UNASSIGNED: Anticoagulation is crucial for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to the high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the optimal anticoagulation regimen needs further exploration. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of diverse anticoagulation dosage dosages for COVID-19.
UNASSIGNED: An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of thromboprophylaxis (standard, intermediate, and therapeutic dose) on the incidence of VTE, mortality and major bleeding among COVID-19 patients. Literature was searched via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for effect estimates.
UNASSIGNED: Nineteen studies involving 25,289 participants without VTE history were included. The mean age of patients was 59.3 years old. About 50.96% were admitted to the intensive care unit. In the pooled analysis, both therapeutic-dose and intermediate-dose anticoagulation did not have a significant advantage in reducing VTE risk over standard dosage (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.58-2.02, and OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, respectively). Similarly, all-cause mortality was not further decreased in either therapeutic-dose group (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.75-1.67) or intermediate-dose group (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.83-2.17). While the major bleeding risk was significantly elevated in the therapeutic-dose group (OR = 2.59, 95%CI: 1.87-3.57) as compared with the standard-dose regimen. Compared with intermediate dosage, therapeutic anticoagulation did not reduce consequent VTE risk (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.52-1.38) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.60-1.17), but significantly increased major bleeding rate (OR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.58-3.70). In subgroup analysis of patients older than 65 years, therapeutic anticoagulation significantly lowered the incidence of VTE in comparation comparison with standard thromboprophylaxis, however, at the cost of elevated risk of major bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: Our results indicated that for most hospitalized patients with COVID-19, standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation might be the optimal choice. For elderly patients at low risk of bleeding, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation could further reduce VTE risk and should be considered especially when there were other strong risk factors of VTE during hospital stay.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier, CRD42023388429.

Multiple myeloma (MM) significantly increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 6 months of treatment initiation. The IMPEDE VTE score is a VTE risk prediction model which is recently incorporated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, but it lacks validation among Asians, including Chinese MM patients. We performed a retrospective chart review of 405 Chinese with newly diagnosed MM who started therapy at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital between April 2013 to October 2022. The 6-month cumulative incidence of VTE was 3.8 % (95 % CI:1.6-7.6), 8.6 % (95 % CI: 5.3-21.9) and 40.5 % (95 % CI: 24.9-55.7) in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups (P < 0.001), respectively. The C-statistic of the IMPEDE VTE scores for predicting VTE within 6 months of treatment initiation was 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.65-0.83). Of note, in this single-center cohort study, we propose that the anticoagulant LMWH may be more effective than the antiplatelet aspirin in potentially preventing VTE in newly diagnosed MM patients. Our findings suggest that the IMPEDE VTE score is a valid evidence-based risk stratification tool in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed MM.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery for venous thromboembolic events (VTE) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LMWH in these patients.
METHODS: A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science was carried out and included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that directly compared DOACs with LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in patients after cancer surgery through July 25, 2023. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) within 30 days of surgery. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445386).
RESULTS: We retrieved 5149articles, selected 27 for eligibility, and included 10 studies (three RCTs and seven observational studies) encompassing 3054 patients who underwent postoperative thromboprophylaxis with DOACs (41%) or LMWH (59%). Compared to LMWH thromboprophylaxis, DOACs had a comparable risk of VTE (RR:0.69[95% CI:0.46-1.02], I2 = 0%), major bleeding (RR:1.55 [95% CI:0.82-2.93], I2 = 2%), and CRNMB (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.4-1.98], I2 = 31%) during the 30-day postoperative period. Subgroup analysis of VTE and major bleeding suggested no differences according to study type, extended thromboprophylaxis, tumor types, or different types of DOAC.
CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are potentially effective alternatives to LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer surgery, without increasing the risk of major bleeding events.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the event rates and risk-factors for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in a population of hospitalized acutely ill medical patients.
METHODS: Patients ≥40 years old and hospitalized for acute medical illness who initiated enoxaparin prophylaxis were selected from the US Optum research database. Rates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 90-days were estimated via the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Risk factors were identified via the Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: A total of 123,022 patients met the selection criteria. The KM rates of VTE and major bleeding at 90-days were 3.5 % and 2.2 %, respectively. Among subgroups, the risk of VTE varied from 3.0 % in patients with ischemic stroke to 6.9 % in patients with a cancer-related hospitalization, and the risk of major bleeding varied from 1.9 % in patients with inflammatory conditions to 3.6 % in patients with ischemic stroke. Key risk factors for VTE were prior VTE (HR=4.15, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.80-4.53), cancer-related hospitalization (HR=2.35, 95 % CI 2.10-2.64), and thrombophilia (HR=1.64, 95 % CI 1.29-2.08). Key risk factors for major bleeding were history of major bleeding (HR=2.17, 95 % CI 1.72-2.74), history of non-major bleeding (HR=2.46, 95 % CI 2.24-2.70), and hospitalization for ischemic stroke (2.42, 95 % CI 2.11-2.78).
CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in the event rates for VTE and major bleeding in acute medically ill patients. History of VTE and cancer related hospitalization represent profiles with a high risk of VTE, where continued VTE prophylaxis may be warranted.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) are at risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), a serious complication. There is no established clinical model for predicting VTE in the Chinese population. We develop a new risk assessment model (RAM) for IMiD-associated VTE in Chinese MM patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively selected 1334 consecutive MM patients receiving IMiDs from 16 medical centers in China and classified them randomly into the derivation and validation cohorts. A multivariate Cox regression model was used for analysis.
RESULTS: The overall incidence of IMiD-related VTE in Chinese MM patients was 6.1%. Independent predictive factors of VTE (diabetes, ECOG performance status, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use, dexamethasone use, and VTE history or family history of thrombosis) were identified and merged to develop the RAM. The model identified approximately 30% of the patients in each cohort at high risk for VTE. The hazard ratios (HRs) were 6.08 (P < 0.001) and 6.23 (P < 0.001) for the high-risk subcohort and the low-risk subcohort, respectively, within both the derivation and validation cohorts. The RAM achieved satisfactory discrimination with a C statistic of 0.64. The stratification approach of the IMWG guidelines yielded respective HRs of 1.77 (P = 0.053) and 1.81 (P = 0.063). The stratification approach of the SAVED score resulted in HRs of 3.23 (P = 0.248) and 1.65 (P = 0.622), respectively. The IMWG guideline and the SAVED score-based method yielded C statistics of 0.58 and 0.51, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The new RAM outperformed the IMWG guidelines and the SAVED score and could potentially guide the VTE prophylaxis strategy for Chinese MM patients.

There are knowledge gaps regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of various venous thromboprophylaxis regimens with extended timing in patients hospitalized for acute medical illnesses. This study aims to investigate the optimal regimen for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in these patients.
We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different venous thromboprophylaxis regimens for acutely ill medical patients. Outcomes included venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were estimated. In addition, we assessed the most effective interventions in a subgroup of patients with stroke.
We identified five RCTs involving 40,124 patients. Extended thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) (RR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.68 to 0.89) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (RR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.45 to 0.84) were superior to standard therapy in the prevention of venous thromboembolism. However, both of them (DOAC: RR 1.99, 95% CrI 1.38 to 2.92; LMWH: RR 2.56, 95% CrI 1.26 to 5.68) lead to a significant increase in major bleeding). Moreover, both LMWH (RR 0.76, 95% CrI 0.57 to 1.00) and DOAC (RR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76 to 0.98) with extended thromboprophylaxis showed favorable net clinical benefit compared to standard therapy.
Extended thromboprophylaxis, especially with LMWH, showed better efficacy in venous thromboembolism reduction with increased risk of major bleeding. The beneficial effect of LMWH with extended timing has also been shown in stroke patients. Overall, extended thromboprophylaxis is associated with a positive net clinical benefit.

UNASSIGNED: Patients who undergo lung resection are at risk of postoperative cerebral infarction, but the risk factors remain unclear, so the present study was a comprehensive investigation in patients who underwent lung resection for pulmonary nodules.
UNASSIGNED: The clinical characteristics of patients with postoperative cerebral infarction and patients who underwent lung resection on the same day but did not develop cerebral infarction were retrospectively compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for cerebral infarction after lung resection.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 22 patients with postoperative cerebral infarction and 316 controls were included. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a history of cerebral infarction [odds ratio (OR), 7.289; P=0.030], activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) <26.5 s (OR, 3.704; P=0.018), body mass index (BMI) ≥24.0 kg/m2 (OR, 3.656; P=0.015), and surgical method (P=0.005) were independent risk factors for cerebral infarction after lung resection. Compared with patients undergoing lobectomy, the risk for postoperative cerebral infarction was significantly increased in patients undergoing segmentectomy (OR, 24.322; P=0.001), wedge resection (OR, 6.992; P=0.018), or combined surgical approach (OR, 29.921; P=0.028).
UNASSIGNED: A history of cerebral infarction, APTT <26.5 s, BMI ≥24.0 kg/m2, and surgical method were independent risk factors for cerebral infarction after lung resection. Strengthening thromboprophylaxis in patients with these risk factors may help to reduce the incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction.

BACKGROUND: To investigate venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with severe high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE), we performed a single center retrospective study to evaluate its clinical characteristics, prognosis, and potential thromboprophylaxis strategies in a large referral and treatment center in plateau regions.
METHODS: We studied a total of 18 patients with severe HAPE from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2021. Demographic and clinical data, laboratory data, including ultrasound scans of the lower extremities and cardiac ultrasound, and computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) variables were obtained, and comparisons were made between groups with and without VTE.
