Standard of Care Evaluation of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Selected Solid Tumour Patients at a Tertiary Cancer Care Teaching Hospital.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 4066-4066
Author(s):  
Colleen Donck ◽  
Jin Huh ◽  
Jack Seki ◽  
Eric Chen ◽  
Erik Yeo

Abstract Contemporary evidence suggests thromboprophylaxis in medical oncology patients may be effective, however, according to global surveys, is greatly underutilized despite the substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). To date, routine thromboprophylaxis of medical oncology inpatients has not been evaluated at a cancer care institution. Not equally common in all types of cancer, VTE is thought to present a higher risk in selected solid tumours of the CNS, lung, gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. Recommendations from the Sixth ACCP Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy include implementing institution-specific VTE prophylaxis guidelines for high-risk patients. The objectives of this study are to develop and implement targeted VTE prophylaxis guidelines for high-risk solid tumour inpatients during admission to a medical oncology ward and to evaluate the impact on prescribing practice. The study is a prospective, observational, before and after chart review with retrospective validation. VTE prophylaxis guidelines were developed through literature review and expert consensus. The results presented are the baseline pre-phase data over 14 weeks. Of nearly 240 charts assessed for eligibility criteria, 92 (39%) were stratified as high-risk according to the developed guidelines based on tumour site. Seventy-two of those patients identified as high-risk were followed prospectively to determine the baseline rates of thromboprophylaxis and venographically confirmed symptomatic VTE. Retrospective validation of results was performed in all 237 patients. Current results of the pre-phase revealed appropriate VTE prophylaxis with a low-molecular weight heparin based on the proposed guidelines in three eligible patients (5.3%). A total of 13 eligible patients (19%) received any form of pharmacological or non-pharmacological prophylaxis. The rate of symptomatic VTE was 11% (n = 10) among high-risk patients of which five patients developed pulmonary embolus (PE), four patients presented with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and one patient developed portal vein thrombosis. Among non high-risk patients, the rate of symptomatic VTE was significantly lower at 3% (n = 5), among which three patients presented with PE and two patients developed DVT. In both groups, pulmonary embolus was the most common manifestation of VTE. No clinically significant bleeding occurred during prophylaxis. The rate of symptomatic VTE among the highly selected at-risk medical oncology population at this institution was substantially different than the non high-risk population and is in accordance with the literature. This study presents new data on the rates of symptomatic VTE and thromboprophylaxis for medical oncology patients in a hospital setting. The rate of VTE prophylaxis of 5.3% seen in the pre-phase appears unacceptably low given that appropriate pharmacological intervention may potentially reduce the VTE rate by as much as 50% as suggested by relevant literature. As such, implementation of VTE prophylaxis guidelines at this cancer care center is ongoing.

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Agu ◽  
A. Handa ◽  
G Hamilton ◽  
D. M. Baker

