The role of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients: emerging data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Menapace LA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3088308 | BioStudies | 2010-01-01
REPOSITORIES: biostudies
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. Methods:We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer. Results:In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74-7.52, p?=?0.1482, I2?=?0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93-1.83, p?=?0.1274, I2?=?0%, respectively). Conclusion:Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7081475 | BioStudies
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the hospital. Adequate thromboprophylaxis has reduced the rate of hospital-acquired VTE substantially; however, some inpatients still develop VTE even when they are prescribed thromboprophylaxis. Predictors associated with thromboprophylaxis failure are unclear. In this study, we aimed to identify risk factors for inpatient VTE despite thromboprophylaxis.We conducted a case-control study to identify independent predictors for inpatient VTE. Among patients discharged from the BJC HealthCare system between January 2010 and May 2011, we matched 94 cases who developed in-hospital VTE while taking thromboprophylaxis to 272 controls who did not develop VTE. Matching was done by hospital, patient age, month and year of discharge. We used multivariate conditional logistic regression to develop a VTE prediction model.We identified five independent risk factors for in-hospital VTE despite thromboprophylaxis: hospitalization for cranial surgery, intensive care unit admission, admission leukocyte count >13,000/mm(3), presence of an indwelling central venous catheter, and admission from a long-term care facility.We identified five risk factors associated with the development of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis in the hospital setting. By recognizing these high-risk patients, clinicians can prescribe aggressive VTE prophylaxis judiciously and remain vigilant for signs or symptoms of VTE.
2014-01-01 | S-EPMC4469358 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. Outpatients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, for which the Khorana score is commonly recommended. However, it has been questioned whether this tool is sufficiently accurate at identifying patients who should receive thromboprophylaxis. The present work proposes a new index, TiC-Onco risk score to be calculated at the time of diagnosis of cancer, that examines patients' clinical and genetic risk factors for thrombosis. METHODS:We included 391 outpatients with a recent diagnosis of cancer and candidates for systemic outpatient chemotherapy. All were treated according to standard guidelines. The study population was monitored for 6 months, and VTEs were recorded. The Khorana and the TiC-Onco scores were calculated for each patient and their VTE predictive accuracy VTEs was compared. RESULTS:We recorded 71 VTEs. The TiC-Onco risk score was significantly better at predicting VTE than the Khorana score (AUC 0.73 vs. 0.58, sensitivity 49 vs. 22%, specificity 81 vs. 82%, PPV 37 vs. 22%, and NPV 88 vs. 82%). CONCLUSIONS:TiC-Onco risk score performed significantly better than Khorana score at identifying cancer patients at high risk of VTE who would benefit from personalised thromboprophylaxis.
2018-01-01 | S-EPMC5931103 | BioStudies
Project description:Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in both hospitalized patients and outpatients. Although thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with IBD, implementation is not universal, especially for non IBD-related hospitalizations. Our objective was to present VTE and thromboprophylaxis adherence rates among hospitalized patients with IBD. An electronic data repository was created of all patients with IBD who visited the emergency department (ED) of our tertiary medical center between 2012 and 2018. The data included tabular variables and free-text physician records. We searched the data for VTE events, using ICD10 coding. Overall, there were 7009 ED visits of 2405 patients with IBD, 1556 (64.7%) with Crohn's disease (CD) and 849 (35.3%) with ulcerative colitis (UC). Thromboprophylaxis was administered in 463 hospitalizations (12.4% of IBD-related and 10.9% of non IBD-related hospitalizations, p = 0.13). Nineteen VTEs were diagnosed in the ED and seventeen were diagnosed during hospitalization (11 non IBD-related and 6 IBD-related hospitalizations, 0.6% and 0.28% respectively, p = 0.12). One patient died during hospitalization and an additional two in the 90 days post-discharge from hospitalization (unrelated to VTEs). In conclusion, thromboprophylaxis rates in hospitalized patients with IBD are low, despite possible implications and established guidelines. Thromboprophylaxis should be implemented in patients with IBD hospitalized for all indications.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7565590 | BioStudies
Project description:Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) carry the highest risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) amongst all cancer patients. Appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis might significantly and safely reduce its burden. We performed a systematic review of published studies and meeting abstracts using MEDLINE and EMBASE through July 2020 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to estimate the pooled event-based risk ratio (RR) and the pooled absolute risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Five randomized controlled studies with 1003 PC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, thromboprophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of VTE (pooled RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.51, p < 0.00001, I2 = 8%; absolute RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12--0.05, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), with an estimated number needed to treat of 11.9 patients to prevent one VTE event. Similar reductions of VTE were observed in studies with parenteral (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53) versus oral anticoagulants (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.99) and in studies using prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) versus supra-prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.90). The pooled RR for major bleeding was 1.08 (95% CI 0.47-2.52, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%) and the absolute RD was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02-0.03, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%). Evidence supports a net clinical benefit of thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Adequately powered randomized phase III studies assessing the most effective anticoagulant and the optimal dose, schedule and duration of thromboprophylaxis to be used are warranted.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7464699 | BioStudies
