Article

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Chest (Impact Factor: 7.13). 02/2012; 141(2 Suppl):e195S-226S. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-2296
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia.
This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.
For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B).
Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.

1 Bookmark
 · 
173 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors present the data of a medical registry which evaluated if the physicians assess VTE risk in stroke patients, during hospitalization period and at hospital discharge and if the thromboprophylaxis is used according to National Guidelines for VTE Prophylaxis. 884 patients with acute ischemic stroke patients were enrolled between June 2010 and December 2011, from 62 centers, 51.4% male and 48.6% female with mean age 70.07 years (68.25 years in the male group and 71.92 years in the female one). There were two co-primary endpoints: the percentage of patients at risk for VTE at hospital admission assessed by the physician, and the percentage of patients with risk factors for VTE that persist at hospital discharge from the total number of patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke. The secondary endpoints were: the percentage of hospitalized patients receiving prophylaxis according to the National Guidelines of VTE Prophylaxis from the total number of patients at risk of VTE, the percentage of hospitalized patients with VTE risk receiving recommendation for thromboprophylaxis at discharge, the duration and the type of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, the duration and the type of VTE prophylaxis at discharge. 879 (99.4%) of the total number of patients at risk of VTE have received prophylaxis during hospitalization. The most frequently types of prophylaxis used during hospitalisation were LMWH in 96.3% of the patients and mechanic method in 16.6% that were in accordance with the National Guidelines of VTE Prophylaxis recommendations. There is a clear improvement in both assessment and thromprophylaxis recommendation in acute stroke patients with restricted mobility at VTE risk and in our country. LMWH is preferred to unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in this high-risk patient population in view of its better clinical benefits to risk ratio and convenience of once daily administration.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Immobile stroke patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Demographic studies suggest a low incidence of DVT in Asian patients, but that might be underestimated. Intervention by in-hospital case management for diagnosis of DVT in patients with acute stroke. Intervention was defined as: recommendation of D-dimer test for patients who are immobile by day 4 after stroke onset and compression ultrasonography if the level of D-dimer is ≥500 ng/ml. Treating physicians were notified by case managers before they failed to do so for qualified patients. Data of patients hospitalized 12 months before and 8 months after the intervention, including basic demographics, Glasgow Coma Scale score, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, laboratory results, and examination reports, was retrieved from electronic medical records for analysis by code searches for acute stroke. A total of 2523 patients were identified. 1528 were before and 995 after intervention. More patients after intervention had D-dimer test and ultrasound examination than that before intervention (22.1% vs 8.6%, P<0.001 and 15.1% vs 1.2%, P<0.001, respectively). Ultrasound diagnosis of DVT was significantly more after than before intervention (2.0% vs 0.3%, P<0.001). DVT was 55.7 per 1000 in patients with a NIHSS score≧18. Male sex (Odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence intervals: 0.11-0.98), NIHSS score (Odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence intervals: 1.00-1.09), and intervention (Odds ratio 5.39, 95% confidence intervals: 1.88-15.44) were independent predictors of ultrasound diagnosis of DVT. Intervention by in-hospital case management may be an effective strategy for improvement of under-diagnosis of DVT in acute stroke patients.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e114094. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114094 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparins for cancer patients requiring hospitalization for acute medical illness. However, a recently published meta-analysis suggested that the risk-benefit ratio of current thromboprophylaxis regimens administered to all cancer patients admitted for medical illness is unclear. We sought to assess the clinical equipoise in using thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medically ill cancer patients. An electronic survey was conducted. The target sample included Thrombosis experts and members of Thrombosis Canada or the VECTOR research group. The survey was distributed 54 participants. The final response rate was 67% (36/54). The majority (75%; 95% CI: 60.3 to 85%) of responders indicated that the benefits of pharmacological parenteral thromboprophylaxis outweigh the risks. However, 63.9% (95% CI: 50.6 to 77.3%) believe that there is still clinical equipoise around the use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population, and 88.9% (95% CI: 77.3 to 95.8%) would consider participating in a randomized trial-30.6% and 58.3% in a placebo-controlled or comparison of different agents/dosing-controlled randomized trial, respectively. For participants who would consider a randomized-controlled trial comparing different doses of thromboprophylaxis agents, the MCID was 2% between the two arms. The most common drug to be compared was enoxaparin (26%), and the two suggested doses were 30 mg and 40 mg SC twice daily. Our clinical survey of thrombosis experts confirms that there is equipoise regarding the use of current regimens of parenteral pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in medically ill cancer patients. A majority of physicians would participate in a randomized-controlled trial comparing different dose of LMWH. The MCID in the risk of VTE identified was 2%.

Full-text

Download
80 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014