Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical and surgical oncology patients.
ABSTRACT: Recent data suggest that patients with a malignancy have a seven-fold increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without cancer, suggesting that these patients may benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Mechanisms for the prevention of thromboembolism can be divided into two broad categories: mechanical and pharmacological. Although generally used in combination with pharmacotherapy, little evidence exists for the efficacy of mechanical modalities either in the broader population of patients at risk for VTE or for patients with cancer specifically. A recent study using graduated compression stockings (GCS) for thromboprophylaxis showed no support for the use of stockings in acute stroke patients. Established pharmacological modalities, including warfarin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and the factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux, have been shown to reduce risk for VTE in general medical and surgical populations. In medical cancer patients, only limited data are available for the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. In contrast, considerable evidence indicates that thromboprophylaxis is warranted in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The most recent evidence suggests that catheter-related thrombosis is not prevented by current pharmacological modalities. On 22 May 2009, a group of clinicians based in the United Kingdom (UK) met in London, UK, to evaluate recent data on cancer thrombosis. This article (the second of four) briefly reviews key data on the prevention of VTE in medical and surgical oncology patients, providing context for a brief transcript of the surrounding discussion and a consensus statement, developed by meeting attendees, on the implications of this information for UK clinical practice.
Project description:Patients with cancer are increasingly at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Rates of VTE, however, vary markedly among patients with cancer.This review focuses on recent data derived from population-based, hospital-based, and outpatient cohort studies of patients with cancer that have identified multiple clinical risk factors as well as candidate laboratory biomarkers predictive of VTE.Clinical risk factors for cancer-associated VTE include primary tumor site, stage, initial period after diagnosis, presence and number of comorbidities, and treatment modalities including systemic chemotherapy, antiangiogenic therapy, and hospitalization. Candidate predictive biomarkers include elevated platelet or leukocyte counts, tissue factor, soluble P-selectin, and D-dimer. A recently validated risk model, incorporating some of these factors, can help differentiate patients at high or low risk for developing VTE while receiving chemotherapy.Identifying patients with cancer who are most at risk for VTE is essential to better target thromboprophylaxis, with the eventual goal of reducing the burden as well as the consequences of VTE for patients with cancer.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after bariatric surgery is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Current modalities of thromboprophylaxis include subcutaneous injection of unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), pneumatic compression, elastic stockings, and inferior vena cava filters. Despite universal agreement on the need for thromboprophylaxis, no clear consensus has been reached regarding the best regimen and treatment duration of bariatric surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>From April, 2009 to December, 2011, we performed 200 bariatric surgery (191 with primary intent, 9 with revisional intent). There was no history of VTE prior to surgery. Clexane therapy was done with 4000 U SQ once daily for 2 weeks to the day before surgery. Development of VTE was assessed by direct interview, physical examination in out-patient clinic, and phone calls to patients for history taking if needed. The history taking was presented in questionnaire format. The patients were asked to state their symptoms of VTE by answering the questionnaire. The patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months after surgery to determine the incidence of clinical VTE.<h4>Results</h4>Two-week Clexane therapy was completed in 193 patients. Clexane was stopped in 5 due to surgical related complications (4 bleeding, 1 reoperation due to leak), in 2 due to Clexane related complications (1 epistaxis, 1 metrorrhagia). Follow-up of out-patient clinic were 68%, those who could follow up by telephone were 89%. There was no evidence of VTE.<h4>Conclusion</h4>A 2-week VTE prophylaxis regimen using LMWH is simple, effective and associated with a low incidence of complications.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication for critically ill patients. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is recommended for patients with high risk of bleeding. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of IPC for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients. We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated IPC in critically ill patients. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies were included. The IPC group significantly reduced the VTE incidence compared with no thromboprophylaxis group (risk ratio [RR]: 0.35, confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.68, P = .002) and the IPC group also showed lower VTE incidence than the graduated compression stockings (GCS) group (RR: 0.47, CI: 0.24-0.91, P = .03). There were no significant differences between using IPC and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE incidence (RR: 1.26, CI: 0.72-2.22, P = .41), but LMWH showed significantly more bleeding events. Intermittent pneumatic compression as an adjunctive treatment did not further reduce VTE incidence (RR: 0.55, CI: 0.24-1.27, P = .16). Intermittent pneumatic compression can reduce the incidence of VTE for critically ill patients, which is better than GCS and similar to LMWH, but it has no significant advantage as an adjunct therapy for thromboprophylaxis.
