Deferment of objective assessment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism without increased risk of thrombosis: a practical approach based on the pretest clinical model, D-dimer testing, and the use of low-molecular-weight heparins

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) is problematic if diagnostic imaging is not immediately available. Pretest clinical probability (PCP) and D-dimer assessment can be used to identify patients for whom empirical protective anticoagulation is indicated. To evaluate whether PCP and D-dimer assessment, together with the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), allow objective appraisal of DVT and PE to be deferred for up to 72 hours, patients with suspected DVT and PE were prospectively examined. METHODS: Patients identified with a high PCP or a moderate PCP with positive D-dimer test results received a protective full-dose treatment of LMWH; the remaining patients were discharged without anticoagulant administration. However, all patients were scheduled to undergo objective tests for DVT or PE within 72 hours. Standard antithrombotic therapy was administered when deferred diagnostic tests confirmed venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: In total, 409 consecutive patients with suspected DVT and 124 with suspected PE were included in this study. A total of 23.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.3%-27.3%) of patients had confirmed venous thromboembolism. At the short-term follow-up (72 hours), only a single thromboembolic event (0.2%; upper 95% CI, 0.6%) had occurred, whereas at the 3-month follow-up, 5 events (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.1%) had occurred in patients in whom diagnosis of DVT or PE had previously been ruled out. None of the patients had major bleeding events. Ninety percent of patients were treated as outpatients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that this approach allows the safe deferral of diagnostic procedures for DVT and PE for up to 72 hours.     

Community-based treatment of venous thromboembolism with a low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin

This multicenter, prospective, open label, observational study evaluated practice patterns of physicians using tinzaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and warfarin for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) with or without pulmonary embolism (PE). Short-term recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and safety were also evaluated. Patients with an objective diagnosis of DVT, with or without PE, were invited by their physician to participate in this study. Treatment was given according to the approved U.S. package inserts for tinzaparin (175 IU/kg SQ QD) and warfarin and the clinical judgment of the prescribing physician. Baseline patient history including demographic information and the results of tests to confirm the diagnosis of DVT, with or without PE, were collected. Follow-up information included the treatment setting in which each dose of tinzaparin was administered, medical training of the person administering tinzaparin doses, timing of initiation of warfarin with respect to that of tinzaparin, length of overlap of tinzaparin and warfarin therapy, and adverse experiences. A total of 334 patients were enrolled at 65 sites. Patients across a wide age (range 18–93 years old) and body weight (range 40–261 kg) were included. Overall, 27.3% of patients had cancer, and 50% of the overall study population reported more than one VTE risk factor. Mean duration of tinzaparin treatment was 7.61 days. Therapy at home was more common in suburban and rural settings than in urban settings. High proportions of patient, even among the small group with concurrent PE, were treated at home with self-injection. Severity of disease was the primary reason for hospitalization. Home treatment of DVT, with or without PE, with self administration of tinzaparin at 175 IU SQ once-daily was safe and resulted in an acceptably low rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism and adverse events. Home therapy in the usual practice setting should achieve substantial overall cost savings in the treatment of DVT.     

