Influence of primary cancer site on clinical outcomes of anticoagulation for associated venous thromboembolism.

INTRODUCTION: The outcome of anticoagulation for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE) differs according to cancer location, but data are limited and inconsistent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) enrolled between 03/01/2013 and 04/30/2021 were followed prospectively to assess VTE recurrence, major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and death. RESULTS: There were 1702 (45.3 %) patients with Ca-VTE including: gastrointestinal (n = 340), pancreatic (n = 223), hematologic (n = 188), genitourinary (n = 163), lung (n = 139), ovarian (n = 109), breast (n = 97), renal (n = 75), prostate (n = 73), hepatobiliary (n = 70), brain (n = 57), and other cancers (n = 168); 2057 VTE patients had no cancer (NoCa-VTE). Hepatobiliary cancer had the highest VTE recurrence (all rates 100 person-years) of all cancers and higher compared to NoCa-VTE (13.69, p = 0.01), while the MB rate, although numerically higher (15.91), was not different (p = 0.09). Another 3 cancers had higher VTE recurrence but similar MB rates compared to NoCa-VTE: genitourinary [(9.59, p = 0.01) and (7.03, p = 1.0)], pancreatic [(9.74, p < 0.001) and (5.47, p = 1.00)], and hematologic [(5.29, p = 0.05) and (3.59, p = 1.0)]. Renal cancer had the highest rate of MB among all cancers and was higher than that of NoCa-VTE (16.49; p < 0.001), with no difference in VTE recurrence (1.62; p = 1.0). VTE recurrence and MB rates were not significantly different between NoCa-VTE and gastrointestinal, lung, breast, prostate, and brain cancers. CRNMB rates were similar and mortality higher in Ca-VTE patients, except for prostate and breast cancer, compared to NoCa-VTE. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in clinical outcomes indicate that anticoagulation strategies may need to be tailored to the primary cancer location.

Incidental pulmonary embolism in cancer and noncancer patients: Prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical picture and outcome of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) compared to symptomatic pulmonary embolism (sPE) remain unclear. METHODS: Demographics, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were compared between iPE and sPE patients who were followed prospectively at Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (March 1, 2013 to August 1, 2020). RESULTS: Out of 3576 VTE patients, 1417 (39.6%) had PE: 562 (39.7%) iPE and 855 sPE. Patients with cancer were more likely to have iPE (400 iPE vs. 314 sPE) compared to those without cancer (162 iPE vs. 541 sPE). VTE recurrence rate (all per 100 person-years) was similar in all iPE and sPE patients (3.34 vs. 3.68, p = .50), with cancer (4.16 vs. 4.89, p = .370), and without cancer patients (0.89 vs. 2.80, p = .25). Higher mortality observed in all patients with iPE compared to sPE (46.45 vs. 23.47, p < .001) and with cancer (56.41 vs. 45.77, p = .03) became not significant after adjustment for age, antiplatelet therapy, metastases, and cancer location. Noncancer iPE patients had higher mortality (15.95 vs. 7.18, p = .006) even after adjustment (p = .05). The major bleeding rate was also higher in all patients iPE compared to sPE (7.10 vs. 3.68, p = .03), but not after adjustment (p = .974); higher major bleeding rate in noncancer patients (6.49 vs. 1.25, p = .007) remained significant after adjustment (.02). CRNMB rate was similar to iPE and sPE patients. CONCLUSION: iPE represents a more serious clinical condition compared to sPE as indicated by the higher mortality and major bleeding but these differences reflect underlying comorbidities rather than the seriousness of the embolic event.

Single versus multiple and incidental versus symptomatic subsegmental pulmonary embolism: clinical characteristics and outcome.