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a frequent complication in ambulatory cancer patients. Despite the high risk, routine thromboprophylaxis is not recommended because of the high number needed to treat and the risk of bleeding. Two recent trials demonstrated that the number needed to treat can be reduced by selecting cancer patients at high risk for VTE with prediction scores, leading the latest guidelines to suggest such an approach in clinical practice. Yet, the interpretation of these trial results and the translation of the guideline recommendations to clinical practice may be less straightforward. In this clinically-oriented review, some of the controversies are addressed by focusing on the burden of VTE in cancer patients, discussing the performance of available risk assessment scores, and summarizing the findings of recent trials. This overview can help oncologists, hematologists, and vascular medicine specialists decide about thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7072463 | BioStudies
Project description:Obesity increases the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but whether high-dose thromboprophylaxis is safe and effective in morbidly obese inpatients is unknown. It was the objective of this study to quantify the efficacy and safety of high-dose thromboprophylaxis with heparin or enoxaparin in inpatients with weight >?100 kilograms (kg) within the BJC HealthCare system. Ina retrospective cohort study, we analysed 9,241 inpatients with weight >?100 kg discharged from three hospitals in the BJC HealthCare system from 2010 through 2012. We compared the incidence of VTE in patients who received high-dose thromboprophylaxis (heparin 7,500 units three times daily or enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily) to those who received standard doses (heparin 5,000 units two or three times daily or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily). The primary efficacy outcome was hospital-acquired VTE identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes. The primary safety outcome was bleeding events identified by ICD-9 codes. Among the 3,928 morbidly obese inpatients (weight >?100 kg and body mass index [BMI] ? 40 kg/m²), high-dose thromboprophylaxis approximately halved the odds of symptomatic VTE (odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-1.00; p = 0.050). The rate of VTE was 1.48% (35/2,369) in these morbidly obese inpatients who received standard doses of thromboprophylaxis, compared to 0.77% (12/1,559) in those who received high doses. High-dose thromboprophylaxis did not increase bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07, p = 0.15). Independent predictors of VTE were surgery, male sex, cancer, and BMI. In conclusion, high-dose thromboprophylaxis nearly halves the rate of VTE in morbidly obese inpatients.
2014-01-01 | S-EPMC4505726 | BioStudies
Project description:Guidelines suggest thromboprophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) according to Khorana score. Data on thromboprophylaxis efficacy in different Khorana score risk groups remain ambiguous. We sought to evaluate thromboprophylaxis in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk (?2 points) Khorana score and an intermediate-risk score (2 points) or high-risk score (?3 points) separately. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing thromboprophylaxis with placebo or standard care in ambulatory cancer patients. Outcomes were VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a profile-likelihood random-effects model. Six RCTs were identified, involving 4626 cancer patients. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) significantly reduced VTE risk in intermediate- to high-risk (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.67), intermediate-risk (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83), and high-risk patients (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67); the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were 25 (intermediate to high risk), 34 (intermediate risk), and 17 (high risk), respectively. There was no significant difference in major bleeding (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.69-1.67) or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.01). The numbers needed to harm (NNHs) for major bleeding in intermediate- to high-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients were 1000, -500, and 334, respectively. The overall NNH was lower in DOAC studies (100) versus LMWH studies (-500). These findings indicate thromboprophylaxis effectively reduces the risk of VTE in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk Khorana score, although the NNT is twice as high for intermediate-risk patients compared with high-risk patients.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7594395 | BioStudies
Project description:Exocrine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, simply referred to as pancreatic cancer (PC) has the worst prognosis of any malignancy. Despite recent advances in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in PC, the prognosis remains poor, with fewer than 8% of patients being alive at 5 years after diagnosis. The prevalence of PC has steadily increased over the past decades, and it is projected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. In this context, optimizing and integrating supportive care is important to improve quality of life and survival. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common but preventable complication in PC patients. VTE occurs in one out of five PC patients and is associated with significantly reduced progression-free survival and overall survival. The appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis can drastically and safely reduce the rates of VTE in PC patients as shown from subgroup analysis of non-PC targeted placebo-controlled randomized trials of cancer patients and from two dedicated controlled randomized trials in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, primary thromboprophylaxis with a Grade 1B evidence level is recommended in locally advanced PC patients receiving chemotherapy by the International Initiative on Cancer and Thrombosis clinical practice guidelines since 2013. However, its use and potential significant clinical benefit continues to be underrecognized worldwide. This narrative review aims to summarize the main recent advances in the field including on the use of individualized risk assessment models to stratify the risk of VTE in each patient with individual available treatment options.
2020-01-01 | S-EPMC7139861 | BioStudies
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among hospitalized patients. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis has emerged as the cornerstone for VTE prevention. As trials on thromboprophylaxis in medical patients have proven the efficacy of both low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and unfractionated heparin (UFH), all acutely medical ill patients should be considered for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Unlike in the surgical setting where the risk of associated VTE attributable to surgery is well recognized, and where widespread use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and early mobilization has resulted in significant reductions in the risk of VTE, appropriate VTE prophylaxis is under-used in medical patients. Many reasons for this under-use have been identified, including low perceived risk of VTE in medical patients, absence of optimal tools for risk assessment, heterogeneity of patients and their diseases, and fear of bleeding complications. A consistent group among hospitalized medical patients is composed of elderly patients with impaired renal function, a condition potentially associated with bleeding. How these patients should be managed is discussed in this review. Particular attention is devoted to LMWHs and fondaparinux and to measures to improve the safety and the efficacy of their use.
1000-01-01 | S-EPMC2684509 | BioStudies