For patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), prediction of bleeding is relevant throughout the course of treatment, although the means and goal of this prediction differ between the subsequent ...stages of treatment: treatment initiation, hospital discharge, 3-month follow-up, and long-term follow-up. Even in the absence of fully established risk prediction schemes and outcome studies using a prediction scheme for treatment decisions, the present evidence supports screening for and targeting of modifiable risk factors for major bleeding, as well as the application of decision rules to identify patients at low risk of bleeding complications, in whom long-term anticoagulant treatment is likely safe. Moving forward, prediction tools need to be incorporated in well-designed randomized controlled trials aiming to establish optimal treatment duration in patients at high risk of recurrent VTE. Moreover, the benefit of their longitudinal assessment rather than application as stand-alone baseline assessments should be studied, because changes in bleeding risk over time likely constitute the best predictor of major bleeding. We provide the state-of-the-art of assessing and managing bleeding risk in patients with acute VTE and highlight a practical approach for daily practice illustrated by 2 case scenarios.
Display omitted
In a randomized trial, oral apixaban was noninferior to a low-molecular-weight heparin, dalteparin, in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism at 6 months in patients with cancer. The use of ...apixaban was not associated with a higher risk of major bleeding than dalteparin, even in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 were developed, tested, and introduced at a remarkable speed. Although the vaccine introduction had a major impact on the evolution of ...COVID-19, some potential rare side-effects of the vaccines were observed. Within a short period, three scientific groups from Norway, Germany, and the UK reported cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and anti-platelet factor 4 (anti-PF4) antibodies in individuals following AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccination and named this new syndrome vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). This syndrome was subsequently reported in individuals who received Johnson & Johnson vaccination. In this Viewpoint, we discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and optimal diagnostic and therapeutic management of VITT. Presentation of an individual with possible VITT should raise prompt testing for anti-PF4 antibodies and initiation of treatment targeting autoimmune processes with intravenous immunoglobulin and prothrombotic processes with non-heparin anticoagulation.
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.
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.
The incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary embolism (PE) is relevant for management decisions but is currently unknown.We performed a meta-analysis of ...studies including consecutive PE patients followed for CTEPH. Study cohorts were predefined as "all comers", "survivors" or "survivors without major comorbidities". CTEPH incidences were calculated using random effects models.We selected 16 studies totalling 4047 PE patients who were mostly followed up for >2-years. In 1186 all comers (two studies), the pooled CTEPH incidence was 0.56% (95% CI 0.1-1.0). In 999 survivors (four studies) CTEPH incidence was 3.2% (95% CI 2.0-4.4). In 1775 survivors without major comorbidities (nine studies), CTEPH incidence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.5-4.1). Both recurrent venous thromboembolism and unprovoked PE were significantly associated with a higher risk of CTEPH, with odds ratios of 3.2 (95% CI 1.7-5.9) and 4.1 (95% CI 2.1-8.2) respectively. The pooled CTEPH incidence in 12 studies that did not use right heart catheterisation as the diagnostic standard was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1-8.4).The 0.56% incidence in the all-comer group probably provides the best reflection of the incidence of CTEPH after PE on the population level. The ∼3% incidences in the survivor categories may be more relevant for daily clinical practice. Studies that assessed CTEPH diagnosis by tests other than right heart catheterisation provide overestimated CTEPH incidences.
The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has put pressure on health systems around the world 1, 2. This coronavirus has also questioned much of our medical knowledge, with each day seeing ...the appearance of a new possible clinical expression of the virus 3. Although its physiopathology is still poorly understood, the vascular tropism of the disease now seems to be a major pathway 4. Recent studies highlight the development of a specific pulmonary vascular endothelialitis associated with thrombosis and angiogenesis 5.
D-dimer threshold at 2590 ng·mL
−1
is able to predict pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients with clinical deterioration
https://bit.ly/3kYObc3
Incidental pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent finding on routine computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest, occurring in 1.1% of coronary CT scans and 3.6% of oncological CT scans. Despite this ...high frequency, optimal management of incidental PE has not been addressed in clinical trials and remains the subject of debate. Although these CT scans have not been performed with a dedicated PE protocol and have suboptimal contrast enhancement, diagnosis of incidental PE has been shown to be accurate up to the segmental and subsegmental arteries. The embolic load in incidental PE is lower than that in symptomatic PE. Even so, observational studies suggest that the natural course of incidental PE is similar to that of symptomatic PE with regard to the risk of recurrent venous thrombotic disease and mortality. Interestingly, the increased use of more advanced CT technology has coincided with an increase in the rate of incidental subsegmental PE, as is the case for symptomatic subsegmental PE. Although clinical trials are lacking, and observational data are limited to cancer-associated incidental PE, the consensus is that the management of incidental PE is identical to that of symptomatic PE, including the choice of optimal drug class, outpatient treatment and total duration of treatment.
