Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Practices in Acutely Ill Medical Patients with Either Previous Cancer or Currently Active Cancer: Findings from IMPROVE.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1767-1767
Author(s):  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
Ajay K. Kakkar ◽  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Gordon Fitzgerald ◽  
Frederick A. Anderson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with previous or current cancer have an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little data is available on physician’s practices for providing VTE prophylaxis to these patients. The aim of this analysis of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) was to characterize VTE prophylaxis practices in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients who had previous cancer or currently active cancer. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotic agents or thrombolytics at admission, major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission, and VTE treatment within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries. 578 (13%) patients had currently active cancer (6% as the primary admission diagnosis). Patients with current cancer, previous cancer only, and no cancer were: 40%, 54% and 51% female, median (IQR) ages 72 (60–79), 77 (64–82) and 66 (47–80) years, median length of hospital stay 9 (5–18), 8 (5–12) and 8 (5–14) days, median duration of immobility 8 (5–19), 5 (4–11) and 6 (4–14) days (including immobility immediately prior to hospital admission). The percentages of patients with current or no cancer who received any pharmacologic prophylaxis were similar (see Table 1). However, aspirin was less likely to be prescribed, and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) more likely to be used in patients with current cancer than in those without cancer. Patients with previous cancer were more likely to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis, with increased use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and aspirin, compared with patients without cancer. Conclusions Despite acutely ill medical patients with previous or current cancer having a higher risk for VTE, less than half received VTE prophylaxis, reflecting poor awareness of the benefits of prophylaxis. Physician’s perceptions of bleeding risks in cancer patients may influence prophylaxis practices; patients with current cancer were less likely to receive aspirin, but more likely to receive IPC, than patients without cancer. However, patients with previous cancer were more likely to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis than those without cancer, reflecting recognition by some physicians that these patients have an increased risk for VTE. Table 1. VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with current, previous or no cancer VTE prophylaxis Current cancer (%) n=578 Previous cancer (%) n=266 No cancer (%) n=3471 *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 (compared with patients with no cancer); †Some patients received >1 type of prophylaxis; ‡Without concomitant pharmacologic prophylaxis; ES, elastic stockings LMWH 24 24 23 UFH 10 21*** 13 Aspirin 1** 9** 4 Warfarin 0 1 1 Any pharmacologic prophylaxis† 34 46** 37 IPC‡ 7* 5 4 ES‡ 2 3 2

2011 ◽  
pp. 191-204
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 191
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.


Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1762-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Herve Decousus ◽  
Jean-Fran[ccedi]ois Bergmann ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite consensus group recommendations indicating that medical patients should receive appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, prophylaxis practices remain poorly characterized. This analysis of IMPROVE, a prospective study of acutely ill medical patients, describes in-hospital prophylaxis practices prior to the publication of updated VTE prevention guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old, and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission; major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission; and VTE treatment begun within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients (32% from USA) enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries (76% with 3-month follow-up data). Patients are 50% female, median (IQR) age 69 (50–80) years, median length of hospital stay 8 (5–14) days, median weight 68 (58–80) kg, and 40% were immobile for ≥3 days (median length of immobility 7 [4–14] days, including immobility immediately prior to admission). In-hospital VTE prophylaxis was received by 41% of patients (Table 1). Of patients with no risk factors (44%), one risk factor (40%), or ≥2 risk factors (16%), 25%, 49%, and 67% received prophylaxis, respectively. 12% of IMPROVE patients would have been eligible for inclusion in the MEDENOX study. Of these, only 52% received prophylaxis in hospital. Prophylaxis was provided to 6% of patients during the 3-month follow-up period, and continued in 11% of patients after discharge. Conclusions Only 41% of IMPROVE patients received VTE prophylaxis, with considerable variation in types and regimens of prophylaxis used. While MEDENOX showed the benefits of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin 40 mg) in acutely ill medical patients, only half of MEDENOX-eligible patients received prophylaxis. Table 1. Use of in-hospital VTE prophylaxis (N=4315) VTE prophylaxis Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis, % ROW, rest of world; *Excluding elastic stockings and aspirin ≥1 type of VTE prophylaxis* 41 LMWH - USA (Q12h, Qd) 7 (5, 1) LMWH- ROW (Q12h, Qd) 31 (29, 2) UFH - USA (Q12h, Q8h) 28 (15, 11) UFH - ROW (Q12h, Q8h) 6 (5, 0) Intermittent pneumatic compression (USA, ROW) 6 (19, 0) Aspirin (USA, ROW) 4 (7, 3) Elastic stockings (USA, ROW) 6 (3, 8)


