Guidance for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

This guidance document focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Efficient, cost effective diagnosis of VTE is facilitated by combining medical history and physical examination with pre-test probability models, D dimer testing and selective use of confirmatory imaging. Clinical prediction rules, biomarkers and imaging can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity. Anticoagulation options for acute VTE include unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs are as effective as conventional therapy with LMWH and vitamin K antagonists. Thrombolytic therapy is reserved for massive pulmonary embolism (PE) or extensive deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Inferior vena cava filters are reserved for patients with acute VTE and contraindications to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters are strongly preferred. The possibility of thoracic outlet syndrome and May-Thurner syndrome should be considered in patients with subclavian/axillary and left common iliac vein DVT, respectively in absence of identifiable triggers. The optimal duration of therapy is dictated by the presence of modifiable thrombotic risk factors. Long term anticoagulation should be considered in patients with unprovoked VTE as well as persistent prothrombotic risk factors such as cancer. Short-term therapy is sufficient for most patients with VTE associated with transient situational triggers such as major surgery. Biomarkers such as D dimer and risk assessment models such the Vienna risk prediction model offer the potential to customize VTE therapy for the individual patient. Insufficient data exist to support the integration of bleeding risk models into duration of therapy planning

Use and Outcomes Associated With Bridging During Anticoagulation Interruptions in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF)

BACKGROUND: Temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation for procedures is often required, and some propose using bridging anticoagulation. However, the use and outcomes of bridging during oral anticoagulation interruptions in clinical practice are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry is a prospective, observational registry study of US outpatients with atrial fibrillation. We recorded incident temporary interruptions of oral anticoagulation for a procedure, including the use and type of bridging therapy. Outcomes included multivariable-adjusted rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, cause-specific hospitalization, and death within 30 days. Of 7372 patients treated with oral anticoagulation, 2803 overall interruption events occurred in 2200 patients (30%) at a median follow-up of 2 years. Bridging anticoagulants were used in 24% (n=665), predominantly low-molecular-weight heparin (73%, n=487) and unfractionated heparin (15%, n=97). Bridged patients were more likely to have had prior cerebrovascular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P/=2 in 94% versus 95%; P=0.5). Bleeding events were more common in bridged than nonbridged patients (5.0% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.84;

Early Adoption of Dabigatran and Its Dosing in US Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Dabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant approved for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. Adoption patterns of this new agent in community practice are unknown. Methods and Results: We studied patterns of dabigatran use among patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT‐AF) Registry between June 2010 and August 2011 and followed for 12 months. Among 9974 atrial fibrillation patients included, 1217 (12%) were treated with dabigatran during the study. Overall, patients receiving dabigatran were younger (median age 72 versus 75 years, P<0.0001), more likely to be white (92% versus 89%, P=0.005), more likely to have private insurance (33% versus 25%, P<0.0001), and less likely to have prior cardiovascular disease (4% versus 33%, P<0.0001). They had more new‐onset atrial fibrillation (8.8% versus 4.1%, P<0.0001), lower CHADS2 scores (estimated risk based on the presence of congestive heart failure, hypertension, aged ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack; mean 2.0 versus 2.3, P<0.0001), and lower Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation scores (mean 2.4 versus 2.8, P<0.0001). More than half (n=14/25, 56%) of patients with severe kidney disease were not prescribed reduced dosing, whereas 10% (n=91/920) with preserved renal function received lower dosing. Among patients not on dabigatran at baseline, 8% had dabigatran initiated during follow‐up. Patient education was significantly associated with switching from warfarin to dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio for postgraduate 1.73, P=0.007), whereas antiarrhythmic drug use significantly correlated with de novo adoption of dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio 2.4, P<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients receiving dabigatran were younger and at a lower risk of stroke and bleeding. Patients appeared to drive switching from warfarin, whereas clinical characteristics influenced de novo start of dabigatran. These data suggest cautious early uptake of dabigatran, and more careful attention to dosing adjustments is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration URL: Clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710

Clinical Trials in Head Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major public health problem globally. In the United States the incidence of closed head injuries admitted to hospitals is conservatively estimated to be 200 per 100,000 population, and the incidence of penetrating head injury is estimated to be 12 per 100,000, the highest of any developed country in the world. This yields an approximate number of 500,000 new cases each year, a sizeable proportion of which demonstrate signficant long-term disabilities. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of proven therapies for this disease. For a variety of reasons, clinical trials for this condition have been difficult to design and perform. Despite promising pre-clinical data, most of the trials that have been performed in recent years have failed to demonstrate any significant improvement in outcomes. The reasons for these failures have not always been apparent and any insights gained were not always shared. It was therefore feared that we were running the risk of repeating our mistakes. Recognizing the importance of TBI, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) sponsored a workshop that brought together experts from clinical, research, and pharmaceutical backgrounds. This workshop proved to be very informative and yielded many insights into previous and future TBI trials. This paper is an attempt to summarize the key points made at the workshop. It is hoped that these lessons will enhance the planning and design of future efforts in this important field of research.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63185/1/089771502753754037.pd

Standardised Data on Initiatives – STARDIT: Beta Version

There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including felds such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond efectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which diferent people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difcult to collate and appraise data about the most efective ways to involve diferent people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world fnd and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives