The use of pharmacological prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with severe active ulcerative colitis.
ABSTRACT: Hospitalised patients with inflammatory bowel disease are 1.5- to 3.5-fold more likely to develop venous thromboembolism compared to controls. Clinical guidelines recommend pharmacological prophylaxis.To determine the rate of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis prescription and administration in a cohort of hospitalised patients with severe active ulcerative colitis and to assess predictors of failure to order pharmacological prophylaxis at 24 h.This is a retrospective review of hospitalised patients with severe active ulcerative colitis, identified by ICD-9-CM discharge code 556.x, admitted to a single tertiary care hospital from 1 January 2005 to 31 August 2012. Adequate thromboembolism prophylaxis was defined as an order for low-dose unfractionated heparin two to three times daily, low-molecular weight heparin 40 mg daily or fondaparinux 2.5 mg daily ordered and administered for >80% of the admission. Patient related factors associated with failure to order prophylaxis at 24 h were accessed as secondary outcomes.Three hundred and thirty-six patients were hospitalised with severe active ulcerative colitis. Hospitalists had prescribed appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis by 48 h in only 37% of cases. Of these, nurses administered all prescribed doses in 18% of cases. Only 7% of patients (22/304, 95% CI: 5-11%) received adequate pharmacological prophylaxis for >80% of their hospitalisation. Hematochezia (P = 0.002), elevated platelets (P = 0.008), male gender coupled with younger age (P = 0.005) and admission on a biologic (P = 0.03) were associated with failure to order prophylaxis.Hospitalised patients admitted with severe active ulcerative colitis are not receiving appropriate pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.
Project description:Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the colon; as many as 25% of patients with this disease require hospitalization. The goals of hospitalization are to assess disease severity, exclude infection, administer rapidly acting and highly effective medication regimens, and determine response. During hospitalization, patients should be given venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and monitored for the development of toxic megacolon. Patients who do not respond to intravenous corticosteroids should be considered for rescue therapy with infliximab or cyclosporine. Patients who are refractory to medical therapies or who develop toxic megacolon should be evaluated promptly for colectomy. Patients who do respond to medical therapies should be discharged on an appropriate maintenance regimen when they meet discharge criteria. We review practical evidence-based management principles and propose a day-by-day algorithm for managing patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis.
Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of potentially preventable mortality, morbidity, and increased medical costs. Risk-appropriate prophylaxis can prevent most VTE events, but only a small fraction of patients at risk receive this treatment.Prospective quality improvement programme.Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.A multidisciplinary team established a VTE Prevention Collaborative in 2005. The collaborative applied the four step TRIP (translating research into practice) model to develop and implement a mandatory clinical decision support tool for VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalised adult patients. Initially, paper based VTE order sets were implemented, which were then converted into 16 specialty-specific, mandatory, computerised, clinical decision support modules.VTE risk stratification within 24 hours of hospital admission and provision of risk-appropriate, evidence based VTE prophylaxis.The VTE team was able to increase VTE risk assessment and ordering of risk-appropriate prophylaxis with paper based order sets to a limited extent, but achieved higher compliance with a computerised clinical decision support tool and the data feedback which it enabled. Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 26% to 80% for surgical patients and from 25% to 92% for medical patients in 2011.A computerised clinical decision support tool can increase VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis among hospitalised adult patients admitted to a large urban academic medical centre. It is important to ensure the tool is part of the clinician's normal workflow, is mandatory (computerised forcing function), and offers the requisite modules needed for every clinical specialty.
Project description:<b>Background: </b>Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital.<br><br><b>Methods: </b>We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality.<br><br><b>Results: </b>Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen.<br><br><b>Interpretation: </b>We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Critically ill trauma patients with severe injuries are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding simultaneously. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy is unknown for trauma patients with a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis because of a risk of bleeding.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>Using decision analysis, we estimated the cost effectiveness of three VTE prophylaxis strategies-pneumatic compression devices (PCDs) and expectant management alone, serial Doppler ultrasound (SDU) screening, and prophylactic insertion of a vena cava filter (VCF) -- in trauma patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with severe injuries who were believed to have a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis for up to two weeks because of a risk of major bleeding. Data on the probability of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and on the effectiveness of the prophylactic strategies, were taken from observational and randomized controlled studies. The probabilities of in-hospital death, ICU and hospital discharge rates, and resource use were taken from a population-based cohort of trauma patients with severe injuries (injury severity scores >12) admitted to the ICU of a regional trauma centre. The incidence of DVT at 12 weeks was similar for the PCD (14.9%) and SDU (15.0%) strategies, but higher for the VCF (25.7%) strategy. Conversely, the incidence of PE at 12 weeks was highest in the PCD strategy (2.9%), followed by the SDU (1.5%) and VCF (0.3%) strategies. Expected mortality and quality-adjusted life years were nearly identical for all three management strategies. Expected health care costs at 12 weeks were Can$55,831 for the PCD strategy, Can$55,334 for the SDU screening strategy, and Can$57,377 for the VCF strategy, with similar trends noted over a lifetime analysis.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The attributable mortality due to PE in trauma patients with severe injuries is low relative to other causes of mortality. Prophylactic placement of VCF in patients at high risk of VTE who cannot receive pharmacological prophylaxis is expensive and associated with an increased risk of DVT. Compared to the other strategies, SDU screening was associated with better clinical outcomes and lower costs.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the degree of compliance with the current guidelines regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in medical patients during admission and to identify risk factors linked to complications of VTE prophylaxis. DESIGN:Prospective cohort study. SETTING:The Internal Medicine Department of the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (tertiary referral hospital). PARTICIPANTS:A total of 396 hospitalised, elderly patients who did not undergo surgery and had no active or previous oral anticoagulation or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment (during the previous year) and who received VTE prophylaxis during admission. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The degree of compliance with the current guidelines was estimated by calculating PADOVA and IMPROVE indexes in all cases. We analysed the development of the following complications: major and minor bleeding, major and minor haematoma and decrease of platelet count. RESULTS:We found that VTE prophylaxis was correctly indicated in 88.4% of patients. We found two (0.5%) cases with major bleeding, 17 (4.3%) with minor bleeding, 30 (7.6%) with decreased platelet count, 29 (7.3%) with major haematoma and 82 (20.7%) with minor haematoma. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, the presence of major haematomas was linked to obesity (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.8 to 9.2, p=0.001), concomitant antiplatelet treatment (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5, p=0.03) and enoxaparin use (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 10.9, p=0.029), and the presence of minor haematomas was associated with PADOVA index <4 points (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5 to 6.4, p=0.003) and diabetes mellitus (OR 2; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7, p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS:Complications during VTE prophylaxis in elderly hospitalised medical patients are frequent even with correct application of current guidelines. The main factors linked to haematomas were obesity and concomitant antiplatelet treatment, the presence of which should lead physicians to exercise extreme caution. The use of tinzaparin for VTE prophylaxis in these patients could have a better safety profile.