Objective: To audit the prescription and implementation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in general surgical patients in a teaching hospital. Methods: All inpatients on three general surgical wards were audited for adequacy of prescription and implementation prophylaxis (audit A). A repeat audit 3 months later (audit B) closed the loop. The groups were compared using the chi-square test. Results: In audit A 50 patients participated. Prophylaxis was correctly prescribed in 36 (72%) and implemented in 30 (60%) patients. Eighteen patients at moderate or high risk (45%) received inadequate prophylaxis. Emergency admission, pre-operative stay and inadequate risk assignment were associated with poor implementation of protocol. In audit B 51 patients participated. Prescription was appropriate in 45 (88%) and implementation in 40 (78%) patients (p< 0.05). Eleven patients at moderate or high risk received inadequate prophylaxis. Seven of 11 high-risk patients in audit A (64%) received adequate prophylaxis, in contrast to all high-risk patients in audit B. The decision not to administer prophylaxis was deemed appropriate in 5 of 15 (30%) in audit A compared with 6 of 10 (60%) in audit B. Conclusion: Increased awareness, adequate risk assessment, updating of protocols and consistent reminders to staff and patients may improve implementation of DVT prophylaxis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e868-e874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris E. Holmes ◽  
Steven Ades ◽  
Susan Gilchrist ◽  
Daniel Douce ◽  
Karen Libby ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment in outpatients with cancer and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in selected patients at high risk for VTE. Although validated risk stratification tools are available, < 10% of oncologists use a risk assessment tool, and rates of VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients are low in practice. We hypothesized that implementation of a systems-based program that uses the electronic health record (EHR) and offers personalized VTE prophylaxis recommendations would increase VTE risk assessment rates in patients initiating outpatient chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) was a multidisciplinary program implemented by nurses, oncologists, pharmacists, hematologists, advanced practice providers, and quality partners. We prospectively identified high-risk patients using the Khorana and Protecht scores (≥ 3 points) via an EHR-based risk assessment tool. Patients with a predicted high risk of VTE during treatment were offered a hematology consultation to consider VTE prophylaxis. Results of the consultation were communicated to the treating oncologist, and clinical outcomes were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 918 outpatients with cancer initiating cancer-directed therapy were evaluated. VTE monthly education rates increased from < 5% before VTEPACC to 81.6% (standard deviation [SD], 11.9; range, 63.6%-97.7%) during the implementation phase and 94.7% (SD, 4.9; range, 82.1%-100%) for the full 2-year postimplementation phase. In the postimplementation phase, 213 patients (23.2%) were identified as being at high risk for developing a VTE. Referrals to hematology were offered to 151 patients (71%), with 141 patients (93%) being assessed and 93.8% receiving VTE prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: VTEPACC is a successful model for guideline implementation to provide VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis to prevent cancer-associated thrombosis in outpatients. Methods applied can readily translate into practice and overcome the current implementation gaps between guidelines and clinical practice.


1995 ◽  
Vol 25 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 40-48
Author(s):  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Stefano Radicchia ◽  
Giuseppe G. Nenci

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 370-374
Author(s):  
D Veeramootoo ◽  
L Harrower ◽  
R Saunders ◽  
D Robinson ◽  
WB Campbell

INTRODUCTION Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has become a major issue for surgeons both in the UK and worldwide. Sev-eral different sources of guidance on VTE prophylaxis are available but these differ in design and detail. METHODS Two similar audits were performed, one year apart, on the VTE prophylaxis prescribed for all general surgical inpatients during a single week (90 patients and 101 patients). Classification of patients into different risk groups and compliance in prescribing prophylaxis were examined using different international, national and local guidelines. RESULTS There were significant differences between the numbers of patients in high, moderate and low-risk groups according to the different guidelines. When groups were combined to indicate simply ‘at risk’ or ‘not at risk’ (in the manner of one of the guidelines), then differences were not significant. Our compliance improved from the first audit to the second. Patients at high risk received VTE prophylaxis according to guidance more consistently than those at low risk. CONCLUSIONS Differences in guidance on VTE prophylaxis can affect compliance significantly when auditing practice, depending on the choice of ‘gold standard’. National guidance does not remove the need for clear and detailed local policies. Making decisions about policies for lower-risk patients can be more difficult than for those at high risk.


2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 23-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
S K Kakkos ◽  
J A Caprini ◽  
A N Nicolaides ◽  
D Reddy