Comparative pharmacokinetics of LMWHs

A variety of pharmaceutical preparations of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are available. They belong to the same family of compounds-ie, heparin derivatives with a narrow distribution of mean molecular weights (MWs). LMWHs have different methods of preparation, which result in variations in mean MW, distribution of MW, and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles. The mean MW of these compounds ranges from 3,600 to 6,500 daltons. The ratio of anti-Xa (aXa) and anti-IIa (aIIa) activities of the different LMWHs ranges from 1.5 to >10. After subcutaneous (SC) injection of a prophylactic or therapeutic dose, the peak values for plasma aXa or aIIa activity may vary twofold to threefold because of differences in bioavailability, plasma clearance (Clplasma), and half-life (t1/2). The injection of equivalent amounts of product, based on aXa and aIIa international units (IU), may result in different areas under the curve for the respective activities. Although tinzaparin has a high aIIa specific activity per milligram (and consequently, a low aXa/aIIa ratio), SC injection of 40 mg of enoxaparin (4,000 aXa IU) results in a higher aXa peak value in patients with total hip replacement than 4,500 aXa IU of tinzaparin. Differences in aIIa and aXa peak activities are more striking when high doses of LMWHs are used. The activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) can be significantly prolonged, an effect that is related to aIIa and aXa activity. The volume of distribution of LMWHs is of the same order of magnitude as that of the plasma volume. The mean retention time of aXa activity varies from 5.2 (dalteparin) to approximately 7 h (enoxaparin, nadroparin). Bioavailability of prophylactic doses of LMWHs ranges from 86% (dalteparin) to 98% (enoxaparin, nadroparin). PK parameters appear to be minimally affected by a patient's age. The Clplasma is different for each LMWH: 16 mL/min enoxaparin, 21 mL/min nadroparin, 33 mL/min dalteparin, 19 mL/min reviparin, and 22 mL/min tinzaparin. Accumulation of product has been observed for almost all LMWHs in patients with renal insufficiency. LMWHs are effective and safe for treatment or prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy, because they do not cross the placenta. No data are available regarding the passage of LMWHs into the milk in lactating women. Although LMWHs are also effective in prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease in children, optimal use of these agents in pediatric patients has not been determined. In summary, the PD and PK of LMWHs have been well documented and have demonstrated that LMWHs have a more predictable response, a greater bioavailability, and a longer aXa t1/2 than unfractionated heparin. However, their distribution of MW affects their physicochemical and biological properties, as well as PK characteristics. The concept of aXa/aIIa ratio (determined in vitro) does not account for the differing PK of aXa and aIIIa activity in circulating blood.     

Recurrent venous thromboembolism after deep vein thrombosis: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND: The recurrence rate after deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is high and the risk factors for recurrent thromboembolic events have only been investigated on a small scale. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cumulative incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolic events after a first or a second DVT and to identify possible risk factors for recurrent venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We prospectively followed up 738 consecutive patients with an objectively verified symptomatic DVT for 3.7 to 8.8 years. Medical records and death certificates for all patients were reviewed during follow-up and recurrent DVT and pulmonary embolism were registered. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolic events was 21.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.7%-25.4%) after a first DVT and 27.9% (95% CI, 19.7%-36.1%) after a second DVT. The 5-year cumulative incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism was 2.6% (95% CI, 1.1%-4.1%) after a first DVT. Proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 2.40; 95% CI, 1.48-3.88; P<.001), cancer (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.20-3.23; P<.001), and history of a venous thromboembolism (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.16-2.52; P<.01) predicted an independently increased risk of recurrent events in multivariate survival analysis. Postoperative DVT (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55; P<.001) and a long duration of oral anticoagulation therapy (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P<.01) involved a smaller risk of recurrent events. Sex, age, initial antithrombotic therapy, or immobilization did not affect the risk of a recurrent event. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate after a symptomatic DVT is high. Patients with proximal DVT, diagnosed cancer, short duration of oral anticoagulation therapy, or a history of thromboembolic events had a higher risk of recurrent events, while patients with postoperative DVT had a lower recurrence rate. This knowledge could help identify patients who might benefit most from prolonged prophylactic treatment in various risk situations.     

Low-molecular-weight heparin vs heparin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. American-Canadian Thrombosis Study Group