2007 ◽  
Vol 98 (09) ◽  
pp. 656-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Seddighzadeh ◽  
Ranjith Shetty ◽  
Samuel Goldhaber

SummaryPatients with cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).To further define the demographics, comorbidities, and risk factors of VTE in these patients, we analyzed a prospective registry of 5,451 patients with ultrasound confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from 183 hospitals in the United States. Cancer was reported in 1,768 (39%), of whom 1,096 (62.0%) had active cancer. Of these, 599 (54.7%) were receiving chemotherapy, and 226 (20.6%) had metastases. Lung (18.5%), colorectal (11.8%), and breast cancer (9.0%) were among the most common cancer types. Cancer patients were younger (median age 66 years vs. 70 years; p<0.0001), were more likely to be male (50.4% vs. 44.5%; p=0.0005), and had a lower average body mass index (26.6 kg/m2 vs. 28.9 kg/m2; p<0.0001). Cancer patients less often received VTE prophylaxis prior to development of DVT compared to those with no cancer (308 of 1,096, 28.2% vs. 1,196 of 3,444, 34.6%; p<0.0001). For DVT therapy, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as monotherapy without warfarin (142 of 1,086, 13.1% vs. 300 of 3,429, 8.7%; p<0.0001) and inferior vena caval filters (234 of 1,086, 21.5% vs. 473 of 3,429, 13.8%; p<0.0001) were utilized more often in cancer patients than in DVT patients without cancer. Cancer patients with DVT and neurological disease were twice as likely to receive inferior vena caval filters than those with no cancer (odds ratio 2.17, p=0.005). In conclusion, cancer patients who develop DVT receive prophylaxis less often and more often receive filters than patients with no cancer who develop DVT. Future studies should focus on ways to improve implementation of prophylaxis in cancer patients and to further define the indications, efficacy, and safety of inferior vena caval filters in this population.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 264-264
Author(s):  
Hervé Decousus ◽  
Rainer B. Zotz ◽  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although clinical studies have not shown a significant difference between the risk of bleeding in acutely ill medical patients receiving pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and those receiving placebo, fear of bleeding may lead physicians to withhold pharmacologic prophylaxis for patients who should receive it. We therefore aimed to determine the incidence of, and risk factors for in-hospital bleeding in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients in IMPROVE, an international, observational registry. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years, hospitalized ≥3 days with an acute medical illness have been enrolled consecutively since July 2002. Exclusion criteria: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission, major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission, and VTE treatment within 24 hours of admission. Patients bleeding immediately before, or at admission were excluded from this analysis. Factors present at admission and associated with increased risk of in-hospital bleeding (defined as major or clinically significant nonmajor [Büller et al. N Engl J Med2003;349:1695–702]) were identified by univariate analysis (p&lt;0.15) and included in a multiple logistic regression model (significant at p&lt;0.05). The model was adjusted for patients’ length of stay in hospital. Results Data were from 5960 patients enrolled up to 31 March 2005 in 49 hospitals (12 countries). In-hospital bleeding occurred in 170 (2.9%) patients: 68 (1.1%) major and 102 (1.7%) clinically significant nonmajor bleeding. Independent risk factors for in-hospital bleeding are shown in the Table. In-hospital prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparin were not independently associated with an increased risk of bleeding when added to the analysis (p=0.51 and 0.38, respectively). In patients with 0, 1, 2 or ≥3 of these risk factors, the incidences of major in-hospital bleeding were 0.1%, 0.4%, 1.2% and 5.2%, respectively. Conclusions In this unselected patient population, the rate of major in-hospital bleeding was low (1.1%) and similar to that in the MEDENOX study (1.0%), a major clinical study of VTE prophylaxis. Factors that we identified will be valuable for predicting the risk of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients. Table. Factors predictive of an increased risk of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients Factor Odds ratio 95% confidence interval Active gastroduodenal ulcer 5.38 2.90–10.00 Bleeding disorder 4.54 2.02–10.19 Hepatic failure 3.34 1.80–6.19 Serum creatinine &gt;1.5 mg/dL 2.29 1.63-3.21 Current cancer 2.08 1.43-3.03 Central venous catheter 2.00 1.31-3.05 ICU/CCU stay 1.92 1.23-3.02 Immobile ≥ 4 days 1.75 1.24-2.46 Ischemic heart disease 1.57 1.02-2.40


