Cancer is a known risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The wider adoption of immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic drugs in recent years have increased this risk further. Central venous catheters (CVCs) are widely used access devices utilized to deliver infusion therapy, mostly in ambulatory settings. The endothelial injury associated with the use of these catheters adds to the risk of VTE to already high-risk patients. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), with its proven efficacy and safety in multiple clinical indications, have renewed the attention to VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients with CVC. Several clinical trials and meta-analyses had shown that both apixaban and rivaroxaban are effective in lowering the risk of VTE, without increasing the risk of bleeding. Several risk assessment models (RAM) have utilized patient-related, tumor-related, and treatment-related factors, in addition to widely available biomarkers, like Hemoglobin (Hb) level, white blood cell (WBC) and platelets counts to stratify patients into two or three VTE risk levels. In this manuscript, we review the published clinical trials and meta-analyses that attempted to study the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants, mostly the DOACs, in cancer patients with CVCs. We will also propose a practical risk-directed approach to enhance VTE prophylaxis rate.

The differences in the safety and efficacy of anticoagulation between different types of new oral anticoagulants(NOACs) and low molecular weight heparin(LMWH) are still controversial. The main purposes of this study were to analyze safety and efficacy of NOACs versus LMWH for thromboprophylaxis, and perform subgroup analyses stratified by individual NOACs and different populations after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang databases until June 31, 2022. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 46 randomized controlled trials (RCT) with 39, 924 patients. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of thromboprophylaxis between LMWH and NOACs. NOACs were more effective in reducing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR0.59; 95%CI 0.49-0.71) and adverse events (RR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.93-0.99) than LMWH. The subgroup analyses for different anticoagulants revealed that rivaroxaban (RR:0.49; 95%CI:0.36-0.66), apixaban (RR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.36-0.81) and edoxaban (RR:0.49; 95%CI: 0.32-0.75) have the lower risk of DVT than LMWH. Apixaban (RR:0.89; 95%CI: 0.80-1.00) had superior prevention of bleeding to LMWH. Edoxaban exhibited a lower risk of VTE (RR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.33-0.65), advantage events (RR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.82-0.93), and drug-related adverse events (DRAEs) (RR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.53-0.76) than LMWH. East Asian population was superior to western population for preventing DVT, advantage events, and DRAE using NOACs. In conclusion, NOACs are more effective than LMWH at preventing DVT and adverse events after arthroplasty. Apixaban has lower bleeding than LMWH, and East Asian populations may benefit more than western population from NOACs.

OBJECTIVE: Critically ill COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients receive thromboprophylaxis with the LMWH nadroparin. Whether a standard dosage is adequate in attaining the target anti-FXa levels (0.20-0.50 IU/ml) in these groups is unknown.
METHODS: This study was a prospective, observational study in the ICU of a large general teaching hospital in the Netherlands. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received LMWH in a prophylactic dosage of 2850 IU, 5700 IU or 11400 IU subcutaneously were eligible for the study. Anti-FXa levels were determined 4 h after administration. Relevant laboratory parameters, prespecified co-variates and clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record system. The primary goal was to evaluate anti-FXa levels in critically ill patients on a prophylactic dosage of nadroparin. The second goal was to investigate whether covariates had an influence on anti-FXa levels.
RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included in the analysis. In the COVID-19 group and non-COVID-19 group, 29 (96%) and 12 patients (38%) reached anti-FXa levels above 0.20 IU/ml, respectively. In the non-COVID-19 group, 63% of the patients had anti-FXA levels below the target range. When adjusted for nadroparin dosage a significant relation was found between body weight and the anti-FXa level (p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: A standard nadroparin dosage of 2850 IU sc in the critically ill patient is not sufficient to attain target anti-FXa levels in the majority of the studied patient group. We suggest a standard higher dosage in combination with body-weight dependent dosing as it leads to better exposure to nadroparin.
BACKGROUND: Retrospectively registered, ClinicalTrials.gov ID NTC 05926518 g, date of registration 06/01/23, unique ID 2020/1725.

To evaluate the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with central nervous system (CNS) malignancies and secondary metastases. All adult patients with CNS malignancies and secondary metastases who were treated with a DOAC or LMWH for any indication from 2018 to 2022 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after anticoagulation initiation. Secondary outcomes included non-ICH bleeding events and thromboembolic events. Tolerability was assessed by any changes in anticoagulant therapy during study period. 153 patients were included; 48 patients received enoxaparin and 105 received DOACs, of which apixaban was used most commonly. The population was predominantly White (74%) and male (59%) with a median age of 65. Data was censored for immortal time bias for outcomes evaluated beyond 3 months. ICH occurred in 7.7% of the population, more frequently in the enoxaparin group (DOACs 4, 4% vs. enoxaparin 7, 16%, p = 0.037). Non-ICH bleeds were predominantly minor and more common in the DOAC group (DOACs 13, 13% vs. enoxaparin 1, 2%, p = 0.037). Thromboembolic events were not different between groups (DOACs 9. 9% vs, enoxaparin 2, 4%, p = 0.503). Anticoagulant switches occurred more in the enoxaparin group (DOACs 12, 12.4% vs. enoxaparin, 37.8%, p < 0.001), primarily due to patient or provider preference. Our data supports DOACs to be preferred over LMWH for the treatment of VTE or for stroke prevention with AF to prevent ICH in patients with brain tumors or metastases.