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs in 50% or more of patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment is effective and safe in patients with deep vein thrombosis and may also be so in patients with PE. Recent rigorous clinical trials have established objective criteria for determining a high probability of PE by perfusion lung scanning. OBJECTIVE: To compare low-molecular-weight heparin with intravenous heparin for the treatment of patients with objectively documented PE and underlying proximal deep vein thrombosis. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared fixed-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) given once daily with dose-adjusted intravenous heparin given by continuous infusion using objective documentation of clinical outcomes. Pulmonary embolism at study entry was documented by the presence of high-probability lung scan findings. RESULTS: Of 200 patients with high-probability lung scan findings at study entry, none of the 97 who received low-molecular-weight heparin had new episodes of venous thromboembolism compared with 7 (6.8%) of 103 patients who received intravenous heparin (95% confidence interval for the difference, 1.9%-11.7%; P = .01). Major bleeding associated with initial therapy occurred in 1 patient (1.0%) who was given low-molecular-weight heparin and in 2 patients (1.9%) given intravenous heparin (95% confidence interval for the difference, -2.4% to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin administered once daily subcutaneously was no less effective and probably more effective than use of dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with PE and associated proximal deep vein thrombosis. Our findings extend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin without anticoagulant monitoring to patients with submassive PE.     

Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: The use of warfarin sodium for treating venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer is associated with a significant risk of recurrence and bleeding. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin sodium for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients may reduce the complication rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a fixed dose of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is superior to oral warfarin for the secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer and venous thromboembolism. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label multicenter trial performed between April 1995 and March 1999, we compared subcutaneous enoxaparin sodium (1.5 mg/kg once a day) with warfarin given for 3 months in 146 patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A combined outcome event defined as major bleeding or recurrent venous thromboembolism within 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 71 evaluable patients assigned to receive warfarin, 15 (21.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.3%-32.4%) experienced one major outcome event compared with 7 (10.5%) of the 67 evaluable patients assigned to receive enoxaparin (95% CI, 4.3%-20.3%; P =.09). There were 6 deaths owing to hemorrhage in the warfarin group compared with none in the enoxaparin group. In the warfarin group, 17 patients (22.7%) died (95% CI, 13.8%-33.8%) compared with 8 (11.3%) in the enoxaparin group (95% CI, 5.0%-21.0%; P =.07). No difference was observed regarding the progression of the underlying cancer or cancer-related death. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that warfarin is associated with a high bleeding rate in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. Prolonged treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin may be as effective as oral anticoagulants and may be safer in these cancer patients.     

Frequency of major hemorrhage in patients treated with unfractionated intravenous heparin for deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism: a study in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND: The rate of major hemorrhage during the initial treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in routine clinical practice is understudied. In recent clinical trials an overall average of 3.8% was reported. However, the incidence of this complication in routine patient care might be higher owing to less strict patient selection and lack of standardization in the administration of heparin. We have determined major bleeding rates during heparin treatment for DVT or PE in routine practice and compared these rates with data from clinical trials. METHODS: Data on the occurrence of major hemorrhage were retrieved according to strict criteria from the records of patients who had received continuous intravenous UFH therapy to treat objectively documented DVT or PE in 3 hospitals. RESULTS: After exclusion of 29 patients because of lack of objective diagnosis of DVT or PE and 25 patients because of initial treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin, 424 consecutive patients were available for detailed analysis. Among them, 17 patients (4.0%; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%-5.9%) experienced major hemorrhage during UFH treatment, which in most patients occurred at the end of planned heparin therapy; one of the hemorrhages was fatal. Six patients (1.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%-2.5%) developed clinically suspected recurrent venous thromboembolism (fatal in 1 case) during UFH treatment or within 7 days' cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of continuous intravenous UFH in patients with DVT or PE in routine clinical practice leads to a major bleeding rate of 4.0%. This rate is comparable to the rate of major bleeding in patients who received UFH in clinical trials. Our findings are relevant to the discussion of major bleeding rates in patients with DVT and PE treated in daily clinical practice with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin and newer antithrombotic drugs.     

The Low Molecular Weight Heparin,Tinzaparin, in Thrombosis and Beyond

Standard unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been in clinical use for over 50 years. The commercial use of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) began in the mid 1980s for hemodialysis and the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Initially, the clinical development of LMWHs was concentrated on the European continent. Subsequently, LMWHs were introduced in North America as well. In the initial stages of development of these drugs only nadroparin, dalteparin and enoxaparin were used. Subsequently, several other LMWHs such as ardeparin, tinzaparin, reviparin and parnaparin were introduced. LMWHs constitute a group of important medications with total sales reaching nearly 2.5 billion dollars with expanded indications reaching far beyond the initial indications for the prophylaxis of post‐surgical DVT. This review highlights the pharmacology of tinzaparin. Unlike other LMWHs, tinzaparin is prepared by enzymatic hydrolysis with heparinase, while various chemical depolymerization methods are used for the synthesis of other LMWHs. As compared with the standard heparin, LMWHs have different pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic properties; they also differ in clinical benefits.     

