Hospital-Acquired and Postdischarge Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Patients With Cancer Hospitalized for a Medical Illness: Analysis of Risk Factors and Effect on Survival

CHEST Journal ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 142 (4) ◽  
pp. 835A
Author(s):  
Timothy Fernandes ◽  
Beate Danielsen ◽  
Scott Kaatz ◽  
Timothy Morris ◽  
Richard White
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)


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2313-2313
Author(s):  
Minh Q Tran ◽  
Steven L Shein ◽  
Hong Li ◽  
Sanjay P Ahuja

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) patients is associated with central venous catheter (CVC) use. However, risk factors for VTE development in PICU patients with CVCs are not well established. The impact of Hospital-Acquired VTE in the PICU on clinical outcomes needs to be studied in large multicenter databases to identify subjects that may benefit from screening and/or prophylaxis. Method: With IRB approval, the Virtual Pediatric Systems, LLC database was interrogated for children < 18yo admitted between 01/2009-09/2014 who had PICU length of stay (LOS) <1 yr and a CVC present at some point during PICU care. The exact timing of VTE diagnosis was unavailable in the database, so VTE-PICU was defined as an "active" VTE that was not "present at admission". VTE-prior was defined as a VTE that was "resolved," "ongoing" or "present on admission." Variables extracted from the database included demographics, primary diagnosis category, and Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM2) score. PICU LOS was divided into quintiles. Chi squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum were used to identify variables associated with outcomes, which were then included in multivariate models. Our primary outcome was diagnosis of VTE-PICU and our secondary outcome was PICU mortality. Children with VTE-prior were included in the mortality analyses, but not the VTE-PICU analyses. Data shown as median (IQR) and OR (95% CI). Results: Among 143,524 subjects, the median age was 2.8 (0.47-10.31) years and 55% were male. Almost half (44%) of the subjects were post-operative. The median PIM2 score was -4.11. VTE-prior was observed in 2498 patients (1.78%) and VTE-PICU in 1741 (1.2%). The incidence of VTE-PICU were 852 (1.7%) in patients ≤ 1 year old, 560 (0.9%) in patients 1-12 years old, and 303 (1.1%) in patients ≥ 13 years old (p < 0.0001). In univariate analysis, variables associated with a diagnosis of VTE-PICU were post-operative state, four LOS quintiles (3-7, 7-14, and 14-21 and >21 days) and several primary diagnosis categories: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infectious, neurologic, oncologic, genetic, and orthopedic. Multivariate analysis showed increased risk of VTE with cardiovascular diagnosis, infectious disease diagnosis, and LOS > 3 d (Table 1). The odds increased with increasing LOS: 7 d < LOS ≤ 14 d (5.18 [4.27-6.29]), 14 d < LOS ≤ 21 d (7.96 [6.43-9.82]), and LOS > 21 d (20.73 [17.29-24.87]). Mortality rates were 7.1% (VTE-none), 7.2% (VTE-prior), and 10.1% (VTE-PICU) (p < 0.0001). In the multivariate model, VTE-PICU (1.25 [1.05-1.49]) and VTE-prior (1.18 [1.002-1.39]) were associated with death vs. VTE-none. PIM2 score, trauma, and several primary diagnosis categories were also independently associated with death (Table 2). Conclusion: This large, multicenter database study identified several variables that are independently associated with diagnosis of VTE during PICU care of critically ill children with a CVC. Children with primary cardiovascular or infectious diseases, and those with PICU LOS >3 days may represent specific populations that may benefit from VTE screening and/or prophylaxis. Hospital-Acquired VTE in PICU was independently associated with death in our database. Additional analysis of this database, including adding specific diagnoses and secondary diagnoses, may further refine risk factors for Hospital-Acquired VTE among PICU patients with a CVC. Table 1. Multivariate analysis of Factors Associated with VTE-PICU. Factors Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval 3d < LOS ≤ 7d vs LOS ≤ 3d 2.19 1.78-2.69 7d < LOS ≤ 14d vs LOS ≤ 3d 5.18 4.27-6.29 14d < LOS ≤ 21d vs LOS ≤ 3d 7.95 6.44-9.82 LOS > 21d vs LOS ≤ 3d 20.73 17.29-24.87 Age 1.00 0.99-1.01 Post-operative 0.89 0.80-0.99 PIM2 Score 1.47 1.01-1.07 Primary Diagnosis: Cardiovascular 1.50 1.31-1.64 Primary Diagnosis: Infectious 1.50 1.27-1.77 Primary Diagnosis: Genetics 0.32 0.13-0.78 Table 2. Multivariate Analysis of Factors Associated with PICU Mortality. Factors Odds Ratio 95% ConfidenceInterval VTE-prior 1.18 1.00-1.39 VTE-PICU 1.25 1.05-1.49 PIM2 Score 2.08 2.05-2.11 Trauma 1.92 1.77-2.07 Post-operative 0.45 0.42-0.47 Primary Diagnosis: Genetic 2.07 1.63-2.63 Primary Diagnosis: Immunologic 2.45 1.51-3.95 Primary Diagnosis: Hematologic 1.63 1.30-2.06 Primary Diagnosis: Metabolic 0.71 0.58-0.87 Primary Diagnosis: Infectious 1.47 1.36-1.59 Primary Diagnosis: Neurologic 1.37 1.27-1.47 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Author(s):  
Gary H. Lyman ◽  
Alok A. Khorana ◽  
Anna Falanga

