Hip fracture is a common serious injury among older adults, yet the management of hip fractures for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants remains inconsistent worldwide. Drawing from a synthesis of available evidence and expert opinion, best practice approaches for managing patients with a hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants pre-operatively were considered by a working group of the Fragility Fracture Network Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group. The literature and related clinical guidelines were reviewed and a two-round modified Delphi study was conducted with a panel of experts from 16 countries and involved seven clinical specialities. Four consensus statements were achieved: peripheral nerve blocks can reasonably be performed on presentation for patients with hip fracture who are receiving direct oral anticoagulants; hip fracture surgery can reasonably be performed for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose; general anaesthesia could reasonably be administered for patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose (assuming eGFR > 60 ml.min-1.1.73 m-2); and it is generally reasonable to consider recommencing direct oral anticoagulants (considering blood loss and haemoglobin) < 48 h after hip fracture surgery. No consensus was achieved regarding timing of spinal anaesthesia. The consensus statements were developed to aid clinicians in their decision-making and to reduce practice variations in the management of patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants. Each statement will need to be considered specific to each individual patient\'s treatment.

Despite clear, relatively easy-to-use guidance, many clinicians find the preoperative management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) challenging. Inappropriate management can delay procedures and lead to haemorrhagic or thromboembolic complications. We aimed to describe preoperative management practices regarding DOACs in a tertiary hospital and clinicians\' adherence to in-house recommendations.
We included all patients being treated with DOACs who underwent elective surgery in 2019 and 2020 (n = 337). In-house recommendations for perioperative management were largely comparable to the 2022 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines.
Typical patients were older adults with multiple comorbidities and high thrombotic risk stratification scores, and 65.6% (n = 221) had not undergone recommended preoperative anticoagulation management protocols. Patients operated on using local anaesthesia (adjusted OR = 0.30, 95%CI 0.14-0.66; p < 0.01) were less likely to have been treated following institutional recommendations, but no association between their procedure\'s bleeding risk and adherence was found. Clinicians\' failures to adhere to recommendations mostly involved late or non-indicated interruptions of anticoagulation treatment (n = 89, 26.4%) or inappropriate heparin bridging (n = 54, 16.0%). Forty-five (13.3%) procedures had to be postponed. Incorrect preoperative anticoagulation management was directly responsible for 12/45 postponements (26.7% of postponements).
This study highlights clinicians\' low adherence rates to institutional recommendations for patients treated with DOACs scheduled for elective surgery in a tertiary hospital centre. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first clinical study addressing the issue of clinicians\' adherence to guidelines for the preoperative management of DOACs. Going beyond the issue of whether clinicians are knowledgeable about guidelines or have them available, this study questions how generalisable guidelines are in a tertiary hospital managing many highly polymorbid patients. Further studies should identify the causes of poor adherence.

BACKGROUND: All available recommendations about the management of antithrombotic therapies (ATs) in patients who experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are mainly based on expert opinion because of the lack of strength in the available evidence-based medicine. Currently, the withdrawal and the resumption of AT in these patients is empirical, widely variable, and based on the individual assessment of the attending physician. The main difficulty is to balance the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks to improve patient outcome.
METHODS: Under the endorsement of the Neurotraumatology Section of Italian Society of Neurosurgery, the Italian Society for the Study about Haemostasis and Thrombosis, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care, and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, a working group (WG) of clinicians completed two rounds of questionnaires, using the Delphi method, in a multidisciplinary setting. A table for thrombotic and bleeding risk, with a dichotomization in high risk and low risk, was established before questionnaire administration. In this table, the risk is calculated by matching different isolated TBI (iTBI) scenarios such as acute and chronic subdural hematomas, extradural hematoma, brain contusion (intracerebral hemorrhage), and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with patients under active AT treatment. The registered indication could include AT primary prevention, cardiac valve prosthesis, vascular stents, venous thromboembolism, and atrial fibrillation.
RESULTS: The WG proposed a total of 28 statements encompassing the most common clinical scenarios about the withdrawal of antiplatelets, vitamin K antagonists, and direct oral anticoagulants in patients who experienced blunt iTBI. The WG voted on the grade of appropriateness of seven recommended interventions. Overall, the panel reached an agreement for 20 of 28 (71%) questions, deeming 11 of 28 (39%) as appropriate and 9 of 28 (32%) as inappropriate interventions. The appropriateness of intervention was rated as uncertain for 8 of 28 (28%) questions.
CONCLUSIONS: The initial establishment of a thrombotic and/or bleeding risk scoring system can provide a vital theoretical basis for the evaluation of effective management in individuals under AT who sustained an iTBI. The listed recommendations can be implemented into local protocols for a more homogeneous strategy. Validation using large cohorts of patients needs to be developed. This is the first part of a project to update the management of AT in patients with iTBI.