A multicentre comparison of once-daily subcutaneous dalteparin (low molecular weight heparin) and continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis

Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the acute treatment of DVT patients who had not previously received UFH.
Design. An open randomized multicentre trial with blinded analysis of venograms.
Setting. Seven hospitals in Sweden, Finland and the USA.
Subjects. A total of 330 patients, of 20 years or older, with suspected DVT, verified using venography.
Interventions. Fixed-dose dalteparin (200 IU kg^-1) given as a once-daily subcutaneous injection, or aPTT adjusted i.v. UFH infusion for 6 to 10 days.
Main outcome measures. Change in Marder score in patients with confirmed DVT and two evaluable venograms; PE, bleeding events and follow-up.
Results. Marder scores improved in 51% (95% CI 42–60%) of 92 patients treated with dalteparin and in 62% (95% CI 53–70%) of 98 patients treated with UFH ( P =0.152). One dalteparin-treated patient had a PE confirmed by V/Q scan; another had progressive thrombosis with swelling in the affected limb. Bleeding complications occurred in six patients in each group. One patient treated with dalteparin and five treated with UFH died during the 6-month follow-up period as a result of underlying malignancy or heart disease. The 6-month recurrence rate was low with both treatments (dalteparin, 3/97; UFH, 2/103).
Conclusions. Fixed-dose subcutaneous dalteparin given once daily from the start of treatment is of equivalent efficacy and safety to conventional UFH therapy in the routine management of DVT.     

Outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disease

Once- or twice-daily subcutaneous dosing of LMWHs without laboratory monitoring has facilitated outpatient VTE therapy. Clinical trials have demonstrated at least equivalent efficacy and safety and potential cost savings of outpatient therapy for uncomplicated proximal DVT with LMWH when compared with inpatient therapy. Explicit criteria exist for outpatient DVT therapy. Home therapy for PE requires further evaluation before it can be recommended outside of a trial or other supervised setting.     

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: When unfractionated heparin is used to treat acute venous thromboembolism, it is usually given by intravenous infusion with dose adjustment in response to activated partial thromboplastin time measurements. These two requirements are a barrier to treatment of venous thromboembolism with unfractionated heparin, and it is uncertain if they are necessary. RECENT FINDINGS: Two recent studies compared subcutaneous unfractionated heparin and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin, each given twice-daily, for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism. The Galilei study used an initial dose of unfractionated heparin that was partially weight-adjusted, with subsequent dosing based on activated partial thromboplastin time results. The FIDO study treated patients with a first dose of unfractionated heparin of 333 IU/kg, followed by 250 IU/kg twice-daily without dose adjustment in response to the activated partial thromboplastin time or other coagulation tests. There was no difference in either study between the unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin groups at the end of 3 months, for recurrent venous thromboembolism (Galilei: 4.2 vs. 3.9%; relative risk (RR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 2.2. FIDO: 3.8 vs. 3.4%; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.3) or major bleeding (Galilei: 1.4 vs. 1.9%; RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.2 to 2.2. FIDO: 1.7 vs. 3.4%; RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.3). SUMMARY: Recent studies suggest that twice-daily subcutaneous unfractionated heparin is as effective and safe as low-molecular-weight heparin for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism, and that adjustment of unfractionated heparin dose in response to activated partial thromboplastin time measurements is not necessary with a weight-adjusted dose of unfractionated heparin.     