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.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication among acutely ill medical patients hospitalized for congestive heart failure, acute respiratory insufficiency, rheumatologic disorders, and acute infectious and/or inflammatory diseases. Based on robust data from randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses showing a reduced incidence of VTE by 40% to about 60% with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, prevention of VTE with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), or fondaparinux is currently recommended in all at-risk hospitalized acutely ill medical patients. In patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis with graduated compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression may be suggested. Thromboprophylaxis is generally continued for 6 to 14 days or for the duration of hospitalization. Selected cases could benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis beyond this period, although the risk of major bleeding remains a concern, and additional studies are needed to identify patients who may benefit from prolonged prophylaxis. For hospitalized acutely ill medical patients with renal insufficiency, a low dose (1.5 mg once daily) of fondaparinux or prophylactic LMWH subcutaneously appears to have a safe profile, although proper evaluation in randomized studies is lacking. The evidence on the use of prophylaxis for VTE in this latter group of patients, as well as in those at higher risk of bleeding complications, such as patients with thrombocytopenia, remains scarce. For critically ill patients hospitalized in intensive care units with no contraindications, LMWH or UFH are recommended, with frequent and careful assessment of the risk of bleeding. In this review, we discuss the evidence for use of thromboprophylaxis for VTE in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients, with a focus on (low-dose) fondaparinux.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer and is an important contributor to morbidity and mortality in these patients. Early thromboprophylaxis initiated only in those cancer patients at highest risk for VTE would be optimal. Risk stratification scores incorporating tumor location, laboratory values and patient characteristics have attempted to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis but even well-validated scores are not able to reliably distinguish the highest-risk patients. Recognizing that tumor genetics affect the biology and behavior of malignancies, recent studies have explored the impact of specific molecular aberrations on the rate of VTE in cancer patients. The presence of certain molecular aberrations in a variety of different cancers, including lung, colon, brain and hematologic tumors, have been associated with an increased risk of VTE and arterial thrombotic events. This review examines the findings of these studies and discusses the implications of these findings on decisions relating to thromboprophylaxis use in the clinical setting. Ultimately, the integration of tumor molecular genomic information into clinical VTE risk stratification scores in cancer patients may prove to be a major advancement in the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis.
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.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. A significant proportion of cancer-associated VTE occurs in the ambulatory setting and is associated with poorer outcomes and reduced survival. Risk for VTE is influenced by patient, cancer and treatment-specific factors.Recent studies have identified biomarkers associated with increased VTE risk in malignancy, including leukocyte and platelet counts, tissue factor, prothrombin split products, D-dimer, P-selectin, factor VIII and C-reactive protein. Recent and ongoing clinical trials have focused on VTE prophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparins in high-risk cancer outpatients, particularly those with pancreatic cancer. These studies have yielded encouraging preliminary results but whether thromboprophylaxis provides significant benefit to unselected cancer outpatients remains unclear.A risk stratification model incorporating known risk factors and biomarkers can identify those patients at highest risk. This review focuses on emerging data regarding risk assessment and benefit of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Many guidelines advise on the ideal pharmacological thromboprophylaxis strategy; however, despite its use, approximately 1.5% of patients still develop symptomatic VTE. Considering the large number of THAs and TKAs performed worldwide (2.5 million in total), the impact of VTE following these interventions is enormous. This paper discusses a concept how to further lower rates of VTE and bleeding complications following surgery. By stratifying patients according to their risk, we can optimize the balance between VTE and bleeding for each individual. This way, low-risk patients may be safely withheld from treatment (and avoid unnecessary bleeding complications and costs), whereas high-risk patients should receive adequate therapy (for instance, an increased thromboprophylaxis dosage and duration). An individualized strategy requires a well-functioning VTE prediction model following THA and TKA to help physicians to decide on optimal thromboprophylaxis therapy.
Project description:Several Western guidelines recommend the routine use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for cancer surgery patients to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the necessity of routine pharmacologic perioperative thromboprophylaxis in Asian gastric cancer (GC) patients has not been clearly determined. To determine the necessity of routine perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in Korean gastric cancer patients, the incidence of postoperative VTE was prospectively evaluated in gastric cancer patients receiving surgery. Among 610 GC patients who had received surgery, 375 patents underwent routine duplex Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) on days 5-12 following surgery to detect VTE and then VTE-related symptoms and signs were checked at 4 weeks after surgery (cohort A). The 235 patients that declined DUS were registered to cohort B and the occurrence of postoperative VTE was retrospectively analyzed. In cohort A, symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE until 4 weeks after surgery was detected in 9 patients [2.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI); 0.9-3.9]. Tumor stage was a significant factor related to VTE development [stage I, 1.4%; stage II/III, 2.4%; stage IV, 9.7% (P = 0.008)]. In multivariate analysis, patients with stage IV had a higher postoperative VTE development [odds ratio, 8.18 (95% CI, 1.54-43.42)] than those with stage I. In cohort B, a low incidence of postoperative VTE was reaffirmed; only one postoperative VTE case (0.4%) was observed. In conclusion, the incidence of postoperative VTE in Korean GC patients was only 2.4%. Risk-stratified applications of perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are thought to be more appropriate than the routine pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in Korean GC patients receiving surgery.