It remains unexplored if the clinical picture and outcome of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) differ between single versus multiple, and incidental versus symptomatic embolism. Consecutive patients anticoagulated for SSPE at the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (03/01/2013-12/31/2020) were followed forward to assess venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB); expressed as a rate per 100 person-years. Among 3878 VTE patients, 1541 had pulmonary embolism including 224 (14.6%) with SSPE either single (n = 139) or multiple (n = 85; 46 bilateral and 39 unilateral emboli); 134 had incidental and 90 symptomatic SSPE. Patients with single were less often symptomatic and less often had coexisting DVT than multiple SSPE. Patients with incidental had a two-fold higher frequency of cancer compared to symptomatic SSPE. During the study period, 1 patient with single and 2 with multiple SSPE had VTE recurrence (rate of 1.14 vs 3.63, p = 0.280). Single SSPE patients experienced 2 episodes of major bleeding (rate of 2.36) while the multiple SSPE group had no major bleeding. Seven patients in each group had CRNMB events (rate of 8.20 vs 13.58 for single and multiple SSPE, respectively, p = 0.282). Patients with single SSPE had a higher death rate compared to multiple SSPE (43.07 vs 22.22, p = 0.031) but no difference was noted after adjusting for cancer (p = 0.388). Also, incidental had similar clinical outcomes to symptomatic SSPE.Interpretation Anticoagulated SSPE patients with single and multiple as well as incidental and symptomatic have a different clinical profile but similar clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of Changing Vena Cava Filter Use and Inpatient Hospital Mortality from 2016-2019: A Single-Institution Quality Improvement Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the changing trends of vena cava filter (VCF) insertion and determine whether changes in VCF use affected inpatient mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A quality improvement project at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, tracks the type and reason for VCF insertions from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019, to facilitate appropriate retrieval. The rate of VCF insertions was compared with inpatient mortality rates, normalized for patient volumes using the number of hospital inpatient discharges. RESULTS: A total of 698 VCFs were placed in 695 patients: 2016 (n=243), 2017 (n=156), 2018 (n=156), and 2019 (n=120). The rate of VCF insertions (per 1000 inpatient discharges) was 4.02 in 2016, 2.91 in 2017, 2.54 in 2018, and 1.93 in 2019. Mean ± SD age at placement was 62±16.4 years and 59.2% (413/698) were men. Most VCFs were retrievable (85.1%; 594/698) and were placed for treatment (78.4%; 547/698) indications (acute venous thromboembolism within 3 months). The rate of VCF insertions was compared with the inpatient mortality rate (per 100 inpatient discharges) and remained stable (1.83 in 2016, 1.79 in 2017, 1.83 in 2018, and 1.76 in 2019) despite the significant decline in VCF use. CONCLUSION: Data from this quality improvement study demonstrate a reduction of more than 50% in the use of VCFs from 2016 through 2019 at a large academic hospital. These changes are difficult to attribute to any single change in clinical use and there was no appreciable increase in the inpatient hospital mortality rate associated with this decrease in VCF filter use.

Bleeding in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer Compared With Nongastrointestinal Cancer Treated With Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, or Enoxaparin for Acute Venous Thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with that in patients with non-GI cancer treated with anticoagulation for acute cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with Ca-VTE seen at the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic between March 1, 2013, and April 20, 2020, were observed prospectively to assess major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB). RESULTS: In the group of 1392 patients with Ca-VTE, 499 (35.8%) had GI cancer including 272 with luminal GI cancer (lower GI, 208; upper GI, 64), 176 with pancreatic cancer, and 51 with hepatobiliary cancer. The rate of major bleeding and CRNMB in patients with GI cancer was similar to that in 893 (64.2%) patients with non-GI cancer treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or enoxaparin. Apixaban had a higher rate of major bleeding in luminal GI cancer compared with the non-GI cancer group (15.59 vs 3.26 per 100 person-years; P=.004) and compared with enoxaparin in patients with luminal GI cancer (15.59 vs 3.17; P=.04). Apixaban had a lower rate of CRNMB compared with rivaroxaban in patients with GI cancer (3.83 vs 9.40 per 100 person-years; P=.03). Patients treated with rivaroxaban in the luminal GI cancer group had a major bleeding rate similar to that of patients with non-GI cancer (2.04 vs 4.91 per 100 person-years; P=.37). CONCLUSION: Apixaban has a higher rate of major bleeding in patients with luminal GI cancer compared with patients with non-GI cancer and compared with enoxaparin in patients with luminal GI cancer. Rivaroxaban shows no increased risk of major bleeding in patients with GI cancer or luminal GI cancer compared with patients with non-GI cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504007.

Effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban for acute venous thromboembolism therapy in patients with extremes in bodyweight.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of extremes in bodyweight (EBW) and outcomes in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding were compared between patients with bodyweight <60 kg, 60-120 kg, and >120 kg. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the Mayo Clinic VTE Registry (03/28/2013-8/31/2019) with acute VTE were followed prospectively. Patient status was assessed in person, by mailing a written questionnaire, or by a scripted phone interview. RESULTS: Among 2577 patients with weight ranging from 27.0 kg to 263.2 kg, 2123 (82%) had a bodyweight between 60 and 120 kg, 223 (8.7%) had bodyweight < 60 kg, and 230 (8.9%) had bodyweight >120 kg. Patients with bodyweight <60 kg treated with DOACs had higher 3- and 6-month incidence of major bleeding compared to the bodyweight 60-120kg group (4.4% vs 1.1%, P = .03, and 4.4% vs 1.4%, P = .05, respectively). Patients with bodyweight >120 kg and cancer on rivaroxaban had higher VTE recurrence compared to bodyweight 60-120kg group (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of acute VTE is associated with a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with bodyweight <60 kg. A higher VTE recurrence rate occurred only in cancer patients with bodyweight >120 kg on rivaroxaban.