Update in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

This review describes recent evidence relevant to the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Because venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a spectrum of disease that includes both of these disorders, many of the therapeutic options are common to both. At the time of diagnosis, effective treatment options for patients with VTE include unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparins (e.g., dalteparin, enoxaparin, tinzaparin), and pentasaccharides (e.g., fondaparinux). Many patients with VTE, especially DVT, can receive most or all of their initial treatment as outpatients. Other treatment strategies such as vena caval filter placement and mechanical (or chemical) clot dissolution are discussed briefly. Anticoagulation with warfarin (or other oral vitamin K antagonists) is a highly effective strategy for the long-term prevention of VTE recurrence in most patients. In addition to presenting evidence relevant to the optimal duration of warfarin therapy, we highlight circumstances under which extended therapy with a parenteral agent such as a low molecular weight heparin might be preferable.     

A meta-analysis comparing low-molecular-weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in the treatment of venous thromboembolism: examining some unanswered questions regarding location of treatment, product type, and dosing frequency

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and to examine current controversies in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (ie, setting, product type, and frequency of administration). METHODS: Data were abstracted from MEDLINE, HEALTH, previous reviews, personal files, clinical experts, and conference abstracts. Randomized controlled trials of patients diagnosed with acute VTE that compared LMWHs with UFH were included. Independent duplicate assessment was done for methodological quality and data extraction. Data are reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing LMWHs with UFH as determined by the random effects model. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference in risk between UFH and LMWHs for recurrent VTE (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65-1.12]), pulmonary embolism (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.62]), major bleeding (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.37-1.05]), minor bleeding (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.87-1.61]), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.45-1.62]). There was a statistically significant difference for risk of total mortality (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59-0.98]) in favor of LMWHs. Inpatient treatment may reduce the risk of major bleeding vs outpatient therapy. Once-daily therapy is as safe and effective as twice-daily therapy when compared indirectly. Different products could not be statistically compared, but qualitative analysis shows that there are no apparent differences in efficacy and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are at least as effective as UFH in preventing recurrent VTE. It is unlikely that LMWHs are superior in the treatment of VTE, but they do show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. No differences were seen in the development of recurrent VTE dependent on treatment setting. There were no apparent differences between once-daily and twice-daily therapy or among products. Inpatient therapy may be associated with less major bleeding; therefore, if LMWHs are given in the outpatient setting, patients should be rigorously monitored.     

Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: A role for low-molecular-weight heparin.

BACKGROUND: After a short initial course of heparin therapy, patients with venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) require continuing anticoagulant therapy for several months after hospital discharge. At present, two small-scale studies have compared the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with warfarin in the secondary prevention of VTE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 654 consecutive patients, 202 with pulmonary embolism (PE) and 452 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs. 220/654 patients (34%) were considered to have some contraindications to coumarin, and were discharged on LMWH (dalteparin, Fragmin((R)), 10, 000 IU s.c. once daily). The remaining 434/654 patients were asked to choose between either coumarin or LMWH: 190 patients preferred LMWH and 244 coumarin. Patients were followed up for a 3-month (DVT patients) or 6-month (PE patients) period. RESULTS: 14/654 patients (2%) developed recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy. One in every three recurrent episodes was PE (which was fatal in 2/5 patients), and half of the recurrent DVT were located in the contralateral leg. We failed to find any differences between patients receiving LMWH and those on coumarin therapy, but recurrences were more common in patients with cancer (hazard ratio: 17.15; 95% CI: 4.0-73.5; p < 0.001). 21 patients (3.3%) bled (major bleeding 5 patients; minor bleeding 16). Bleeding was more common in patients on coumarin therapy (hazard ratio: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.20-8.22; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term LMWH therapy proved to be both effective and safe in the long-term treatment of VTE. Thus, we suggest long-term LMWH therapy should be considered for patients with contraindications to coumarin, or those with difficulties in coming to laboratory control.     