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 917-917
Author(s):  
Manuel Monreal ◽  
Rainer B. Zotz ◽  
Hervé Decousus ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
Geno Merli ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Acutely ill medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) should receive VTE prophylaxis. However, factors perceived by physicians to increase patients’ risk of bleeding may influence VTE prophylaxis practices. In this analysis from The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE), we examined whether perceived risk factors for bleeding had a significant influence on physicians’ prescribing of in-hospital prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years and hospitalized ≥3 days with an acute medical illness have been enrolled consecutively since July 2002. Risk factors considered were: severe renal failure, known bleeding disorder, hemorrhagic stroke, thrombocytopenia, bacterial endocarditis, active gastroduodenal ulcer, NSAID use, hepatic failure, age, immobility and alcoholism. Factors associated with different prescription rates of prophylaxis compared with rates in patients without these factors were identified and included in a multiple logistic regression model (significance at p&lt;0.05). Results Up to 31 March 2005, 6946 patients were enrolled in 49 hospitals in 12 countries. Pharmacologic prophylaxis was received by 42%, 25%, 16%, and 14% of patients with a platelet count at admission &gt;100, 50–100, 20–50 and &lt;20x109/L, respectively (p&lt;0.0001), and 43%, 39%, 30% and 32% of patients with none, 1, 2 and 3 risk factors for bleeding (p&lt;0.0001). Factors independently associated with a lower/higher prescription rate of heparin-based prophylaxis compared with the risk in patients without these factors are shown in the Table. Conclusions The likelihood that hospitalized acutely ill medical patients receive in-hospital pharmacologic prophylaxis decreases as their platelet count at admission decreases, or their cumulative number of perceived risk factors for bleeding increases. Further studies are needed to determine whether the changes in prophylaxis practices observed in this study are justified. Table. Factors Independently Associated with a Higher/lower Rate of Heparin-based VTE Prophylaxis Factor Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval Age (per 10-year increase) 1.19 1.66–1.22 Immobility (per 10-day increase) 1.03 1.02–1.05 Alcoholism 0.62 0.46–0.83 Thrombocytopenia 0.60 0.48–0.74 Active duodenal ulcer 0.36 0.26–0.52 Hepatic failure 0.34 0.21–0.54


2011 ◽  
Vol 106 (10) ◽  
pp. 600-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Welner ◽  
Maria Kubin ◽  
Kerstin Folkerts ◽  
Sylvia Haas ◽  
Hanane Khoury

SummaryIt was the aim of this review to assess the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and current practice patterns for VTE prophylaxis among medical patients with acute illness in Europe. A literature search was conducted on the epidemiology and prophylaxis practices of VTE prevention among adult patients treated in-hospital for major medical conditions. A total of 21 studies with European information published between 1999 and April 2010 were retrieved. Among patients hospitalised for an acute medical illness, the incidence of VTE varied between 3.65% (symptomatic only over 10.9 days) and 14.9% (asymptomatic and symptomatic over 14 days). While clinical guidelines recommend pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for patients admitted to hospital with an acute medical illness who are bedridden, clear identification of specific risk groups who would benefit from VTE prophylaxis is lacking. In the majority of studies retrieved, prophylaxis was under-used among medical inpatients; 21% to 62% of all patients admitted to the hospital for acute medical illnesses did not receive VTE prophylaxis. Furthermore, among patients who did receive prophylaxis, a considerable proportion received medication that was not in accord with guidelines due to short duration, suboptimal dose, or inappropriate type of prophylaxis. In most cases, the duration of VTE prophylaxis did not exceed hospital stay, the mean duration of which varied between 5 and 11 days. In conclusion, despite demonstrated efficacy and established guidelines supporting VTE prophylaxis, utilisation rates and treatment duration remain suboptimal, leaving medical patients at continued risk for VTE. Improved guideline adherence and effective care delivery among the medically ill are stressed.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 1620-1620
Author(s):  
Franco Piovella ◽  
Frederick A. Anderson ◽  
Hervé Decousus ◽  
Gordon FitzGerald ◽  
Jean-François Bergmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Without evidence from autopsies, the majority of deaths resulting from pulmonary emboli (PE) are indistinguishable from deaths due to other cardiovascular diseases. This has led to a gap in perceptions between the benefits and risks of providing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In this study, we estimated the incidence of clinically apparent VTE in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients in The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE), and compared this with the expected incidence derived from clinical studies that used autopsy or prospective venographic confirmation of clinically important VTE. Methods Beginning in July 2002, a consecutive, unselected sample of patients who were aged ≥18 years and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness, were enrolled in this observational cohort from 49 hospitals in 12 countries. Up to 31 March 2005, 6946 patients were enrolled. Results Based on autopsy series of all-cause in-hospital deaths reported in the literature, PE is associated with 10% of deaths, is the primary cause in 5%, and is clinically recognized as the primary cause in 1.5% of deaths. A review of clinical studies with mandatory venography resulted in predicted rates of 10% for all VTE and 1% for clinically recognized (confirmed) VTE. In IMPROVE, there were 4/291 (1.4%) deaths due to clinically recognized PE (vs. 4 predicted). There were 79 (1.1%) treated VTE events (vs. 69 predicted). Conclusions Observed rates of death due to PE and clinically recognized VTE in a real-world setting are consistent with predictions from clinical study data. Physicians should be aware of the significant gap that exists between clinically important and clinically evident VTE events. Reliance on the low rates of clinically recognized events to assess the seriousness of this disease can lead to a significant under-estimation of its impact on public health and a consequent failure to realize the proven benefits of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikte Paulsen ◽  
Olga V. Gran ◽  
Marianne T. Severinsen ◽  
Jens Hammerstrøm ◽  
Søren R. Kristensen ◽  
...  