Objective Despite recent advances in the field of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and adherence to guideline recommendations, VTE remains a serious problem, especially in high-risk groups. The aim of the present review was to summarize the evidence supporting the use of combined modalities, both physical and pharmacological, in VTE prevention. Methods Using Medline, original studies on the value of combined modalities in VTE prevention were identified. Keywords used for physical methods included elastic stockings and intermittent pneumatic compression, and for pharmacological methods included unfractionated and low molecular weight heparin. Relevant articles from their bibliography were also retrieved. Results Combined pharmacological and physical modalities were more effective than each modality alone in a variety of specialties, including orthopaedic, general and cardiac surgery, as shown by 14 of the 18 randomized or case-control studies retrieved. Mean reduction in VTE incidence was 69% (range 16–100%). Conclusion Combined modalities are more effective than single modalities in VTE prophylaxis. These results endorse their use, especially in high-risk patients, and support this otherwise typical recommendation of the consensus documents on VTE prophylaxis.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1235-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Leleu ◽  
Laurent Daley ◽  
Philippe Rodon ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Charles Dauriac ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1235 Background. Immunomodulator drugs (IMiDs) are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events (TE). Multiple Myeloma patients (MM) that can not benefit from novel agents, including IMiDs, only have 9 months survival. IMiDs must be stopped when TE occurs with the consequence of potential shortened life expectancy. MELISSE was designed to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of venous TE (VTE) associated with IMiDs in MM. We have presented the interim analysis of MELISSE at ASH 2010. A reduced incidence rate of early VTE was observed when a prophylaxis for VTE was started as compared to patients that had no prophylaxis. Interestingly, we also reported that most of the patients had received aspirin, while aspirin is not considered to exert any venous prophylactic effect. LMWH was primarily proposed to patients with high risk of TE according to physician's evaluation. We present the final analysis of MELISSE with updated results at 1 year. Method. A total of 524 MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy were included in 52 IFM centers. VTE prophylaxis was recommended prior to start IMiDs, the choice of which was left at the discretion of the investigator. Patients gave written informed consent according to the declaration of Helsinki. The physicians were to record the risk of VTE occurrence, categorized as low, moderate and high, based on guidelines and their own appreciation of the risk. Occurrence of any VTE was to be recorded along with the management of the event and the patient's outcome. The data were collected at entry in the study, and then after 4 and 12 months. Results. The median age was 70 years old, with 64.67% of patients >65 years old. Overall 36.0% had thalidomide-based and 64.0% had lenalidomide-based therapy, with 180 patients in first line and the remaining patients in 2nd and 3rd lines of therapy. The observed repartition of TE risk factors was as expected in a European population with myeloma. The risk of VTE was assessed as high in 14.2% patient and small or intermediate otherwise. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients rated as low and intermediate risk received aspirin as a routine prophylaxis for VTE as compared to 20% in high risk patients. LMWH was primarily given to high risk patients, 45.8%. Surprisingly, 16.0% of patients had no VTE prophylaxis. Investigators recorded 29 (5.5% annual incidence rate) TE at 12 months, including 12 associated with PE. The incidence rate of TE was similar within the first 4 months (early occurrence, 3.5%) versus after 4 months (late, 2.5%). We have not identified any risk factor that would explain early versus late occurrence of VTE. Interestingly, the incidence of VTE was higher in patients that had no prophylaxis treatment, 8.5%, as compared to 4.4% and 5.9% in the LMWH and aspirin groups, respectively. There was no PE recorded in patients that were on LMWH prophylaxis. The VTE was equally breakdown across the 3 groups of risk factors. The bleeding adverse events were reported for 27 patients, mainly patients with aspirin. We isolated a model with 3 variables that independently predicted a higher risk to develop VTE in the multivariate model, and that comprised the male gender [OR 4.31 (95% CI 1.60 – 13.90)], the smoking habit [6.76 (1.73–22.42)] and the association to EPO [2.66 (1.04–6.58)]. Aspirin showed no significance, but with a p value at 0.55. The multivariate analysis is limited as certain subgroups with high risk factors might have received the optimal VTE prophylaxis, such as patients with bed rest and patients with prior history of VTE. These 2 groups rarely had aspirin. Survival data will be updated and presented at ASH 2011. Conclusion. This study further demonstrates that TE prophylaxis is required for MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy. There is a slight increase risk of VTE/PE with the use of aspirin as compared to LMWH, but a significant increase in bleeding events. Although we have identified risk factors of VTE in MM treated with IMiDs, for the first time, we could not identified VTE risk factors to guide investigators between LMWH and aspirin-based prophylaxis. The optimal dose and duration of LMWH remains to be determined. Disclosures: Leleu: LeoPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Daley:LeoPharma: Employment. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lamblin:LeoPharma: Employment. Natta:LeoPharma: Employment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document