scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Risk for Acutely Medically Ill Patients Stratified by Different Ages and Renal Disease Status

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961882328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alpesh Amin ◽  
W. Richey Neuman ◽  
Melissa Lingohr-Smith ◽  
Brandy Menges ◽  
Jay Lin
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Renal Disease ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

The objectives of this study were to examine venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis patterns and risk for VTE events during hospitalization and in the outpatient continuum of care among patients hospitalized for acute illnesses in the United States with stratification by different age groups and renal disease status. Acutely ill hospitalized patients were identified from the MarketScan databases (January 1, 2012-June 30, 2015) and grouped by age (<65, 65-74, ≥75 years old) and whether or not they had a baseline diagnosis of renal disease, separately. Of acutely ill hospitalized patients, 60.1% (n = 10 748) were <65 years old, 15.7% (n = 2803) were 65 to 74 years old, and 24.3% (n = 4344) were ≥75 years old; 32.9% (n = 5892) had baseline renal disease. Among the study cohorts, the majority of patients received no VTE prophylaxis regardless of age or baseline renal status (52.1%-63.6%). Rates of VTE during hospitalization and in the 6 months postdischarge were 4.7%, 4.6%, and 4.5% for patients <65, 65 to 74, and ≥75 years old, respectively, and 6.3% and 3.8% for patients with and without baseline renal disease. The risk for VTE was elevated for 30 to 40 days after index admission regardless of age and renal disease status.

Meta-analysis of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically Ill patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 2395-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abir O. Kanaan ◽  
Matthew A. Silva ◽  
Jennifer L. Donovan ◽  
Tara Roy ◽  
A. Samer Al-Homsi
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

The National Practice Patterns of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Post-Cardiothoracic Surgery

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheena E. Mathew ◽  
Craig J. Beavers ◽  
Elizabeth McNeely
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Graft ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Multicenter Survey ◽  
Pharmacologic Prophylaxis ◽  
Chemical Prophylaxis

Background: The rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) post-cardiothoracic surgery are not well understood. The american college of chest physicians (CHEST) guidelines report weak recommendations for starting VTE prophylaxis post-cardiothoracic surgery. It is suspected that due to the increase in bleed risk, postsurgery initiation of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is limited. Objective: The study sought to investigate the use of VTE prevention in US hospitals performing cardiac surgery and the use of mechanical/chemical prophylaxis postoperatively. Methods: This is a multicenter survey distributed to cardiac hospitals in the United States. The survey was distributed through 3 separate listservs. Data were analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics. Results: The majority of the hospitals were academic and/or community and completed coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), valve replacement (mitral/aortic/tricuspid), and aortic repair. It was common for hospitals to start mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis post-cardiothoracic surgery on postoperative day (POD) 1 to 2. The anticoagulation most commonly used consisted of unfractionated heparin. Conclusions: The majority of the institutions are initiating therapy POD 1 to 2 with both mechanical and chemical prophylaxis. The full impact of early initiation of VTE prophylaxis is unknown, and more studies are needed to assess the true risks/benefits of these practices.

scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Acute Medically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3678-3678
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Genady Drozdinsky ◽  
Oren Zusman ◽  
Shiri Kushnir ◽  
Leonard Leibovici
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Pharmacologic Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

Background and Aims Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered as a preventable cause of death for hospitalized patients. Current guidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for medical patients considered high risk for VTE, despite failure of studies to show reduction in mortality. We aimed to assess the benefit and safety of VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards. Methods Retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to the internal medicine and acute geriatric departments, with an admission lasting more than 48 hours, during 2012-2018. Patients who received pharmacologic prophylaxis were compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were the 90 day incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and major bleeding. Propensity-weighted logistic multivariable analysis was performed. Results A total of 18890 patient-unique episodes were included in the analysis. Of them 3206 (17%) received prophylaxis. A total of 1309 (6.9%) died. 540/1309 (41.3%) of those who received VTE prophylaxis died and 769/1309 (58.7%) of those who did not receive prophylaxis died. VTE Prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in mortality, multivariate-adjusted OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.84-1.14). One hundred and forty two patients (0.7%) developed VTE. The frequency of VTE among patients who received VTE prophylaxis was 31% (44/142) compared with 69% (98/142) in patients who did not receive prophylaxis. The frequency of VTE in patients who had a Padua score ≥4 and received VTE prophylaxis, was 1.9% (30/1573) compared with 1.6% (44/2797) in those with a Padua score ≥4 who did not receive prophylaxis. 74/142 (52.1%) of patients with VTE had a Padua score ≥4, 44/1309 (1.4%) of those who received VTE prophylaxis and 98/15864 (0.6%) of those who did not. VTE Prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in VTE in the whole cohort, multivariable-adjusted OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.52-2.29). VTE prophylaxis was associated with an increase in major bleeding (multivariable-adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.48) Conclusion The current practice of routinely administering VTE prophylaxis to medically ill patients considered at high risk for VTE, resulted in a high risk for bleeding a without clear clinical benefit, and should be reassessed. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract P36: Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Medically Ill Patients

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Trudy Pendergraft ◽  
Montserrat Vera-Llonch ◽  
Alex Kartashov ◽  
Xianchen C Liu ◽  
Hemant Phatak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Intermittent Pneumatic Compression ◽  
Nursing Home Admission ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

