Vedantham S, et al.; ATTRACT Trial Investigators. Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep-Vein Thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 7;377(23):2240-2252. Free full-text.
Summary: The ATTRACT trial sought to “determine whether pharmacomechanical thrombolysis prevents the post-thrombotic syndrome in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis” (p.2241). A total of 692 patients were enrolled at 56 centers in the US from December 2009 through December 2014. They were between the ages of 16 and 75, and had symptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis involving the femoral, common femoral, or iliac vein (p. 2241).
Galyfos G, et al. Acute limb ischemia among patients with COVID-19 infection. J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jan;75(1):326-342. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.222. Epub 2021 Aug 12.
Results: In total, 34 studies (19 case reports and 15 case series/cohort studies) including a total of 540 patients (199 patients were eligible for analysis) were evaluated. All studies were published in 2020. Mean age of patients was 61.6 years (range, 39-84 years; data from 32 studies) and 78.4% of patients were of male gender (data from 32 studies). There was a low incidence of comorbidities: arterial hypertension, 49% (29 studies); diabetes mellitus, 29.6% (29 studies); dyslipidemia, 20.5% (27 studies); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 8.5% (26 studies); coronary disease, 8.3% (26 studies); and chronic renal disease, 7.6% (28 studies). Medical treatment was selected as first-line treatment for 41.8% of cases. Pooled mortality rate among 34 studies reached 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.4%%-37.7%). Pooled amputation rate among 34 studies reached 23.2% (95% CI, 17.3%-29.7%). Pooled clinical improvement rate among 28 studies reached 66.6% (95% CI, 55.4%%-76.9%). Pooled reoperation rate among 29 studies reached 10.5% (95% CI, 5.7%%-16.7%). Medical treatment was associated with a higher death risk compared with any intervention (odds ratio, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.075-15.197; P = .045) although amputation risk was not different between the two strategies (odds ratio, 0.977; 95% CI, 0.070-13.600; P = .986) (data from 31 studies).
Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a high risk for thrombotic complications, including ALI. COVID-associated ALI presents in patients with a low incidence of comorbidities, and it is associated with a high mortality and amputation risk. Conservative treatment seems to have a higher mortality risk compared with any intervention, although amputation risk is similar.
Palareti G, Cosmi B, Legnani C, et al.; DULCIS Investigators. D-dimer to guide the duration of anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism: a management study. Blood. 2014 Jul 10;124(2):196-203.
Full-text for Emory users.
The optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. We investigated whether persistently negative D-dimers in patients with vein recanalization or stable thrombotic burden can identify subjects at low recurrence risk. Outpatients with a first VTE (unprovoked or associated with weak risk factors) were eligible after at least 3 months (12 in those with residual thrombosis) of anticoagulation. They received serial D-dimer measurements using commercial assays with predefined age/sex-specific cutoffs and were followed for up to 2 years. Of 1010 patients, anticoagulation was stopped in 528 (52.3%) with persistently negative D-dimer who subsequently experienced 25 recurrences (3.0% pt-y; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.4%). Of the remaining 482 patients, 373 resumed anticoagulation and 109 refused it. Recurrent VTE developed in 15 patients (8.8% pt-y; 95% CI, 5.0-14.1) of the latter group and in 4 of the former (0.7% pt-y; 95% CI, 0.2-1.7; hazard ratio = 2.92; 95% CI, 1.87-9.72; P = .0006). Major bleeding occurred in 14 patients (2.3% pt-y; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9) who resumed anticoagulation. Serial D-dimer measurement is suitable in clinical practice for the identification of VTE patients in whom anticoagulation can be safely discontinued. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00954395.
Watson L, Broderick C, Armon MP. Thrombolysis for acute deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):CD002783.
