Dataset Information

Extended anticoagulation after venous thromboembolism: should it be done?

ABSTRACT: Most physicians understand venous thromboembolism (VTE) to be an acute and time-limited disease. However, pathophysiological and epidemiological data suggest that in most patients VTE recurrence risk is not resolved after the first 6 months of anticoagulation. Recurrence rates are high and potentially life-threatening. In these cases, it would make sense to prolong anticoagulation for an undetermined length of time. However, what about the bleeding rates, induced by prolonged anticoagulation? Would they not outweigh the benefit of reducing the VTE recurrent risk? How long should anticoagulation be continued, and should all patients suffering from VTE be provided with extended anticoagulation? This review will address the most recent data concerning extended anticoagulation in VTE secondary prophylaxis. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplementary material section.

SUBMITTER: Fernandes CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6767720 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extended anticoagulation after venous thromboembolism: should it be done?

Fernandes Caio J CJ Calderaro Daniela D Piloto Bruna B Hoette Susana S Jardim Carlos Vianna Poyares CVP Souza Rogério R

Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease 20190101

Most physicians understand venous thromboembolism (VTE) to be an acute and time-limited disease. However, pathophysiological and epidemiological data suggest that in most patients VTE recurrence risk is not resolved after the first 6 months of anticoagulation. Recurrence rates are high and potentially life-threatening. In these cases, it would make sense to prolong anticoagulation for an undetermined length of time. However, what about the bleeding rates, induced by prolonged anticoagulation? Wo ...[more]

PMID: 31558116

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Warfarin is an anticoagulant medication proven effective in the initial treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism. Anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulants are alternatives to warfarin; however there is limited data assessing satisfaction after switching from warfarin to an anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant in patients for treatment of venous thromboembolism. OBJECTIVES:To assess medication satisfaction in patients requiring anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism after conversion from warfarin to an anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study with prospective assessment of satisfaction and review of adverse events following anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant replacement of warfarin for treatment of venous thromboembolism. Out of 165 patients who had switched from warfarin to rivaroxaban or apixaban from an outpatient haematology practice, 126 patients consented for a survey of patient's relative satisfaction of anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant therapy compared with previous warfarin therapy using the Anti-Clot Burden and Benefits Treatment Scale and SWAN Score. RESULTS:The mean Anti-Clot Burden and Benefits and SWAN Score was 93% (56/60) and 83% (24.8/30) respectively reflecting high satisfaction with anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulants. 120 patients stated preference for anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin. Leading perceptions driving this was the reduction in frequency of medical contact and fewer bleeding side effects. Thirteen patients (10.3%) experienced an adverse event after the anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant switch (majority were non-major bleeding) but most remained on anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant treatment after management options were implemented with continued high satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS:Patient satisfaction with anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulant therapy for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism after switching from warfarin in routine clinical practice appeared high. Improved patient convenience including reduced frequency of medical contact and fewer unpredictable side effects were perceived as significant advantages of anti-Xa direct oral anticoagulants compared to warfarin.

Dataset Information

Extended anticoagulation after venous thromboembolism: should it be done?

Publications

Extended anticoagulation after venous thromboembolism: should it be done?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure