Normalization of Function in Pediatric Dilated Cardiomyopathy Recovery or Remission?∗

Time to publication: sensitivity analyses. (DOC 62 kb

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19:a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. Objectives: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. Results: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48–0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.</p

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19:a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. Objectives: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. Results: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48–0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.</p

Short-term prognosis of breakthrough venous thromboembolism in anticoagulated patients

Background: Evidence for guideline recommendations for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during anticoagulant therapy is scarce. We aimed to observe and to describe the management of VTE occurring during anticoagulant therapy. Methods: This prospective multi-center, observational study included patients with objectively confirmed VTE during anticoagulant therapy (breakthrough event), with a follow-up of 3 months, after the breakthrough event. Results: We registered 121 patients with a breakthrough event, with a mean age of 56 years (range, 19 to 90); 61 were male (50%). Fifty-eight patients (48%) had an active malignancy. At the time of the breakthrough event, 57 patients (47%) were treated with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), 53 patients (44%) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and 11 patients (9%) with direct oral anticoagulants, unfractionated heparin, or VKA plu

Performance of the 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism:An external validation study

Background: The recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Aim: To externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer &lt;1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold. Results: Of the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80–0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57–60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86–1.9). Conclusion: In this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study.</p

Optimal follow-up after acute pulmonary embolism: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function, in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology, endorsed by the European Respiratory Society

This position paper provides a comprehensive guide for optimal follow-up of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), covering multiple relevant aspects of patient counselling. It serves as a practical guide to treating patients with acute PE complementary to the formal 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines developed with the European Respiratory Society. We propose a holistic approach considering the whole spectrum of serious adverse events that patients with acute PE may encounter on the short and long run. We underline the relevance of assessment of modifiable risk factors for bleeding, of acquired thrombophilia and limited cancer screening (unprovoked PE) as well as a dedicated surveillance for the potential development of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension as part of routine practice; routine testing for genetic thrombophilia should be avoided. We advocate the use of outcome measures for functional outcome and quality of life to quantify the impact of the PE diagnosis and identify patients with the post-PE syndrome early. Counselling patients on maintaining a healthy lifestyle mitigates the risk of the post-PE syndrome and improves cardiovascular prognosis. Therefore, we consider it important to discuss when and how to resume sporting activities soon after diagnosing PE. Additional patient-relevant topics that require Focused counselling are travel and birth control

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95% CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95% CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95% CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95% CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group

Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:A prospective cohort study

In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month followup period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13-34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95% CI: 2.8-12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95% CI: 6.6-13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95% CI: 1.23.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low-and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice

Awareness of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer: Preliminary findings from a global initiative for World Thrombosis Day

BACKGROUND Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT) has detrimental impact on patients' clinical outcomes and quality of life. Data on CAT education, communication, and awareness among the general cancer population are scanty. METHODS We present the preliminary results of an ongoing patient-centered survey including 27 items covering major spheres of CAT. The survey, available in 14 languages, was promoted and disseminated online through social networks, email newsletters, websites, and media. RESULTS As of September 20, 2022, 749 participants from 27 countries completed the survey. Overall, 61.8% (n = 460) of responders were not aware of their risk of CAT. Among those who received information on CAT, 26.2% (n = 56) were informed only at the time of CAT diagnosis. Over two thirds (69.1%, n = 501) of participants received no education on signs and symptoms of venous thromboembolism (VTE); among those who were educated about the possible clinical manifestations, 58.9% (n = 119) were given instructions to seek consultation in case of VTE suspicion. Two hundred twenty-four respondents (30.9%) had a chance to discuss the potential use of primary thromboprophylaxis with health-care providers. Just over half (58.7%, n = 309) were unaware of the risks of bleeding associated with anticoagulation, despite being involved in anticoagulant-related discussions or exposed to anticoagulants. Most responders (85%, n = 612) valued receiving CAT education as highly relevant; however, 51.7% (n = 375) expressed concerns about insufficient time spent and clarity of education received. CONCLUSIONS This ongoing survey involving cancer patients with diverse ethnic, cultural, and geographical backgrounds highlights important patient knowledge gaps. These findings warrant urgent interventions to improve education and awareness, and reduce CAT burden