Criteria for outpatient management of proximal lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To develop and to evaluate selection criteria for outpatient management of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). DESIGN: We developed outpatient treatment eligibility criteria that incorporated demographic and clinical data. We aimed to exclude patients at high risk for bleeding or recurrent clotting, as well as those with pulmonary embolism, limited cardiopulmonary reserve, or need for hospitalization due to another illness. Then, we retrospectively applied the criteria to hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed proximal lower extremity DVT to determine the fraction of patients eligible for outpatient therapy; patients were classified as eligible, possibly eligible, or ineligible for home treatment based on the selection criteria. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred ninety-five hospitalized patients diagnosed as having proximal lower extremity DVT by duplex ultrasound over a 1-year period. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of complications during initial DVT therapy, including major bleeding, symptomatic thromboembolism, and death. RESULTS: Eighteen (9%) patients were classified as eligible, and 18 (9%) were classified as possibly eligible for outpatient therapy. None of these patients developed complications. Of the 159 (82%) patients classified as ineligible, 13 (8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 12%) died or developed serious complications. Therefore, the eligibility criteria had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 92 to 100%) and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI, 92 to 100%) for predicting serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Specific eligibility criteria may identify a subset of patients with acute DVT who can be treated safely at home.     

Efficacy and safety of fixed low-dose dalteparin in preventing venous thromboembolism among obese or elderly hospitalized patients: a subgroup analysis of the PREVENT trial

BACKGROUND: We were concerned that a fixed rather than a weight-based dosing regimen of dalteparin sodium to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) might result in decreased efficacy in obese patients and decreased safety in elderly patients. METHODS: We retrospectively performed subgroup analyses using the database from the Prospective Evaluation of Dalteparin Efficacy for Prevention of VTE in Immobilized Patients (PREVENT) Trial, a study of 3706 hospitalized, medically ill patients randomized to receive either dalteparin sodium, 5000 U/d, or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of symptomatic VTE, fatal pulmonary embolism, sudden death, or asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis by day 21. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of 30 or greater for men and 28.6 or greater for women. RESULTS: Overall, 1118 patients (30.4%) were obese and 1226 (33.3%) were 75 years or older. In obese patients, the primary end point occurred in 2.8% of the dalteparin and in 4.3% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.28). In patients 75 years or older, the primary end point was reported in 4.2% of the dalteparin and in 8.0% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.87). The dalteparin effect for the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82) was not attenuated when adjusted for age, sex, obesity, history of VTE, and varicose veins. Dalteparin was not associated with an increase in major hemorrhage by day 21 in obese (0% vs 0.7% placebo; P>.99) and in elderly (1.1% vs 0.7%; P=.12) patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a fixed low dose of dalteparin sodium of 5000 U/d is effective and safe in preventing VTE in obese and elderly hospitalized medical patients.     

Clinical risk factors and timing of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the initial 3 months of anticoagulant therapy

BACKGROUND: In patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), identifying clinical risk factors for recurrence during the initial 3 months of anticoagulant therapy and knowledge of the time course of recurrence may help clinicians decide about the frequency of clinical surveillance and the appropriateness of outpatient treatment. METHODS: Analysis of a randomized controlled trial database involving 1021 patients with VTE (750 with deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and 271 with pulmonary embolism [PE]) who were followed up for 3 months after the start of anticoagulant therapy. All patients received initial treatment with unfractionated heparin or a low-molecular-weight heparin (reviparin) and a coumarin derivative starting the first or second day of treatment, with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0. RESULTS: Four independent clinical risk factors for recurrent VTE were identified: (1) cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1. 39-5.32), (2) chronic cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1. 08-4.97), (3) chronic respiratory disease (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.85-4. 26), and (4) other clinically significant medical disease (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.00-3.21). Older age was associated with a decreased risk for recurrent VTE (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92). Previous VTE, sex, and idiopathic VTE were not risk factors for recurrence. In patients with DVT or PE, there was no significant difference in the rates of recurrent nonfatal VTE (4.8% vs 4.1%; P =.62), major bleeding (2.9% vs 2.2%; P =.53), and non-VTE death (6.4% vs 7.8%; P =.45), but recurrent fatal PE was more frequent in patients with PE than DVT (2. 2% vs 0%; P<.01). There was a clustering of recurrent VTE episodes during the initial 2 to 3 weeks after the start of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, recurrent VTE is more likely to occur in patients with cancer, chronic cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, or other clinically significant medical disease. Patients with PE are as likely to develop recurrent VTE as those with DVT; however, recurrence is more likely to be fatal in patients who initially present with PE. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3431-3436.     