RESULTS: Of the 18 patients hospitalized with severe HAPE (age 43 (range, 34-54) years, 14 [77.8%] men), 7 patients developed VTE (38.9%), including 5 with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), 2 of whom had DVT only. Eighteen patients are all firstly rapid ascent to high altitudes which the mean altitude was 3700 m (3656-4050 m). Compared with patients who did not have VTE, patients with VTE had a longer time in hospital (13 [11, 19] versus 9 [7, 12]; P = 0.027), respiratory failure (6 [85.7%] versus 2 [18.2%]; P = 0.013), the shortened APTT (21.50 [19.00, 27.50] versus 26.30 [24.80, 30.10]; P = 0.044) and the higher level of D-dimer (7.81 [4.62, 9.60] versus 2.90 [1.75, 3.37]; P = 0.003). The proportion of thromboprophylaxis is too low in our cohort which 2 of 18 (11.1%) patients were given VTE prophylaxis. There was no statistically significant difference between the VTE and non-VTE groups (0 [0.0%] versus 2 [18.2%]; P = 0.497).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of VTE is high in hospitalized patients with severe high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE). Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism may be protective in severe HAPE patients after admission. Our data seem to suggest that VTE is probably an additional prognostic factors in patients with severe HAPE.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to explore the prophylaxis effect under a guideline-based thromboprophylaxis protocol among critically ill patients in a respiratory ICU.
METHODS: For this single-center prospective cohort study, we followed the thromboprophylaxis protocol, which was drawn up based on relevant guidelines and Chinese experts\' advice. Clinical data were entered into an electronic case report form and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore independent risk factors of VTE event under this protocol.
RESULTS: From August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, 884 patients underwent thromboprophylaxis according to this protocol; 10.5% of them received mechanical prophylaxis, 43.8% received pharmacological prophylaxis, and 45.7% received pharmacological combined with mechanical prophylaxis. The proportion of VTE events was 14.3% for patients who received the thromboprophylaxis protocol, of which 0.1% had pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE), 2.0% had proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and 12.1% had isolated distal DVT. There was no significant difference between different thromboprophylaxis measures. Cirrhosis (OR 5.789, 95% CI [1.402, 23.894], P = 0.015), acute asthma exacerbation (OR 39.999, 95% CI [4.704, 340.083], P = 0.001), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment (OR 22.237, 95%CI [4.824, 102.502], P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for proximal DVT under thromboprophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: The thromboprophylaxis protocol based on guidelines applied in the ICU was practicable and could help decrease the proportion of PTE and proximal DVT events. The risk factors of VTE events happening under the thromboprophylaxis protocol require more attention.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to develop and validate a specific risk-stratification nomogram model for the prediction of venous thromboembolism(VTE) in hospitalized patients with lung cancer using readily obtainable demographic, clinical and therapeutic characteristics, thus guiding the individualized decision-making on thromboprophylaxis on the basis of VTE risk levels.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a retrospective case-control study among newly diagnosed lung cancer patients hospitalized between January 2016 and December 2021. Included in the cohort were 234 patients who developed PTE and 936 non-VTE patients. The patients were randomly divided into the derivation group (70%, 165 VTE patients and 654 non-VTE patients) and the validation group (30%, 69 VTE patients and 282 non-VTE patients). Cut off values were established using a Youden´s Index. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine independent risk factors associated with VTE. Variance Inflation Factor(VIF) was used for collinearity diagnosis of the covariates in the model. The model was validated by the consistency index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic curves(ROC) and the calibration plot with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The clinical utility of the model was assessed through decision curve analysis(DCA). Further, the comparison of nomogram model with current models(Khorana, Caprini, Padua and COMPASS-CAT) was performed by comparing ROC curves using the DeLong\'s test.
UNASSIGNED: The predictive nomogram modle comprised eleven variables: overweight(24-28) defined by body mass index (BMI): [odds ratio (OR): 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-3.07], adenocarcinoma(OR:3.00, 95% CI: 1.88-4.87), stageIII-IV(OR:2.75, 95%CI: 1.58-4.96), Central venous catheters(CVCs) (OR:4.64, 95%CI: 2.86-7.62), D-dimer levels≥2.06mg/L(OR:5.58, 95%CI:3.54-8.94), PT levels≥11.45sec(OR:2.15, 95% CI:1.32-3.54), Fbg levels≥3.33 g/L(OR:1.76, 95%CI:1.12-2.78), TG levels≥1.37mmol/L (OR:1.88, 95%CI:1.19-2.99), ROS1 rearrangement(OR:2.87, 95%CI:1.74-4.75), chemotherapy history(OR:1.66, 95%CI:1.01-2.70) and radiotherapy history(OR:1.96, 95%CI:1.17-3.29). Collinearity analysis with demonstrated no collinearity among the variables. The resulting model showed good predictive performance in the derivation group (AUC 0.865, 95% CI: 0.832-0.897) and in the validation group(AUC 0.904,95%CI:0.869-0.939). The calibration curve and DCA showed that the risk-stratification nomogram had good consistency and clinical utility. Futher, the area under the ROC curve for the specific VTE risk-stratification nomogram model (0.904; 95% CI:0.869-0.939) was significantly higher than those of the KRS, Caprini, Padua and COMPASS-CAT models(Z=12.087, 11.851, 9.442, 5.340, all P<0.001, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: A high-performance nomogram model incorporated available clinical parameters, genetic and therapeutic factors was established, which can accurately predict the risk of VTE in hospitalized patients with lung cancer and to guide individualized decision-making on thromboprophylaxis. Notably, the novel nomogram model was significantly more effective than the existing well-accepted models in routine clinical practice in stratifying the risk of VTE in those patients. Future community-based prospective studies and studies from multiple clinical centers are required for external validation.