OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism is one of the most serious complications of the postpartum period, and international societies have various thromboprophylaxis guidelines for its prevention. This study compares postpartum venous thromboprophylaxis recommendations from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) with real-life clinical practices.
METHODS: Data analysis of 1000 postpartum women at a tertiary care center focused on patient demographics, venous thromboembolism risk factors, and clinical thromboprophylaxis practices. Patient-specific risk factors were compared between ACOG and RCOG guidelines, assessing Low-Molecular-Weight-Heparin dosages and durations. Guideline compliance, undertreatment/overtreatment rates, and the required number of prefilled Low-Molecular-Weight-Heparin syringes were evaluated.
RESULTS: Significant discrepancies were observed between ACOG and RCOG guidelines, particularly in Low Molecular Weight Heparin dosages and durations. Consensus rates with clinical approaches were around 53%, with inconsistencies leaning towards undertreatment (RCOG) and overtreatment (ACOG). The number of required prefilled Low-Molecular-Weight-Heparin syringes was notably higher according to RCOG compared to ACOG guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: Postpartum Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines from American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists exhibit substantial differences, leading to variations in clinical practice. Further research on the significance of Venous thromboembolism risk factors is essential for improving risk assessment tools and refining guideline recommendations for pregnancy-related Venous thromboembolism prevention.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings.
METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs).
RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendations, and all recommendations were offered in a clear and synthetic list, so to be easily translated into clinical practice.

Surgical patients are at risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), and preventative measures such as thromboembolism deterrent stockings (TEDs) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are proven to be beneficial. The National Quality Requirement in the NHS Standard Contract 2017/19 in England mandates that 95% of inpatients undergo VTE risk assessments. As hospitals transition to Electronic Patient Records (EPR), it is important to observe the impact on vital safety indicators such as VTE risk. The aim of this study is to observe the effect of implementing EPR in a tertiary centre on adherence to national guidelines, including VTE assessment rates and prophylaxis administration in surgical patients.
Using consecutive sampling, all acute surgical admissions at the hospital from 26/02/2018 to 18/03/2018 (n=154) pre-EPR and 31/10/2018 to 25/11/2018 (n=151) post-EPR were observed for VTE risk assessment, 24-h re-assessment, prophylaxis prescriptions, administration, and patient compliance. Data was compared using a two-tailed Z-test.
Pre-EPR, 96% of patients had completed VTE assessments, which increased after EPR implementation to 97% (p=0.39). LWMH prescription rates decreased from 82% to 77% following EPR (p=0.14). Moreover, TED prescriptions decreased from 84% to 64% post-EPR (p<0.01). Administration rates of prophylaxis generally improved post-EPR. The 24-h re-assessment rate decreased from 62% to 54% of patients (p=0.08).
The study demonstrated that EPR is non-inferior to paper records. Transitioning to an EPR system did not interfere with the completion of VTE risk assessments, hence did not negatively impact the ability to achieve national targets.

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has become a standard of treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism (CAT). Until recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have not had data about efficacy and safety in cancer patients. However, in the last two years, four randomized open-label studies comparing DOAC and LMWH in the treatment of CAT have been published. The first one was a large trial with edoxaban, followed by two smaller studies with rivaroxaban and apixaban, and, recently, by another large trial with apixaban. There are some differences among the studies concerning design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, length of treatment. In summary, DOAC are associated with a trend to the reduction of the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism; however, this is at the expense of some increase in bleeding risk. This risk is differential; the prevailing site of bleeding is the upper part of gastrointestinal tract, and, to a lesser extent, genitourinary tract. The updated guidelines for the treatment of CAT suggest DOAC as an alternative, however with careful consideration of the risk of bleeding and the risk of drug interactions. So far, the guidelines have mentioned edoxaban and rivaroxaban. With emerging evidence, apixaban is expected to play a role as well.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased in patients with cancer and is greatest in those with cancers of the pancreas, stomach, brain, lung and ovary, late stage disease and in those undergoing treatment including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or surgery. VTE in patients with cancer is associated with a variety of adverse consequences including an increased risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and early mortality. A VTE risk score for ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy has been extensively validated and has been used to select high risk patients for thromboprophylaxis trials. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of these trials have confirmed that LMWHs can significantly reduce the risk of VTE in patients with cancer. While the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for the general population, previous guideline panels discouraged their use due to a lack of cancer-specific data. Recently RCTs for the treatment of established VTE in patients with cancer have demonstrated that the risk of recurrent VTE is lower while the risk of bleeding greater with DOACs compared to LMWH. Two thromboprophylaxis trials comparing low dose DOACs to placebo in high risk patients receiving cancer therapy have recently reported similar rates of VTE occurrence at 6 months in the control arms. A meta-analysis of the pooled results from these trials in higher risk ambulatory patients receiving cancer therapy confirmed a significant reduction in overall VTE incidence as well as pre-planned secondary outcomes on treatment. Several clinical practice guidelines addressing VTE in patients with malignant disease have been updated including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The addition of DOACs as an option for the management of VTE in patients with cancer is the latest major change to previous guidelines issued by these organizations. The updated recommendations from these guidelines are summarized in this review.

