The use of fondaparinux for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in a patient with heparin-induced thombocytopenia and thrombosis caused by heparin flushes

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immunologic drug reaction characterized by paradoxical association with venous and arterial thrombosis. The syndrome is caused by IgG antibodies that are reactive against complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Fondparinux does not bind to platelet factor 4, is structurally too short to induce an antibody response, and could in theory be a useful agent to treat HIT. A 69-year-old white female presented with a lower extremity extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis after a right total knee arthroplasty and was subsequently found to have a pulmonary embolism. The patient was noted to have heparin flushes during her operation. Her platelet drop decreased >50% from baseline during initiation of antithrombotic therapy. She was started on subcutaneous fondaparinux 7.5 mg once daily injection. Her serotonin release assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for heparin antibodies were positive for HIT. Her platelet count nadir was 60 × 03/mm3 on day 5 and the platelet count rebounded after 8 days of fondaparinux therapy. No recurrent thrombotic or bleeding events were noted throughout her therapy. Anecdotal reports have shown that fondaparinux can be a useful agent to treat HIT with or without thrombosis

The IMPROVEDD VTE risk score: Incorporation of D-dimer into the IMPROVE score to improve venous thromboembolism risk stratification

Background The IMPROVE score is a validated venous thromboembolism (VTE) assessment tool to risk stratify hospitalized, medically ill patients based on clinical variables. It was hypothesized that addition of D-dimer measurement to derive a new IMPROVEDD score would improve identification of at risk of VTE. Methods The association of the IMPROVE score and D-dimer ≥ 2 × the upper limit of normal (ULN) with the risk of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or VTE-related death was evaluated in 7,441 hospitalized, medically ill patients randomized in the APEX trial. Based on the Cox regression analysis, the IMPROVEDD score was derived by adding two points to the IMPROVE score if the D-dimer was ≥ 2 × ULN. Results Baseline D-dimer was independently associated with symptomatic VTE through 77 days (adjusted HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.38–1.58], p = 0.001). Incorporation of D-dimer into the IMPROVE score improved VTE risk discrimination (ΔAUC: 0.06 [95% CI: 0.02–0.09], p = 0.0006) and reclassification (continuous NRI: 0.34 [95% CI: 0.17–0.51], p = 0.001; categorical NRI: 0.13 [95% CI: 0.03–0.23], p = 0.0159). Patients with an IMPROVEDD score of ≥2 had a greater VTE risk compared with those with an IMPROVEDD score of 0 to 1 (HR: 2.73 [95% CI: 1.52–4.90], p = 0.0007). Conclusion Incorporation of D-dimer into the IMPROVE VTE risk assessment model further improves risk stratification in hospitalized, medically ill patients who received thromboprophylaxis. An IMPROVEDD score of ≥2 identifies hospitalized, medically ill patients with a heightened risk for VTE through 77 days.</jats:p

Venous thromboembolism following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is another complication of HSCT that may modify the risk of VTE. Our objective was to explore the incidence of VTE (deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) following HSCT and to evaluate its association with GVHD. A comprehensive search of Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus was conducted to search for both retrospective and prospective HSCT studies which had reported VTE. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool incidence rates. We included 17 studies reporting on allogeneic- and 10 on autologous-HSCT; enrolling 6693 patients; of which 5 were randomized. The overall incidence of VTE after HSCT was 5%(4-7%). Incidence in allogeneic-HSCT was 4%(2-6%) and in autologous-HSCT was 4%(1-15%). Eleven and nine studies reported data on acute and chronic GVHD, respectively. The incidence of VTE in chronic GVHD was 35%(20-54%), whereas in acute GVHD it was 47%(32-62%). Based on the results of this meta-analysis, VTE is a fairly common complication after HSCT, emphasizing the importance of assimilating guidelines for both treatment and prophylaxis in this patient population

Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19:A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to be strongly associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism events (VTE) mainly in the inpatient but also in the outpatient setting. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been shown to offer significant benefits in terms of reducing not only VTE events but also mortality, especially in acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Although the main source of evidence is derived from observational studies with several limitations, thromboprophylaxis is currently recommended for all hospitalized patients with acceptable bleeding risk by all national and international guidelines. Recently, high quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) further support the role of thromboprophylaxis and provide insights into the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy. The aim of this statement is to systematically review all the available evidence derived from RCTs regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in patients with COVID-19 in different settings (either inpatient or outpatient) and provide evidence-based guidance to practical questions in everyday clinical practice. Clinical questions accompanied by practical recommendations are provided based on data derived from 20 RCTs that were identified and included in the present study. Overall, the main conclusions are: (i) thromboprophylaxis should be administered in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, (ii) an optimal dose of inpatient thromboprophylaxis is dependent upon the severity of COVID-19, (iii) thromboprophylaxis should be administered on an individualized basis in post-discharge patients with COVID-19 with high thrombotic risk, and (iv) thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely administered in outpatients. Changes regarding the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants, the wide immunization status (increasing rates of vaccination and reinfections), and the availability of antiviral therapies and monoclonal antibodies might affect the characteristics of patients with COVID-19; thus, future studies will inform us about the thrombotic risk and the optimal therapeutic strategies for these patients