AbstractSmoking is a well-established risk factor for cancer, and cancer patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Conflicting results have been reported on the association between smoking and risk of VTE, and the effect of smoking on VTE-risk in subjects with cancer is scarcely studied. We aimed to investigate the association between smoking and VTE in subjects with and without cancer in a large population-based cohort. The Scandinavian Thrombosis and Cancer (STAC) cohort included 144,952 participants followed from 1993–1997 to 2008–2012. Information on smoking habits was derived from self-administered questionnaires. Active cancer was defined as the first two years following the date of cancer diagnosis. Former smokers (n = 35,890) and those with missing information on smoking status (n = 3680) at baseline were excluded. During a mean follow up of 11 years, 10,181 participants were diagnosed with cancer, and 1611 developed incident VTE, of which 214 were cancer-related. Smoking was associated with a 50% increased risk of VTE (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.98) in cancer patients, whereas no association was found in cancer-free subjects (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96–1.20). In cancer patients, the risk of VTE among smokers remained unchanged after adjustment for cancer site and metastasis. Stratified analyses showed that smoking was a risk factor for VTE among those with smoking-related and advanced cancers. In conclusion, smoking was associated with increased VTE risk in subjects with active cancer, but not in those without cancer. Our findings imply a biological interaction between cancer and smoking on the risk of VTE.


Thrombosis ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan M. Al-Dorzi ◽  
Hani M. Tamim ◽  
Abdulaziz S. Aldawood ◽  
Yaseen M. Arabi

Objectives. We compared venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis practices and incidence in critically ill cirrhotic versus noncirrhotic patients and evaluated cirrhosis as a VTE risk factor. Methods. A cohort of 798 critically ill patients followed for the development of clinically detected VTE were categorized according to the diagnosis of cirrhosis. VTE prophylaxis practices and incidence were compared. Results. Seventy-five (9.4%) patients had cirrhosis with significantly higher INR (2.2 ± 0.9 versus 1.3 ± 0.6, P<0.0001), lower platelet counts (115,000 ± 90,000 versus 258,000 ± 155,000/μL, P<0.0001), and higher creatinine compared to noncirrhotic patients. Among cirrhotics, 31 patients received only mechanical prophylaxis, 24 received pharmacologic prophylaxis, and 20 did not have any prophylaxis. Cirrhotic patients were less likely to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04–0.14). VTE occurred in only two (2.7%) cirrhotic patients compared to 7.6% in noncirrhotic patients (P=0.11). The incidence rate was 2.2 events per 1000 patient-ICU days for cirrhotic patients and 3.6 events per 1000 patient-ICU days for noncirrhotics (incidence rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.15–2.52). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, cirrhosis was not associated with VTE risk (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.10–1.67). Conclusions. In critically ill cirrhotic patients, VTE incidence did not statistically differ from that in noncirrhotic patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document