Adverse Events and Mortality in Anticoagulated Patients with Different Categories of Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the pulmonary embolism (PE) categories of massive, submassive, PE with no right ventricle dysfunction (NRVD), and subsegmental only (SSO) adequately predict clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients treated for acute PE (March 1, 2013, through July 31, 2019) were followed forward prospectively to compare venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) across 4 PE categories. RESULTS: Of 2703 patients with VTE, 1188 (44%) had PE, of which 1021 (85.9%) completed at least 3 months of therapy or had clinical outcomes precluding further treatment (27 with massive, 217 submassive, 557 NRVD, and 220 SSO PE). One patient with massive, 8 with submassive, 23 with NRVD, and 5 with SSO PE had recurrent VTE (3.90, 5.33, 5.36, and 3.66 per 100 person-years, respectively; P=.84). There were 3 deaths in massive, 27 in submassive, 140 in NRVD, and 34 in SSO PE groups (11.59, 17.37, 31.74, and 24.74 per 100 person-years, respectively; P=.02); when adjusted for cancer, the relationship was no longer significant (P=.27). One patient with massive, 5 with submassive, 22 with NRVD, and 5 with SSO PE had major bleeding (3.90, 3.31, 5.24, and 3.75 per 100 person-years, respectively; P=.66). Similar cumulative rates for CRNMB were observed (P=.87). Three-month rates of VTE recurrence, death, major bleeding, and CRNMB did not differ by PE category. CONCLUSION: In the setting of anticoagulation therapy with maximal standardization and evidence-based practice, there is no evidence of a difference between PE categories and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03504007.

Treatment of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis with apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Randomized controlled trials leading to the approval of apixaban and rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism (VTE) did not include patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE-DVT). We sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban for the treatment of acute UE-DVT. Consecutive patients with VTE enrolled into the Mayo Clinic VTE Registry, between March 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019, were followed prospectively. Clinical, demographic and imaging data were collected at the time of study recruitment. Patients with a diagnosis of acute UE-DVT who received rivaroxaban, apixaban, LMWH or warfarin were included. Recurrent VTE, major bleeding, clinical-relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and death were assessed at 3-month intervals. During the study period, 210 patients with acute UE-DVT were included; 63 were treated with apixaban, 39 with rivaroxaban, and 108 with LWMH and/or warfarin. Overall 51% had catheter-associated UE-DVT, 60% had a diagnosis of malignancy, and 14% had concurrent pulmonary embolism. Malignancy was more common in patients treated with LMWH/warfarin (67% vs 52%, P = .03). At 3 months of follow up, one (0.9%) recurrent VTE occurred in a patient treated with LMWH/warfarin and one (1.0%) patient treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban (P = .97). Major bleeding occurred in three patients treated with LMWH/warfarin, and in none of those treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban (P = .09). Clinical-relevant non-major bleeding occurred in one patient (0.9%) treated with LWMH/warfarin and two patients (2.0%) treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban (P = .53). Treatment of UE-DVT with apixaban or rivaroxaban appears to be as safe and effective as LMWH/warfarin.

Comparison of apixaban to rivaroxaban and enoxaparin in acute cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

To provide direct comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with acute cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE), consecutive patients treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or enoxaparin at Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (March 1, 2013 to January 31, 2018)) were followed prospectively. The primary effectiveness outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, and the secondary was mortality. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, the secondary clinically relevant safety outcome was non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and the third a composite of major and CRNMB. There were 750 patients treated for acute Ca-VTE with apixaban (n = 224), rivaroxaban (n = 163), and enoxaparin (n = 363) within 14 days of diagnosis and for at least 3 months, or until study event. Recurrent VTE was diagnosed in 11 receiving apixaban, 7 receiving rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban hazard ratio (HR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.51-3.36) and 17 in the enoxaparin receiving group (apixaban vs enoxaparin HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.54, 2.42 and rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.85, 95% Cl: 0.36, 2.06). There were 82 deaths in apixaban, 74 rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban HR 1.67, 95% Cl: 1.20, 2.33) and 171 in enoxaparin group (rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.73, 95% Cl: 0.56, 0.96). Major bleeding occurred in 11 apixaban, 12 rivaroxaban (apixaban vs rivaroxaban HR 0.73, 95% Cl: 0.32, 1.66) and 21 enoxaparin group (apixaban vs enoxaparin HR 0.89, 95% Cl: 0.43, 1.84 and rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin HR 1.23, 95% Cl: 0.61, 2.50). The CRNMB rate was higher in rivaroxaban compared to apixaban (P = .03) and LMWH (P = .01) groups. Recurrence of VTE and major bleeding were similar in apixaban, rivaroxaban, and enoxaparin groups. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher CRNMB but lower mortality compared to apixaban and enoxaparin.