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations

Outcomes of Temporary Interruption of Rivaroxaban Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Background During long-term anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, temporary interruptions (TIs) of therapy are common, but the relationship between patient outcomes and TIs has not been well studied. We sought to determine reasons for TI, the characteristics of patients undergoing TI, and the relationship between anticoagulant and outcomes among patients with TI. Methods and Results In the Rivaroxaban Once Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF), a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes, including stroke, non-central nervous system systemic embolism, death, myocardial infarction, and bleeding, were reported in participants who experienced TI (3-30 days) for any reason. The at-risk period for outcomes associated with TI was from TI start to 30 days after resumption of study drug. In 14 236 participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug, 4692 (33%) experienced TI. Participants with TI were similar to the overall ROCKET AF population in regard to baseline clinical characteristics. Only 6% (n=483) of TI incidences involved bridging therapy. Stroke/systemic embolism rates during the at-risk period were similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.30% versus 0.41% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=0.74 [0.36-1.50]; P=0.40). Risk of major bleeding during the at-risk period was also similar in rivaroxaban-treated and warfarin-treated participants (0.99% versus 0.79% per 30 days; hazard ratio [confidence interval]=1.26 [0.80-2.00]; P=0.32). Conclusions TI of oral anticoagulation is common and is associated with substantial stroke risks and bleeding risks that were similar among patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal management strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring TI of anticoagulation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767

An update on the global use of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with medical illnesses from the World Thrombosis Day steering committee: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The majority of VTE events are hospital-associated. In 2008, the Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting (ENDORSE) multinational cross-sectional study reported that only approximately 40% of medical patients at risk of VTE received adequate thromboprophylaxis. METHODS In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed at providing updated figures concerning the use of thromboprophylaxis globally. We focused on: (a) the frequency of patients with an indication to thromboprophylaxis according with individual models; (b) the use of adequate thromboprophylaxis; and (c) reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. Observational nonrandomized studies or surveys focusing on medically ill patients were considered eligible. RESULTS After screening, we included 27 studies from 20 countries for a total of 137 288 patients. Overall, 50.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.9-59.1, I$^{2}$ 99%) of patients had an indication to thromboprophylaxis: of these, 54.5% (95% CI: 46.2-62.6, I$^{2}$ 99%) received adequate thromboprophylaxis. The use of adequate thromboprophylaxis was 66.8% in Europe (95% CI: 50.7-81.1, I$^{2}$ 98%), 44.9% in Africa (95% CI: 31.8-58.4, I$^{2}$ 96%), 37.6% in Asia (95% CI: 25.7-50.3, I$^{2}$ 97%), 58.3% in South America (95% CI: 31.1-83.1, I$^{2}$ 99%), and 68.6% in North America (95% CI: 64.9-72.6, I$^{2}$ 96%). No major differences in adequate thromboprophylaxis use were found across risk assessment models. Bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and renal/hepatic failure were the most frequently reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS The use of anticoagulants for VTE prevention has been proven effective and safe, but thromboprophylaxis prescriptions are still unsatisfactory among hospitalized medically ill patients around the globe with marked geographical differences

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.)

Introductory programming: a systematic literature review

As computing becomes a mainstream discipline embedded in the school curriculum and acts as an enabler for an increasing range of academic disciplines in higher education, the literature on introductory programming is growing. Although there have been several reviews that focus on specific aspects of introductory programming, there has been no broad overview of the literature exploring recent trends across the breadth of introductory programming. This paper is the report of an ITiCSE working group that conducted a systematic review in order to gain an overview of the introductory programming literature. Partitioning the literature into papers addressing the student, teaching, the curriculum, and assessment, we explore trends, highlight advances in knowledge over the past 15 years, and indicate possible directions for future research

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, we review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexisting thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/1/Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/3/DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docxhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155446/4/license_rdf.rdfDescription of Bikdeli-2020-COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromb.pdf : ArticleDescription of DeepBluepermissions_agreement-CCBYandCCBY-NC_ORCID_Barnes.docx : Deep Blue sharing agreemen