Main results: Seventeen RCTs with 1103 participants were included. These studies differed in the both thrombolytic agent used and in the technique used to deliver it. Systemic, loco-regional and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were all included. Fourteen studies were rated as low risk of bias and three studies were rated as high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred significantly more often in the treatment group at early follow-up (RR 4.91; 95% CI 1.66 to 14.53, P = 0.004) and at intermediate follow-up (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.40 to 4.27, P = 0.002; moderate quality evidence). A similar effect was seen for any degree of improvement in venous patency. Up to five years after treatment significantly less PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). This reduction in PTS was still observed at late follow-up (beyond five years), in two studies (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). Leg ulceration was reduced although the data were limited by small numbers (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 4.73, P = 0.87). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.52, P = 0.0006; moderate quality evidence). Three strokes occurred in the treatment group, all in trials conducted pre-1990, and none in the control group. There was no significant effect on mortality detected at either early or intermediate follow-up. Data on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT were inconclusive. Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included two trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion.
Rechenmacher SJ, Fang JC. Bridging Anticoagulation: Primum Non Nocere. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Sep 22;66(12):1392-403.
Full-text for Emory users.
Conclusions: Periprocedural anticoagulation management is a common clinical dilemma with limited evidence (but 1 notable randomized trial) to guide our practices. Although bridging anticoagulation may be necessary for those patients at highest risk for TE, for most patients it produces excessive bleeding, longer length of hospital stay, and other significant morbidities, while providing no clear prevention of TE. Unfortunately, contemporary clinical practice, as noted in physician surveys, continues to favor interruption of OAC and the use of bridging anticoagulation. While awaiting the results of additional randomized trials, physicians should carefully reconsider the practice of routine bridging and whether periprocedural anticoagulation interruption is even necessary.
Central Illustration. Bridging Anticoagulation: Algorithms for Periprocedural Interrupting and Bridging Anticoagulation. Decision trees for periprocedural interruption of chronic oral anticoagulation (top) and for periprocedural bridging anticoagulation (bottom). OAC = oral anticoagulation.
Khan S, et al. Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies for Venous Thromboembolism after Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Jul;26(7):2276-2284.
Full-text for Emory users.
“A policy change was made in February 2010 to discharge all patients post-CRS/HIPEC with 14 days of additional pharmacothromboprophylaxis, which consisted of low-molecular-weight heparin in 327 of 447 (73%) cases (Supplemental Figure). The 60-day VTE rate decreased from 10.2 to 4.9% after this policy was instituted (p = 0.10, Fig. 2).”
“This policy is in accordance with established guidelines indicating the need for a total of 4 weeks of pharmacothromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients after abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer. [2,21] Given that patients have an average length of stay of nearly 2 weeks, discharging them on 14 days of pharmacothromboprophylaxis fulfills this duration.”
One discussion this week focused on the perioperative management of NOACs.
Reference: DynaMed Plus [Internet]. Ipswich (MA): EBSCO Information Services. 1995 -. Record No. 227537, Periprocedural management of patients on long-term anticoagulation; [updated 2018 Oct 10, cited 2018 Oct 12; [about 26 screens]. Emory login required.
Summary: The information below is from DynaMed Plus (2018). To view full information on the topic, click on the citation above.
Vitamin K antagonists in patients undergoing major surgery or procedures
- Consider continuing vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy in patients who require minor dental procedures, minor dermatological procedures, or cataract surgery.
- In those having a minor dental procedure, consider coadministering an oral hemostatic agent or stopping the VKA 2 to 3 days before the procedure.
- In those undergoing implantation of a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter device, consider continuing VKA therapy.
- In those having a major surgery or procedure, stop VKA therapy 5 days before surgery.
- Resume VKA therapy 12-24 hours after surgery when there is adequate hemostasis.
Bridging therapy in patients undergoing major surgery or procedures
- If at low risk for thrombosis, consider omitting bridging therapy.
- If at moderate risk for thrombosis, assess individual patient- and surgery-related factors when considering bridging therapy.
- If at high risk for thrombosis consider bridging therapy with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH).
- For those receiving bridging therapy with UFH, stop UFH 4-6 hours before surgery.
- For those receiving bridging therapy with therapeutic-dose LMWH, stop LMWH 24 hours before surgery.
- For those receiving bridging therapy with UFH or therapeutic-dose LMWH and undergoing non-high-bleeding-risk surgery, consider resuming heparin 24 hours after surgery.
- For those receiving bridging therapy with UFH or therapeutic-dose LMWH and undergoing high-bleeding-risk surgery, consider resuming heparin 48-72 hours after surgery.