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recently updated clinical practice guidelines on the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Although several new studies have been reported, many questions remain about the close relationship between VTE and malignant disease. The risk of VTE among patients with cancer continues to increase and is clearly linked to patient-, disease- and treatment-specific factors. In general, VTE among patients with cancer is treated in a similar fashion to that in other patient populations. However, the greater risk of VTE in patients with cancer, the multitude of risk factors, and the greater risk of VTE recurrence and mortality among patients with cancer pose important challenges for surgeons, oncologists, and other providers.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren S. Prescott ◽  
Lisa M. Kidin ◽  
Rebecca L. Downs ◽  
David J. Cleveland ◽  
Ginger L. Wilson ◽  
...  

ObjectiveNational guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with cancer to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, adherence to these evidence-based recommended practice patterns remains low. We performed a quality improvement (QI) project to increase VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications and evaluated the resulting effect on rates of development of VTE.Materials and MethodsIn June 2011, departmental VTE practice guidelines were implemented for patients with gynecologic malignancies who were hospitalized for nonsurgical indications. A standardized VTE prophylaxis module was added to the admission electronic order sets. Outcome measures included number of admissions receiving VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission; and number of potentially preventable hospital-acquired VTEs diagnosed within 30 and 90 days of discharge. Outcomes were compared between a preguideline implementation cohort (n = 99), a postguideline implementation cohort (n = 127), and a sustainability cohort assessed 2 years after implementation (n = 109). Patients were excluded if upon admission they had a VTE, were considered low risk for VTE, or had a documented contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis.ResultsAdministration of pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission increased from 20.8% to 88.2% immediately following the implementation of guidelines, but declined to 71.8% in our sustainability cohort (P < 0.001). There was no difference in VTE incidence among the 3 cohorts [n = 2 (4.2%) vs n = 3 (3.9%) vs n = 3 (4.2%), respectively; P = 1.00].ConclusionsOur QI project improved pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates. A small decrease in prophylaxis during the subsequent 2 years suggests a need for continued surveillance to optimize QI initiatives. Despite increased adherence to guidelines, VTE rates did not decline in this high-risk population.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3812-3812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael F Schultz ◽  
Soyang Kwon ◽  
Anjali Sharathkumar ◽  
Rukhmi Bhat