Periprocedural outcomes comparing fibroid embolization and focused ultrasound: a randomized controlled trial and comprehensive cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are a common problem for reproductive-aged women, yet little comparative effectiveness research is available to guide treatment choice. Uterine artery embolization and magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery are minimally invasive therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating symptomatic uterine fibroids. The Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study is the first randomized controlled trial to compare these 2 fibroid treatments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to summarize treatment parameters and compare recovery trajectory and adverse events in the first 6 weeks after treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids seen at 3 US academic medical centers were enrolled in the randomized controlled trial (n = 57). Women meeting identical criteria who declined randomization but agreed to study participation were enrolled in a nonrandomized parallel cohort (n = 34). The 2 treatment groups were analyzed by using a comprehensive cohort design. All women undergoing focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization received the same postprocedure prescriptions, instructions, and symptom diaries for comparison of recovery in the first 6 weeks. Return to work and normal activities, medication use, symptoms, and adverse events were captured with postprocedure diaries. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ2 test. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline pain levels and fibroid load when comparing opioid medication, adverse events, and recovery time between treatment groups because these factors varied at baseline between groups and could affect outcomes. Adverse events were also collected. RESULTS: Of 83 women in the comprehensive cohort design who underwent treatment, 75 completed postprocedure diaries. Focused ultrasound surgery was a longer procedure than embolization (mean [SD], 405 [146] vs 139 [44] min; P <.001). Of women undergoing focused ultrasound (n = 43), 23 (53%) underwent 2 treatment days. Immediate self-rated postprocedure pain was higher after uterine artery embolization than focused ultrasound (median [interquartile range], 5 [1-7] vs 1 [1-4]; P = .002). Compared with those having focused ultrasound (n = 39), women undergoing embolization (n = 36) were more likely to use outpatient opioid (75% vs 21%; P < .001) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications (97% vs 67%; P < .001) and to have a longer median (interquartile range) recovery time (days off work, 8 [6-14] vs 4 [2-7]; P < .001; days until return to normal, 15 [10-29] vs 10 [10-15]; P = .02). There were no significant differences in the incidence or severity of adverse events between treatment arms; 86% of adverse events (42 of 49) required only observation or nominal treatment, and no events caused permanent sequelae or death. After adjustment for baseline pain and uterine fibroid load, uterine artery embolization was still significantly associated with higher opioid use and longer time to return to work and normal activities (P < .001 for each). Results were similar when restricted to the randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing uterine artery embolization have longer recovery times and use more prescription medications, but women undergoing focused ultrasound have longer treatment times. These findings were independent of baseline pain levels and fibroid load.

Comparing focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization for uterine fibroids-rationale and design of the Fibroid Interventions: reducing symptoms today and tomorrow (FIRSTT) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To present the rationale, design, and methodology of the Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow (FIRSTT) study. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PATIENT(S): Premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. INTERVENTION(S): Participants are randomized to two U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved minimally invasive treatments for uterine leiomyomas: uterine artery embolization and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary endpoint is defined as the need for an additional intervention for fibroid symptoms following treatment. Secondary outcomes consist of group differences in symptom alleviation, recovery trajectory, health-related quality of life, impairment of ovarian reserve, treatment complications, and the economic impact of these issues. RESULT(S): The trial is currently in the phase of active recruitment. CONCLUSION(S): This randomized clinical trial will provide important evidence-based information for patients and health care providers regarding optimal minimally invasive treatment approach for women with symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00995878.

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for leiomyoma-associated infertility.

OBJECTIVE: To describe magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (FUS) as a treatment for a case of leiomyoma-associated infertility. DESIGN: Case report from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENT(S): A 37-year-old woman with known leiomyomas and a history of 18 months of home-inseminations from a known donor. INTERVENTION(S): Magnetic resonance-guided FUS treatment of uterine fibroids, where the dominant fibroid distorted the uterine cavity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancy. RESULT(S): A viable intrauterine pregnancy, with a full-term vaginal delivery, was conceived after a single clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination cycle. CONCLUSION(S): The role of FUS for enhancement of fertility in women with nonhysteroscopically resectable uterine fibroids distorting the uterine cavity should be investigated further.