Background  Cancer is a well-known risk factor of preventable thromboembolic disease. This study aims to provide guidance on the prevention and management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) that tailors prophylactic and therapeutic options for medical and surgical oncology patients presenting to health care settings in Saudi Arabia. Methods  The present consensus was developed in concordance with the modified Delphi-based approach, which incorporates a face-to-face meeting between two voting rounds to gain experts\' feedback on the proposed statements. All experts were either oncologists, hematologists, or hemato-oncologist with an active clinical and research profile in hemato-oncology. Results  The experts highlighted that the comparatively high incidence of inherited thrombophilia among the Saudi population may account for a higher CT burden in the Kingdom than in other parts of the world. However, due to the lack of literature that assesses CT in Saudi Arabia, primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be tailored according to a valid risk assessment of cancer patients and should be implemented in routine practice. For hospitalized medical oncology patients, the experts agreed that prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) should be offered, regardless of the presence of acute illness. For ambulatory medical oncology patients, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) prophylaxis should be offered for high-risk patients. Concerning surgical patients, they agreed that all oncology patients undergoing surgery should be offered thromboprophylaxis. In terms of secondary prophylaxis, the experts recommended continuing a prophylactic dose of anticoagulant (LMWH or DOAC), for an appropriate period depending on the cancer type and stage. Finally, they also provided a set of statements on management of CT in Saudi Arabia. Conclusion  The present modified Delphi-based study combined the best available evidence and clinical experience with the current health care policies and settings in Saudi Arabia to build a consensus statement on the epidemiology, prevention, and management of CT.

BACKGROUND: The emerging use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) is significantly improving therapeutic adherence and quality of life. Despite this, many conditions can restrict the therapeutic index of these drugs. For all these reasons the latest guidelines recommend the use of heparins in the treatment of CAT as the preferred treatment in some clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy and the safety of DOAC, in terms of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding (MB), as a composite primary outcome. Mortality and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were evaluated as secondary outcomes.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on 209 patients to compare the effects of DOAC versus heparins for the treatment of CAT. 127 patients with a high bleeding risk neoplasia were enrolled.
RESULTS: A primary-outcome event occurred in 11.3% of patients treated with heparins and in 10.5% treated with DOAC (Relative Risk 0.92; 95% CI 0.42-2.01, p = 0.84). Recurrent VTE occurred in 6.1% in the heparins group and in 8.4% in the DOAC group (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.51-3.64, p = 0.52). MB occurred in 5.2% in the heparins group and in 2.1% in the DOAC group (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.08-1.93, p = 0.25).
CONCLUSIONS: DOAC seem to be as effective and safe as heparins in the treatment of CAT. Most bleeding events occurred in patients with high-risk bleeding neoplasms regardless of the type of anticoagulant. Considering the characteristics and satisfaction of patients using DOAC in this setting, this approach should be considered as a first choice.

In the last twelve years the clinical management of patients with atrial fibrillation has been revolutionised by the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants. Despite the large amount of evidence produced, some populations remain relatively poorly explored regarding the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants, such as the oldest and/or frailest individuals. Frailty is clinical syndrome characterized by a reduction of functions and physiological reserves which results in individuals having higher vulnerability. While current evidence underlines a relationship between atrial fibrillation and frailty, particularly in determining a higher risk of adverse outcomes, data regarding effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in frailty atrial fibrillation patients are still lacking, leaving uncertainty about how to guide prescription in this specific subgroup. On these premises, this multidisciplinary consensus document explains why it would be useful to integrate the clinical evaluation performed through comprehensive geriatric assessment to gather further elements to guide prescription of direct oral anticoagulants in such a high-risk group of patients.

暂无摘要。

Despite an increasing number of patients suffering from an acute coronary syndrome under novel oral anticoagulant therapy, specific treatment recommendations for anticoagulation are still lacking. For this reason, the German Society of Cardiology and the German Association of Interdisciplinary Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine developed a consensus statement for the treatment of these patients with the aim to summarize the current evidence and to increase the safety of this special patient group.
Trotz einer zunehmenden Anzahl von Patienten, welche unter einer Dauertherapie mit neuen oralen Antikoagulanzien ein akutes Koronarsyndrom erleiden, existierten bisher keine Handlungsempfehlungen für deren prähospitale antikoagulatorische Therapie. Aus diesem Grund formulierten die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie und die Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin ein Konsensuspapier zur Therapie dieser speziellen Patientengruppe. Um die Sicherheit dieses Patientenkollektives zu erhöhen, ist es Ziel des Konsensuspapiers, die aktuelle Evidenzlage in strukturierten Empfehlungen zusammenzufassen.

暂无摘要。

Over the years, the practice of medicine has evolved from authority-based to experience-based to evidence-based with the introduction of the scientific process, clinical trials, and outcomes-based data analysis (Tebala GD. Int J Med Sci. 2018;15(12):1397-1405). The time required to perform the necessary randomized controlled trials, a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis of these trials to then create, accept, promulgate, and educate the practicing clinicians to use the evidence-based clinical guidelines is typically measured in years. When the severe acute respiratory syndrome novel coronavirus-2 (SARS-nCoV-2) pandemic commenced in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019, there were few available clinical guidelines to deploy, let alone adapt and adopt to treat the surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study is to first explain how clinical guidelines, on which bedside clinicians have grown accustomed, can be created in the midst of a pandemic, with an evolving scientific understanding of the pathophysiology of the hypercoagulable state. The second is to adapt and adopt current venous thromboembolism diagnostic and treatment guidelines, while relying on the limited available observational reporting of COVID-19 patients to create a comprehensive clinical guideline to treat COVID-19 patients.