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an emerging hospital acquired complication in pediatric hospitals. Substantial efforts have been made to identify high-risk population based on exposure to risk-factors for VTE. Our group developed the PedsClot Clinical Decision Rule (Sharathkumar et al Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 10: 1326-1334) to identify this high-risk population based on a case-control study but this has not been validated yet. Objective: To validate thePedsClot Clinical Decision Rule [PDCR] through prospective collection of data in a tertiary pediatric hospital. This study reports our findings of interim analyses for process evaluation. Methods: This prospective data collection was performed using the Lurie Children's hospital automatic data import facility through the Enterprise Data Warehouse[study period: 02/01/2012-12/31/14]. Real time data was added to a research database of consecutive admissions based on following inclusion criteria: &gt; 48 hour stay in the Intensive Care (Pediatric, Cardiac, Neonatal), Hematology Oncology and Infectious Disease units. Following variables were included in the dataset: age, sex, ethnicity, date of admission and discharge, ICU admission, central venous catheter (CVC), blood stream infection, immobilization, oral contraceptives, mechanical ventilation&gt; 12hrs, and length of stay. Risk factors were weighed and scored as per PDCR rule. Chi-square tests were used to examine the association between the potential risk factors and VTE. PDCR model performance was evaluated by reporting the sensitivity and specificity. Results: A total of 1722 children were eligible for the interim analyses. The demographic and clinical features of the dataset analyses and the odds ratio [OR] are detailed in Table 1 and 2 respectively. Of 1722 patients, 57 (3.3%) were identified as VTE, 50% were admitted to the ICU and 51% had a CVC. VTE was associated with age ≥ 13 years (AOR=2.3; 95% CI=1.3, 4.0), ICU admission (AOR=2.4; 95% CI=1.3, 4.4), and CVC (AOR=1.9; 95% CI=1.1, 3.3). The model performance showed that at the cut off point of 3, the specificity of the PDCR in predicting VTE was 75% but had a low sensitivity (37%). Risk prediction variables such as assessment of immobilization, use of oral contraceptives and prediction of hospital stay required manual entry into the datasheet; this makes data-capture labor intensive, especially for larger datasets. Conclusions: This study utilized technological advances and database warehouse facility to validate PDCR. This interim data analyses indicates that in real life, PDCR has a high specificity but poor sensitivity in identifying children with predisposition for VTE. We are currently working to refine the risk model which may lead to a better model performance. Disclosures Sharathkumar: Bayer, Baxter, CSL Behring: Consultancy.


Author(s):  
Yuji Nishimoto ◽  
Yugo Yamashita ◽  
Takeshi Morimoto ◽  
Yukihito Sato ◽  
Takeshi Kimura

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika N. Brown ◽  
Jon D. Herrington

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication that develops in approximately 20% of patients with cancer. Presence of tumor and other risk factors, such as inflammation, surgery, obesity, and medications, have the potential to alter the intravascular coagulation homeostasis and lead to thrombosis. Although malignancy may predispose patients to venous thromboembolism, many chemotherapy agents also increase the risk. In this article, some of the agents tamoxifen, asparaginase, fluorouracil, thalidomide, lenalidomide, bevacizumab, and hematopoietic growth factors are discussed. Many patients will experience a thrombotic event despite optimal prophylaxis. Thus, this article will address the guidelines for treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism. In general, the venous thromboembolism risk should be assessed before certain antineoplastic regimens are prescribed to patients with cancer.


2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (02) ◽  
pp. 115-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Russo ◽  
A. Falanga

SummaryCancer is associated with a fourfold increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE varies according to the type of malignancy (i. e. pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, lymphoma) and its disease stage and individual factors (i. e. sex, race, age, previous VTE history, immobilization, obesity). Preventing cancer-associated VTE is important because it represents a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. In order to identify cancer patient at particularly high risk, who need thromboprophylaxis, risk prediction models have become available and are under validation. These models include clinical risk factors, but also begin to incorporate biological markers. The major American and European scientific societies have issued their recommendations to guide the management of VTE in patients with cancer.In this review the principal aspects of epidemiology, risk factors and outcome of cancer-associated VTE are summarized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document