risk of asymptomatic VTE4. Safety of the intervention. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Group's Specialised Register (last searched July 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) 2010, Issue 3. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases (19 April 2010) as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies whose interventions aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis and/or appropriate prophylaxis, decrease the proportion of symptomatic VTE, or decrease the proportion of asymptomatic VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded studies that simply distributed published guidelines and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the following outcomes: the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (RP), the proportion of patients who received appropriate prophylaxis (RAP) (primary outcomes), and the occurrence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic VTE, and safety outcomes such as bleeding. We categorized interventions into education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions. We meta-analyzed RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) separately by random effects meta-analysis, and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2)statistic and subgroup analyses. Before analysis, we decided that results would be pooled if three or more studies were available for a particular intervention. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and cumulative meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 55 studies. One of these reported data in patient-days and could not be quantitatively analyzed with the others. The 54 remaining studies (8 RCTs and 46 NRS) eligible for inclusion in our quantitative synthesis enrolled a total of 78,343 participants. Among RCTs, there were sufficient data to pool results for one primary outcome (received prophylaxis) for the 'alert' intervention. Alerts, such as computerized reminders or stickers on patients' charts, were associated with a risk difference (RD) of 13%, signifying an increase in the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (95% confidence interval (CI) 1% to 25%). Among NRS, there were sufficient data to pool both primary outcomes for each intervention type. Pooled risk differences for received prophylaxis ranged from 8% to 17%, and for received appropriate prophylaxis ranged from 11% to 19%. Education and alerts were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis, and multifaceted interventions were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of any prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis. Multifaceted interventions had the largest pooled effects. I(2) results showed substantial statistical heterogeneity which was in part explained by patient types and type of hospital. A subgroup analysis showed that multifaceted interventions which included an alert may be more effective at improving rates of prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis than those without an alert. Results for VTE and safety outcomes did not show substantial benefits or harms, although most studies were underpowered to assess these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed a large number of studies which implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed to improve thromboprophylaxis rates in many settings and patient populations. We found statistically significant improvements in prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (RCTs) and multifaceted interventions (RCTs and NRS), and improvements in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis in NRS with the use of education, alerts and multifaceted interventions. Multifaceted interventions with an alert component may be the most effective. Demonstrated sources of heterogeneity included patient types and type of hospital. The results of our review will help physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators and policy makers make practical decisions about local adoption of specific system-wide measures to improve prevention of VTE, an important public health issue. We did not find a significant benefit for VTE outcomes; however, earlier RCTs assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis which were powered to address these outcomes have demonstrated the benefit of prophylactic therapies and a favourable balance of benefits versus the increased risk of bleeding events.

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.

Economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention strategies in hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence-based guidelines for venous thromboembolism prevention, substantial variability is found in practice. Many economic evaluations of new drugs for thromboembolism prevention do not occur prospectively with efficacy studies and are sponsored by the manufacturers, raising the possibility of bias. We performed a systematic review of economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients to inform clinicians and policy makers about cost-effectiveness and the potential influence of sponsorship. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases, ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, from 1946 to September 2011. We extracted data on study characteristics, quality, costs, and efficacy. RESULTS: From 5,180 identified studies, 39 met eligibility and quality criteria. Each addressed pharmacologic prevention: low-molecular-weight heparins versus placebo (five), unfractionated heparin (12), warfarin (eight), one or another agents (five); fondaparinux versus enoxaparin (11); and rivaroxaban and dabigatran versus enoxaparin (two). Low-molecular-weight heparins were most economically attractive among most medical and surgical patients, whereas fondaparinux was favored for orthopedic patients. Fondaparinux was associated with increased bleeding events. Newer agents rivaroxaban and dabigatran may offer additional value. Of all economic evaluations, 64% were supported by manufacturers of a "new" agent. The new agent had a favorable outcome in 38 (97.4%) of 39 evaluations [95% confidence interval [CI] (86.5 to 99.9)]. Among studies supported by a pharmaceutical company, the sponsored medication was economically attractive in 24 (96.0%) of 25 [95% CI, 80.0 to 99.9)]. We could not detect a consistent bias in outcome based on sponsorship; however, only a minority of studies were unsponsored. CONCLUSION: Low-molecular-weight heparins and fondaparinux are the most economically attractive drugs for venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients. Approximately two thirds of evaluations were supported by the manufacturer of the new agent; such drugs were likely to be reported as economically favorable.

Screening and prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: a decision analysis and economic evaluation.

RATIONALE: Venous thromboembolism is difficult to diagnose in critically ill patients and may increase morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce morbidity from venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model to compare weekly compression ultrasound screening (screening) plus investigation for clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (case finding) versus case finding alone; and a hypothetical program to increase adherence to DVT prevention. Probabilities were derived from a systematic review of venous thromboembolism in medical-surgical intensive care unit patients. Costs (in 2010 $US) were obtained from hospitals in Canada, Australia, and the United States, and the medical literature. Analyses were conducted from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon. Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the base case, the rate of proximal DVT was 85 per 1,000 patients. Screening resulted in three fewer pulmonary emboli than case-finding alone but also two additional bleeding episodes, and cost $223,801 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, screening cost less than $50,000 per QALY only if the probability of proximal DVT increased from a baseline of 8.5-16%. By comparison, increasing adherence to appropriate pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis by 10% resulted in 16 fewer DVTs, one fewer pulmonary emboli, and one additional heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and bleeding event, and cost $27,953 per QALY gained. Programs achieving increased adherence to best-practice venous thromboembolism prevention were cost-effective over a wide range of program costs and were robust in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate prophylaxis provides better value in terms of costs and health gains than routine screening for DVT. Resources should be targeted at optimizing thromboprophylaxis.

A pilot study of computed tomography-detected asymptomatic pulmonary filling defects after hip and knee arthroplasties.

We asked what the incidence of asymptomatic filling defects is on routine multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in primary hip (total hip arthroplasty [THA]) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) patients. We prospectively performed MDCT scans on the first postoperative day for THA (n = 21)/TKA (n = 27). Patients underwent routine postoperative care, and data were collected for symptoms such as tachycardia or shortness of breath. More patients undergoing TKA had positive computed tomography scans than those undergoing THA: 11 (41%) vs 1 (5%), respectively. All patients diagnosed with a filling defect were discharged from the hospital without treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Our study demonstrates a high rate of abnormal MDCT early after lower extremity arthroplasty, the clinical importance of which may be benign.

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.