Are hospitals delivering appropriate VTE prevention? The venous thromboembolism study to assess the rate of thromboprophylaxis (VTE start)

The 7th conference of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP7) provides recommendations on the type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the extent to which hospitals follow these criteria has not been well studied. Discharge and billing records for patients admitted to any of 16 acute-care hospitals from January 2005 to December 2006 were obtained. Patients 18 years or older who had an inpatient stay ≥2 days and no apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis were grouped into the categories of critical care, surgery and medically ill before being assessed for additional VTE risk factors based on the diagnostic criteria outlined in ACCP7. For patients at risk, the recommended type (mechanical or pharmacologic), dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis was identified based on the guidelines and compared to the regimen actually received, if any. Among the 258,556 hospitalized patients, 68,278 (26.4%) were determined to be at risk of VTE without apparent contraindications for thromboprophylaxis. The proportions of patients who received the appropriate type, dose, and duration of thromboprophylaxis were 10.5, 9.8, and 17.9% for critical care, medical, and surgical patients, respectively. Of those at risk, 36.8% received no thromboprophylaxis and an additional 50.2% received thromboprophylaxis deemed inappropriate for one or more reasons. The implementation of ACCP7 guidelines for type, dosage, and duration of thromboprophylaxis is low in patients at risk of VTE. There is a need for physicians and health systems to improve awareness and implementation of recommended thromboprophylaxis

Possible failure of novel direct-acting oral anticoagulants in management of pulmonary embolism: a case report

BACKGROUND: The relative effectiveness of vitamin K antagonists compared with novel oral anticoagulants in treating pulmonary embolism remains unclear. Recent trials comparing the efficacy of vitamin K antagonists with factor Xa inhibitors for the treatment of pulmonary emboli have been non-inferiority studies based primarily on risk reduction (such as bleeding events), rather than resolution of specific diseases such as pulmonary embolism. Consequently, there is a lack of evidence indicating which of these agents are more effective. Here, we present a case where pulmonary emboli were treated with novel oral anticoagulants followed by warfarin to discuss the potential limitations in the use of novel oral anticoagulants as prevention or treatment of thromboembolism and the continued role for warfarin in this setting. CASE PRESENTATION: A 34-year-old African American woman presented to our clinic with shortness of breath and pleuritic chest pain several months post-surgery. She was identified as having multiple bilateral pulmonary embolisms and was treated with several novel oral anticoagulants, which failed to resolve the clots. Complete resolution was achieved upon switching to warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: The patient described in this report failed to respond to novel oral anticoagulant therapy, but her emboli resolved when she was treated with warfarin. This study challenges the notion that factor Xa inhibitors are better alternatives to vitamin K anticoagulants in the treatment of pulmonary emboli based on their safety profile and ease of use alone. As a result, further post-marketing investigations into the efficacy of these agents in the management of pulmonary emboli may be warranted