Abstract
Background
Clinical complexity is common in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. We assessed the impact of clinical complexity on oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment patterns and major adverse ...outcomes in a contemporary cohort of AF patients.
Methods
The GLORIA-AF Phase II and III Registry enrolled newly diagnosed AF patients with at least one stroke risk factor. Among patients with CHA
2
DS
2
-VASc score ≥2, we defined four domains of perceived clinical complexity: frail elderly (age ≥75 years and body mass index <23 kg/m
2
), chronic kidney disease (CKD, creatinine clearance <60 mL/min), history of bleeding, and those with ≥2 of the above conditions. We evaluated the associations between clinical complexity domains and antithrombotic treatment prescription, risk of OAC discontinuation, and major adverse outcomes.
Results
Among the 29,625 patients included (mean age 69.6 ± 10.7 years, 44.2% females), 9,504 (32.1%) presented with at least one complexity criterion. Clinical complexity was associated with lower OAC prescription, with stronger associations in frail elderly (odds ratio OR: 0.47, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.36–0.62) and those with ≥2 complexity domains (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.44–0.57). Risk of OAC discontinuation was higher among frail elderly (hazard ratio HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.00–1.69), CKD (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02–1.20), and those with ≥2 complexity domains (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.23–1.57). Clinical complexity was associated with higher risk of the primary outcome of all-cause death, thromboembolism, and major bleeding, with the highest magnitude in those with ≥2 criteria (HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.43–1.86).
Conclusion
In AF patients, clinical complexity influences OAC treatment management, and increases the risk of poor clinical outcomes. These patients require additional efforts, such as integrated care approach, to improve their management and prognosis.
Whether concomitant administration of anticancer agents influences the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients treated for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is undefined. ...The pharmacological interaction between anticancer agents and direct oral anticoagulants is perceived as a concern.
We evaluated the effects of concomitant administration of anticancer agents on recurrent VTE, major bleeding and death in patients with cancer-associated VTE randomised to receive apixaban or dalteparin in the Caravaggio study.
Anticancer agents were concomitantly given to 336 patients (58.3%) treated with apixaban and to 332 patients (57.3%) treated with dalteparin. In patients treated with apixaban, recurrent VTE occurred in 20 (6.0%) and 12 (5.0%) among patients treated or not treated with anticancer agents, respectively (hazard ratio HR = 1.14; 0.55–2.38); major bleeding occurred in 12 (3.6%) and 10 (4.2%) patients , respectively (HR = 0.79; 0.34–1.82), and death occurred in 74 (22.0%) and 61 (25.4%) patients , respectively (HR = 0.71; 0.51–1.00). In patients treated with dalteparin, recurrent VTE occurred in 24 (7.2%) and 22 (8.9%) among patients treated or not treated with anticancer agents, respectively (HR = 0.71; 0.40–1.28); major bleeding occurred in 16 (4.8%) and 7 (2.8%) patients, respectively (HR = 1.78; 0.66–4.79), and death occurred in 87 (26.2%) and 66 (26.7%) patients, respectively (HR = 0.85; 0.62–1.18). The comparative efficacy and safety of apixaban and dalteparin was not different in patients treated or not treated with anticancer agents. No effect on recurrent VTE, major bleeding or death was observed with inhibitors or inducers of P-glycoprotein and/or CYP3A4.
In our study, concomitant administration of anticancer agents had no effect on the risk of VTE recurrence or major bleeding in patients treated with apixaban or dalteparin for cancer-associated VTE.
•Anticancer agents did not influence rates of primary outcomes during anticoagulation.•No interaction between apixaban and CYP3A4 or permeability glycoprotein inducers or inhibitors was found.•Anticancer agents can be concomitantly administered to apixaban-treated patients with venous thromboembolism.•An increased risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding was observed in apixaban-treated patients with colorectal and lung cancer.
PDF