An adequate knowledge of anticoagulants used to prevent clotting in the extracorporeal circuit is crucial to provide optimal hemodialysis. Drugs can potentially prevent extracorporeal circuit clotting, but administration, half-life, and potential side effects differ. However, there is a lack of concise recommendations to guide anticoagulation and to avoid side effects. Because of the development of newer anticoagulant agents, direct thrombin inhibitors, and heparinoids, some of the side effects related to heparin may be overcome, but a deeper knowledge of these newer drugs is necessary. Moreover, types of heparin used, routes of administration, and health care economics vary around the world. We performed an extensive review of the literature, and the present article focuses on available anticoagulant drugs, exploring doses, side effects, particular use in hemodialysis, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, and use in special situations. Classical anticoagulants are still the standard of anticoagulation, but many questions remain unanswered; for example, is there real superiority of one treatment over another in terms of efficacy, safety, and health care economics? Anticoagulant protocols for hemodialysis need to be standardized and further studies performed to answer all of these questions.

This study aimed to examine the incidence rate of early reoperations following hip fracture surgery and determine the safety of resuming direct oral anticoagulants. Many orthopedic surgeons are reluctant to resume chronic anticoagulation therapy for patients after surgical intervention for hip fractures. One of the main reasons is the potential for reoperation in the case of surgical complications. We conducted a retrospective cohort study at an Academic Level I trauma center, reviewing the records of 425 geriatric patients (age > 60) who underwent hip fracture surgery between 2018 and 2020, including a subgroup treated with direct oral anticoagulants prior to hospitalization. The study assessed the incidence rate of complications requiring early reoperation. Out of the 425 patients, only nine (2%) required reoperation within a month after discharge, with two (0.5%) on chronic anticoagulation therapy. None of the reoperations were urgent, and all were performed at least 24 h after re-admission. The findings revealed a very low incidence rate of reoperations in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, with no reoperations performed within 24 h of re-admission. Consequently, we believe that resuming chronic direct oral anticoagulants is a safe and effective approach when discharging patients after hip fracture surgery.

UNASSIGNED: The guidelines\' recommendations for anticoagulation in cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis are unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess anticoagulation management in cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) based on previously published studies.
UNASSIGNED: As of June 10, 2023,we searched databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane and included 11 observational studies that met the criteria. We evaluated 770 adults with active cancer and objectively confirmed patients with CRT who were using drugs including warfarin, LMWH, and new oral anticoagulants as antithrombotic therapy.
UNASSIGNED: We extracted outcome data, including thrombosis recurrence, catheter dysfunction, major bleeding, and death, and performed a meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: In this study we found that the risk of VTE recurrence was higher with rivaroxaban, the risk of bleeding and death appeared to be greater with warfarin, and although the risk of catheter dysfunction due to LMWH is a concern, it is still a more reasonable option for cancer patients with catheter-related thrombosis.
UNASSIGNED: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (CRD42022367979).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the standard of care but new guidelines have approved the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC). By conducting an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of NOAC versus LMWH in cancer patients, we aim to determine an ideal strategy for the prophylaxis of VTE and prevention of VTE recurrence. Three databases were searched from inception until 19 October 2022. IPD was reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Shared frailty, stratified Cox and Royston-Parmar models were fit to compare the outcomes of venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. For studies without Kaplan-Meier curves, aggregate data meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Eleven RCTs involving 4844 patients were included. Aggregate data meta-analysis showed that administering NOACs led to a significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE (RR = 0.65; 95%CI: 0.50-0.84) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.40-0.90). In the IPD meta-analysis, NOAC when compared with LMWH has an HR of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.49-0.86) for VTE recurrence. Stratified Cox and Royston-Parmar models demonstrated similar results. In reducing risks of recurrent VTE and DVT among cancer patients, NOACs are superior to LMWHs without increased major bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are increasing in people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF). Providers treating VTE in PwCF have reported low confidence concerning anticoagulant drug selection, dose, duration, and drug-drug interactions. As there are currently no published reports regarding management of VTE in PwCF, our objective was to describe the management of VTE in PwCF.
METHODS: PwCF and VTE at the University of Utah Health were identified through electronic medical record searches. Patients were categorized into one of three treatment groups: warfarin, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The primary outcome was episodes of major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding.
RESULTS: Nine PwCF with a total of 12 unique VTE episodes were included in the study, with all but one episode associated with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Of the 12 VTE cases, 25% were treated with warfarin, 50% with a DOAC, and 25% with LMWH. There were no episodes of major bleeding and only one episode of CRNM bleeding (Hemoptysis) in the LMWH group. All anticoagulant doses and durations generally followed guidelines for persons without CF. DOACs were the most common VTE treatment, at doses and duration consistent with guidelines for persons without CF, with no major or CRNM bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: VTE treatment in PwCF is generally consistent with guidelines for persons without CF with low rates of bleeding. DOACs are a potential option for treatment of VTE in PwCF, but more research is needed.

Hyperkalemia, an elevated blood potassium concentration exceeding 5.0 mEq/L, is associated with adverse outcomes and is frequently observed in hospitalized patients. Drug-induced hyperkalemia accounts for a significant proportion of cases, with heparin, commonly used for venous thrombosis prevention, suspected to contribute, though less recognized than other heparin-related side effects. Both unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) have been implicated in inducing hyperkalemia, primarily through the suppression of aldosterone levels and modulation of angiotensin II receptors. This systematic review examines the relationship between heparin, particularly LMWH, and hyperkalemia. Thirteen studies involving 1407 patients were analyzed. Findings indicated a lack of highquality evidence, with no significant increase in potassium levels associated with LMWH use. LMWH did not exhibit a dose-response relationship with hyperkalemia incidence. Additionally, mechanisms underlying the hypothetical LMWHinduced hyperkalemia remained inconclusive. While this suggests that LMWH is unlikely to be a primary cause of hyperkalemia, caution is warranted, especially in patients with elevated baseline potassium levels.