Project description:We conducted an observational cohort study in adult patients consecutively admitted for the respiratory illness Covid-19 to our hub hospital from March 9 to April 7, 2020. The high observed rate of venous thromboembolism prompted us to increase the prophylactic doses of enoxaparin from 40 mg daily up to 1 mg/kg twice daily in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), 0.7 mg/kg twice daily in high-intensity of care wards and 1 mg/kg daily in low-intensity of care wards. Patients on high enoxaparin doses were compared to those who received prophylaxis with the standard dosage. Efficacy endpoints were mortality, clinical deterioration, and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleeding. Of 278 patients with Covid-19, 127 received prophylaxis with high enoxaparin doses and 151 with standard dosage. At 21 days, the incidence rate of death and clinical deterioration were lower in patients on higher doses than in those on the standard dosage (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62), and the incidence of venous thromboembolism was also lower (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.05). Major bleeding occurred in four of 127 patients (3.1%) on the high enoxaparin dosage. In conclusion, in the cohort of patients with Covid-19 treated with high enoxaparin dosages we observed a 60% reduction of mortality and clinical deterioration and a 50% reduction of venous thromboembolism compared to standard dosage prophylaxis. However, 3% of patients on high enoxaparin dosages had non-fatal major bleeding.
Project description:Among the various pharmacological options to decrease peri-operative bleeding, tranexamic acid appears to be one of the most interesting. Several trials have consistently documented the efficacy of this synthetic drug in reducing the risk of blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty. The safety of intravenous tranexamic acid in major orthopaedic surgery, particularly regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism, was systematically analysed in this review. A systematic search of the literature identified 73 randomised controlled trials involving 4,174 patients and 2,779 controls. The raw overall incidence of venous thromboembolism was 2.1% in patients who received intravenous tranexamic acid and 2.0% in controls. A meta-analytic pooling showed that the risk of venous thromboembolism in tranexamic acid-treated patients was not significantly different from that of controls (risk difference: 0.01%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05%, 0.07%; risk ratio: 1.067, 95% CI: 0.760-1.496). Other severe drug-related adverse events occurred very rarely (0.1%). In conclusion, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that intravenous tranexamic acid is a safe pharmacological treatment to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Persons with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We sought to examine whether the self-report of hormonal contraception (HC), as a proxy for exposure to estrogen-based contraception, was less common for women with multiple risk factors for venous thromboembolism. METHODS:We examined the prevalence of personal use of hormonal birth control in a large internet-based cohort of patients with IBD. To determine whether HC was less common among patients with IBD with increased risk of thrombosis, we estimated unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for the use of HC. RESULTS:Thousand four hundred ninety-nine female survey respondents answered optional fertility questions and were included in the analysis. The prevalence of HC was 33.7% (95% CI, 30.6%-36.9%) among women with Crohn's disease and was 32.6% (95% CI, 28.6%-36.8%) for women with ulcerative colitis. Women with one risk factor for thrombosis were not significantly less likely to receive HC (PR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76-1.08; adjusted PR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.80-1.11) compared with women without risk factors nor were women with 2 or more risk factors (PR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.56-1.28; adjusted PR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.83-1.45). The use of an intrauterine device was also similar between women with and without risk factors for venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS:The prevalence of HC use in women with multiple risk factors was similar to that in women without risk factors, which represents an opportunity for prevention. Gastroenterologists should ask patients with IBD using HC about risk factors for thromboembolic disease to identify patients who may benefit from alternative contraception.
Project description:Patients with bladder cancer are at high risk of developing both venous and arterial thromboembolic events. Factors that contribute to this phenomenon include the hypercoagulable state induced by the malignancy itself, medical comorbidities that are common in this predominantly elderly patient population as well as treatments such as prolonged pelvic surgery and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. While formal guidelines address prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing radical cystectomy, consensus regarding the role of pharmacologic prophylaxis in patients with bladder cancer being treated with chemotherapy, either with neoadjuvant or adjuvant intent in conjunction with radical cystectomy, as part of bladder preservation protocols or for metastatic disease, has proved elusive. The present narrative review was undertaken to define the incidence of and identify risk factors for thromboembolism among patients with bladder cancer, as well as to assess the efficacy of pharmacologic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of thromboembolism in this patient population.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.<h4>Objective</h4>These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.<h4>Results</h4>The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).<h4>Conclusions</h4>For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.