Statins and risk of venous thromboembolic diseases: A two-sample mendelian randomization study

Background and aimsIn observational studies, statins have been suggested to have protective effects on venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). To this aim, we performed a two-sample mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to determine whether these associations were causal.Methods and resultsData on the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to statin medication were obtained from the FinnGen study, and data for VTE, PE and DVT of lower extremities (LEDVT) were from the UK Biobank study, respectively. Inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was used as the principal analysis of MR, and sensitivity analysis was performed to detect horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity. MR estimates showed an inverse causal association between statin medication and the risk of VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.998–1.000, P = 0.004), PE (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.999–1.000, P = 0.011) and LEDVT (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.999–1.000, P = 0.008).ConclusionOur findings provide direct evidence that statins might decrease the risk of VTE, PE and LEDVT in agreement with observational studies. The specific mechanism of statin therapy for venous thromboembolism needs to be further studied.     

Low molecular weight heparin in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism

Several low molecular weight (LMW) heparin preparations have been evaluated by clinical trials measuring the outcomes of thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality. This article summarizes the current status of LMW heparin in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. LMW heparin is simpler to use because it does not require laboratory monitoring of the anticoagulant effect and dose adjustment. The specific LMW heparins include enoxaparin, ardeparin, tinzaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin. The heparinoid ORG 10172 (danaparoid) is also effective. The results of clinical trials to date suggest that LMW heparin will be a major advance in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. The simplified therapy provided by LMW heparin may allow many patients with uncomplicated proximal-vein thrombosis to be cared for in an outpatient setting.     

Risk of thromboembolism with short-term interruption of warfarin therapy

BACKGROUND: Significant uncertainty surrounds the treatment of patients who must discontinue warfarin sodium therapy before an invasive procedure. In part, the uncertainty results from the lack of published information about the risk of thromboembolism associated with short-term warfarin therapy interruption. We aimed to assess the frequency of thromboembolism and bleeding within a large cohort of patients whose warfarin therapy was temporarily withheld for an outpatient invasive procedure. METHODS: This prospective, observational cohort study was performed at 101 sites (primarily community-based physician office practices) in the United States. Enrollment was conducted from April 4, 2000, to March 6, 2002. The main outcome measures were thromboembolism or clinically significant hemorrhage within 30 days of warfarin therapy interruption. RESULTS: A total of 1293 episodes of warfarin therapy interruption in 1024 individuals were included. The mean (SD) patient age was 71.9 (10.6) years; 438 (42.8%) were female. The most common indications for anticoagulant therapy were atrial fibrillation (n=550), venous thromboembolism (n=144), and mechanical heart valve (n=132). The most common procedures were colonoscopy and oral and ophthalmic surgery. Perioperative heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin was used in only 8.3% of cases overall. Seven patients (0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3%-1.4%) experienced postprocedure thromboembolism within 30 days. None of the 7 patients who experienced thromboembolism received periprocedural bridging therapy. Six patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.3%) experienced major bleeding, whereas an additional 17 patients (1.7%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.6%) experienced a clinically significant, nonmajor bleeding episode. Of these 23 patients who had bleeding episodes, 14 received periprocedural heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin. The duration of warfarin therapy interruption was variable; however, more than 80% of patients had warfarin therapy withheld for 5 days or fewer. CONCLUSIONS: For many patients receiving long-term anticoagulation who need to undergo a minor outpatient intervention, a brief (< or =5 days) periprocedural interruption of warfarin therapy is associated with a low risk of thromboembolism. The risk of clinically significant bleeding, even among outpatients undergoing minor procedures, should be weighed against the thromboembolic risk of an individual patient before the administration of bridging anticoagulant therapy.