Background: Many hospitalized medically ill patients are at risk of VTE, during admission and after discharge. Risk factors include prior VTE, older age, immobility, obesity, heart or respiratory failure, and cancer. ACCP guidelines recommend use of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH), and mechanical prophylaxis otherwise, in high-risk patients. VTE prophylaxis may be underutilized, however. Methods: Using a database linking admission records from >150 US hospitals to health insurance claims, we identified all persons, aged >=40 years, hospitalized from 2003 to 2008 and at high risk of VTE (based on ACCP guidelines). We excluded patients who: (1) underwent surgery; (2) were hospitalized in prior 30 days; (3) were treated for VTE in prior 30 days; (4) had hypercoagulability at admission; and (5) received LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux (FOND) at therapeutic dosages on hospital day 1 or 2. We examined use of VTE prophylaxis during hospital admission and post-discharge. Results: We identified 35,606 patients who met all study entry criteria. Mean age was 67 years. Only 17.9% of study subjects received in-hospital VTE prophylaxis, most frequently LMWH (10.1%), intermittent pneumatic compression (4.5%), warfarin (2.9%), and/or stockings (2.0%). Prophylaxis use exceeded 25% only in patients with history (>30 days) of VTE and those admitted from nursing homes. Very few patients (1.7%) received post-discharge VTE prophylaxis; use was limited to LMWH. While there were several significant predictors of VTE prophylaxis (nursing home admission [odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval 1.91-2.42], central venous catheter placement [1.76; 1.60-1.94], ischemic stroke [1.68; 1.54-1.84] obesity [1.58; 1.47-1.70], and prior VTE [1.57; 1.24-1.99]), model discrimination was relatively poor (c statistic = 0.61). Conclusion: VTE prophylaxis is under-utilized in high-risk hospitalized medically ill patients, during initial admission and following hospital discharge.

scholarly journals Pulmonary Embolism While on Aspirin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Total Knee Arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 215013271879744
Author(s):  
Francisco Roman ◽  
Jay-Sheree Allen ◽  
Heather Catherine Wurm ◽  
Kathy MacLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Pulmonary Arteries ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis

A 62-year-old Caucasian man with past medical history significant for coronary artery disease, status post drug eluting stent to the left anterior descending artery 10 years prior, was admitted for elective total right knee arthroplasty. His intraoperative course was uneventful, and he was discharged on hospital day 2 on aspirin 325 mg twice daily for 6 weeks for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Three weeks later the patient developed chest pain shortly after an approximately 1-hour flight and presented to a local emergency department where computed tomography angiogram showed pulmonary emboli involving segmental and subsegmental pulmonary arteries bilaterally. He was transitioned from aspirin 325 mg twice a day to rivaroxaban 15 mg twice daily for 21 days, with a plan to transition to 20 mg daily to complete a 3-month course. He returned to his primary care physician 6 days after discharge with questions about his current anticoagulation therapy as well as the regimen he was on prior to the pulmonary embolism. Two major organizations, The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons and The American College of Chest Physicians, provide recommendations for VTE prophylaxis, but they differ regarding the preferred pharmacologic modality and duration. Although the goal is to provide optimal patient care, lack of guideline consensus may lead to different postoperative recommendations. It is important for clinicians to discuss with their patients the pharmacologic options available for VTE prophylaxis, how organizations differ in their recommendations, and the limitations of these pharmacologic agents.

Evaluation of Enoxaparin for Inpatient Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Hemodialysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 001857872095415
Author(s):  
Jamie Sacks ◽  
Stanley A. Luc
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Renal Disease ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
End Stage Renal Disease ◽  
Safety Concern ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Stage Renal Disease ◽  
End Stage

Background: Enoxaparin is not recommended for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) population due to concerns for drug accumulation and increased bleeding risk. Due to the paucity of literature with clinical outcomes to support this theoretical safety concern, the purpose of this study was to compare the risks of bleeding of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in hospitalized, HD-dependent patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined ESRD on HD patients who received either subcutaneous enoxaparin or UFH for VTE prophylaxis and were admitted for at least 48 hours. The primary outcome was major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) as guided by definitions from the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Results: A total of 322 enoxaparin and 10 UFH patients were analyzed. All enoxaparin patients were dosed 30 mg subcutaneous daily. Twenty-two (6.8%) enoxaparin and zero UFH patients experienced major or CRNMB ( P = .498). Three enoxaparin patients suffered fatal hemorrhages. Multiple logistic regression demonstrated thrombocytopenia was associated with bleeding (odds ratio 4.23, P = .004). Conclusion: The difference in major or CRNMB rates between both anticoagulants was not statistically significant. However, the 6.8% bleed rate is concerning for inpatient enoxaparin usage, and caution should be applied when considering this drug for VTE prophylaxis in the ESRD on HD population.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin Compared With Unfractionated Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hemodialysis Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 623-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa S. Green ◽  
Katie B. Tellor ◽  
Amanda R. Buckallew
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Unfractionated Heparin ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Renal Elimination ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Medically Ill ◽  
Medically Ill Patients

Background: Enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin approved for prophylaxis in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), offers several advantages compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Enoxaparin is primarily excreted through renal elimination and is currently not recommended in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) due to potential increased bleeding complications. To date, there are limited safety and efficacy data supporting the use of enoxaparin in this patient population for VTE prophylaxis. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin with UFH for deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis in medically ill HD patients. Methods and Results: This retrospective cohort study examined medically ill patients who received HD and were concomitantly prescribed enoxaparin or UFH for at least 2 consecutive days for VTE prophylaxis. A total of 225 patients (150 received UFH and 75 received enoxaparin) were evaluated in chronological order. The primary outcome was a composite of major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding based on International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding definitions. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of a confirmed thrombotic event. Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. One patient in each cohort had a documented bleed (UFH = 0.7%, enoxaparin = 1.3%, P > .05) during the admission assessed; however, neither bleed was related to the prophylactic agent utilized. No patients developed a VTE during the index hospitalization. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that enoxaparin may be as safe and effective as UFH for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients receiving HD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document