Dataset Information

Anticoagulation Duration After First Venous Thromboembolism: Real-Life Data From the International, Observational WHITE Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

International guidelines recommend at least three months anticoagulation in all patients after acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and suggest those with unprovoked events be considered for indefinite anticoagulation if the risk of recurrence is high and the risk of bleeding during treatment non-high. Other authors have recently argued against using a dichotomy unprovoked/provoked events to decide on anticoagulation duration and suggest instead using overall risk factors present in each patient as the basis for deciding.

Aim

This sub-analysis of the WHITE study aimed at assessing the reasons for the treatment decisions taken by doctors in different countries.

Results

1240 patients were recruited in 7 countries (China, Czechia, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, and Tunisia). Anticoagulation was extended in 51.7% and 49.3% of patients with unprovoked or provoked events (n.s.); stopped in 15.4% versus 28.9% (P < .0001), and changed to antithrombotic drugs (sulodexide or aspirin) in 32.9% versus 21.8% (P < .0001). In the 430 subjects with isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) anticoagulation was stopped in 34.4%, continued in 37.0% (mainly those with post-thrombotic syndrome [PTS]) and switched to antithrombotics in the balance. High risk of recurrence was the most prevalent reason (>83% of cases) given to continue anticoagulation, regardless of nature and site of the index events, followed by risk of bleeding and presence of PTS signs.

Conclusion

On average, attending physicians estimated the risk of recurrence in real life conditions, and the consequent therapeutic decision, using all the information available, not limiting to the location or nature of the index event.

SUBMITTER: Palareti G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8674483 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe assessed the number of cases with delayed anticoagulation initiation, explored the reasons for the delay, and its impact on outcome in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) treated in an organized setting of treatment initiation and continuous, prospective follow-up.MethodsPatients with anticoagulation initiation delay >24 hours were identified within the cohort of patients with acute VTE enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Venous Thromboembolism Registry between 2013 and 2020. The reasons for treatment delay were explored by reviewing the electronic database. VTE recurrence, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were compared to those with no anticoagulation delay.ResultsOf 2378 patients with acute VTE, 100 (4.2%) experienced an anticoagulation delay. We identified seven reasons for treatment delays: deferring anticoagulation initiation to specialists (n = 38), thrombocytopenia (n = 10), planned or recent procedure (n = 16), active or recent bleeding (n = 12), missed diagnosis (n = 7), logistics (n = 6), and patient decision (n = 4). In seven cases, no reason was identified. We identified modifiable reasons for anticoagulation delay in 55%. At 90-day follow-up, patients with anticoagulation delay had a higher rate of mortality and major bleeding. VTE recurrence and CRNMB were not statistically different compared to those without anticoagulation delay. After adjustment for age, weight, and cancer, hazard ratios (HRs) for VTE recurrence and major bleeding remained elevated but not to a statistically significant level.ConclusionIn the setting of a highly organized system of anticoagulation initiation, the incidence of treatment delay is low. Yet most delays could be avoided. A low number of cases provide insufficient power to evaluate the clinical consequences of anticoagulation initiation delay; however, elevated HR for VTE recurrence and major bleeding suggest association and need for further investigation.

Project description:ImportanceVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of COVID-19. It is not well understood how hospitals have managed VTE prevention and the effect of prevention strategies on mortality.ObjectiveTo characterize frequency, variation across hospitals, and change over time in VTE prophylaxis and treatment-dose anticoagulation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, as well as the association of anticoagulation strategies with in-hospital and 60-day mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 used a pseudorandom sample from 30 US hospitals in the state of Michigan participating in a collaborative quality initiative. Data analyzed were from patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and June 17, 2020. Data were analyzed through March 2021.ExposuresNonadherence to VTE prophylaxis (defined as missing ≥2 days of VTE prophylaxis) and receipt of treatment-dose or prophylactic-dose anticoagulants vs no anticoagulation during hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresThe effect of nonadherence and anticoagulation strategies on in-hospital and 60-day mortality was assessed using multinomial logit models with inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsOf a total 1351 patients with COVID-19 included (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-75] years; 47.7% women, 48.9% Black patients), only 18 (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE, and 219 (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation. Use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.31-1.61 per week). Of 1127 patients who ever received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 or more days of prophylaxis. Missed prophylaxis varied from 11% to 61% across hospitals and decreased markedly over time (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97 per week). VTE nonadherence was associated with higher 60-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.67) but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03). Receiving any dose of anticoagulation (vs no anticoagulation) was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (only prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.52; any treatment dose: aHR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.58). However, only the prophylactic dose of anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days (prophylactic dose: aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; treatment dose: aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63-1.35).Conclusions and relevanceThis large, multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, found evidence of rapid dissemination and implementation of anticoagulation strategies, including use of treatment-dose anticoagulation. As only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was associated with lower 60-day mortality, prophylactic dosing strategies may be optimal for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.