Cancer-related venous thromboembolism (Wickham et al., Intern Med J 42(6):698-708, 2012) is an important source of morbidity and mortality in that population. The standard of care for the treatment of cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for long periods of time. The favorable clinical trial results for efficacy and safety and availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have remodeled the care and options for treatment of venous thromboembolism in the adult population. The data of cancer population-subgroup analysis of those studies have shown that DOAC are as effective and safe as conventional long-term oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Additionally, non-controlled retrospective and prospective cohort data have been published describing efficacy and safety outcomes for the use of DOAC in cancer-related VTE. Altogether, the results from clinical studies have shown that direct oral anticoagulants may represent a treatment option for cancer-related VTE and an alternative to anticoagulation with VKA. Little is known about the patient-centered and system-based variables that determine the use of DOAC outside consensus guidelines, neither is known the impact of different anticoagulant modalities in adherence and quality of life in cancer patients. The objectives of this manuscript are to summarize the clinical trial-based and cohort data of cancer patients treated with DOAC for VTE and to highlight the aspects that may influence adherent to therapy, effectiveness, and safety outcomes in the treatment of cancer-related VTE.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) following isolated foot and ankle surgery and propose guidelines for VTE prevention in this group of patients.
METHODS: Following a PRISMA compliant search, 372 papers were identified and meta-analysis performed on 22 papers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence.
RESULTS: 43,381 patients were clinically assessed for VTE and the incidence with and without chemoprophylaxis was 0.6% (95% CI 0.4-0.8%) and 1% (95% CI 0.2-1.7%), respectively. 1666 Patients were assessed radiologically and the incidence of VTE with and without chemoprophylaxis was 12.5% (95% CI 6.8-18.2%) and 10.5% (95% CI 5.0-15.9%), respectively. There was no significant difference in the rates of VTE with or without chemoprophylaxis whether assessed clinically or by radiological criteria. The risk of VTE in those patients with Achilles tendon rupture was greater with a clinical incidence of 7% (95% CI 5.5-8.5%) and radiological incidence of 35.3% (95% CI 26.4-44.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Isolated foot and ankle surgery has a lower incidence of clinically apparent VTE when compared to general lower limb procedures, and this rate is not significantly reduced using low molecular weight heparin. The incidence of VTE following Achilles tendon rupture is high whether treated surgically or conservatively. With the exception of those with Achilles tendon rupture, routine use of chemical VTE prophylaxis is not justified in those undergoing isolated foot and ankle surgery, but patient-specific risk factors for VTE should be used to assess patients individually.
METHODS: II.

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (vte). Anticoagulation therapy is used to treat vte; however, patients with cancer have unique clinical circumstances that can often make decisions surrounding the administration of therapeutic anticoagulation complicated. No national Canadian guidelines on the management of established cancer-associated thrombosis have been published. We therefore aimed to develop a consensus-based, evidence-informed guideline on the topic. PubMed was searched for clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 2002 and 2013. Reference lists of key articles were hand-searched for additional publications. Content experts from across Canada were assembled to review the evidence and make recommendations. Low molecular weight heparin is the treatment of choice for cancer patients with established vte. Direct oral anticoagulants are not recommended for the treatment of vte at this time. Specific clinical scenarios, including the presence of an indwelling venous catheter, renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia, warrant modifications in the therapeutic administration of anticoagulation therapy. Patients with recurrent vte should receive extended (>3 months) anticoagulant therapy. Incidental vte should generally be treated in the same manner as symptomatic vte. There is no evidence to support the monitoring of anti-factor Xa levels in clinically stable cancer patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation; however, levels of anti-factor Xa could be checked at baseline and periodically thereafter in patients with renal insufficiency. Follow-up and education about the signs and symptoms of vte are important components of ongoing patient care.