Venous Thromboembolism in Foot and Ankle Trauma.

Every surgeon may have experienced a tragic event associated with death or debilitation secondary to deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) after foot and ankle trauma and surgery. Nevertheless, the prevention of such a tragic event needs to be carefully evaluated rationally with currently available epidemiologic data. With great postoperative protocols and access to care, most PE events can be prevented. There are modifiable risk factors, such as length/type of immobilization and operative trauma/time that can lower the incidence of DVT/PE. In addition, chemical prophylaxis may be warranted in certain people within the foot and ankle trauma population.

Inferior Vena Cava Filters: An Overview.

For patients with existing venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), anticoagulation remains the standard of care recommended across multiple professional organizations. However, for patients who developed a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or a pulmonary embolism and cannot tolerate anticoagulation, inferior vena cava (IVC) filters must be considered among other alternative treatments. Although placement of a filter is considered a low-risk intervention, there are important factors and techniques that surgeons and interventionalists should be aware of and prepared to discuss. This overview covers the basics regarding the history of filters, indications for placement, associated risks, and techniques for difficult removal.

Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results. RESULTS: The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.

Urological complications caused by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters act in preventing pulmonary embolisms (PE). Various complications have been reported with their use. However, a credible urological complication rate, filter characteristics, and clinical presentation has yet to be summarized. Thus, we reported these complications in the form of a systematic review. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search strategy was designed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on February 10th, 2022. The design of this search strategy did not include any language restrictions. The key words (and wildcard terms) used in the search strategy were urolog*, ureter*, bladder, kidney coupled with filter, inferior vena cava, and cava*. Inclusion criteria were: patients older than 18, with previous IVC filter placement, and urologic complication reported. Exclusion criteria were: patients younger than 18, no IVC filter placement, and no urologic complication reported. Other case series and reviews were excluded to avoid patient duplication. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-five articles were selected for full-text screening. Thirty-seven patient cases were reviewed, and the median age was 53 (range: 21-92 years old). Abdominal and or flank pain was reported in 16 (43%) patients, hematuria was seen in eight (22%) and two (5%) patients died due to acute renal failure resulting from the urologic complications of the IVC filter. Indications for IVC filter placement were recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), contraindication to or noncompliance with anticoagulant therapy. The IVC filters were infrarenal in 29 (78.4%) patients, suprarenal in five (13.5%) patients, not reported in two patients, and misplaced into the right ovarian vein in one patient. Three or more imaging modalities were obtained in 19 patients (51%) for planning. IVC filter removal was not performed in 17 (45.9%) patients, endovascular retrieval occurred in nine (24.3%) patients, and open removal was performed in seven (18.9%) patients, and tissue interposition was performed in two (5.4%) patients. One patient did not have the management reported. CONCLUSIONS: Urological complications caused by IVC filters although rare, are likely underreported, require extensive workup, and pose surgical challenges. Due to their complex management, filter retrieval should be planned for as soon as feasible, and plans should be made as early as during the IVC filter implant. For those that do develop complications, clinical judgement must be exercised in management, and open surgical, endovascular or even conservative management strategies can be viable options and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis: An Update Based on the Revised AWMF S2k Guideline.

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are the most common manifestations of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most DVTs affect the lower-extremity veins. Since the symptoms of DVT are non-specific, a prompt and standardised diagnostic work-up is essential to minimise the risk of PE in the acute phase and to prevent thrombosis progression, post-thrombotic syndrome and VTE recurrence in the long-term. Only recently, the AWMF S2k guidelines on Diagnostics and Therapy of Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism have been revised. In the present article, we summarize current evidence and guideline recommendations focusing on lower-extremity DVT (LEDVT). Depending on whether the diagnostic work-up is performed by a specialist in vascular medicine or by a primary care physician, different diagnostic algorithms are presented that combine clinical probability, D-dimer testing and diagnostic imaging. The diagnosis of ipsilateral recurrent DVT poses a particular challenge and is presented in a separate algorithm. Anticoagulant therapy is an essential part of therapy, with current guidelines clearly favouring regimens based on direct oral anticoagulants over the traditional sequential therapy of parenteral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists. For most DVTs, a duration of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation of at least 3 to 6 months is considered sufficient, and this raises the question of the risk of VTE recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulation and the need for secondary prophylaxis in the long-term. Depending on the circumstances and trigger factors that have contributed to the occurrence of DVT, management strategies are presented that allow decision-making taking into account the individual bleeding risk and patient's preferences.

Appraisal of the clinical practice guidelines on thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures; Do we AGREE (II)?

OBJECTIVE: Optimal thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures is crucial in an attempt to lower the risk of venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We aim to: 1) identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations (CPRs) on thromboprophylaxis in adult patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures, and 2) assess the methodological quality and reporting clarity of these guidelines. METHODS: The study was conducted following the 2020 PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review and has been registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number (CRD42023406988). An electronic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Google Scholar and medRxiv. The search terms used were ""adults", "orthopedic surgery", "orthopedic surgeries", "orthopedic surgical procedure", "orthopedic surgical procedures" "english language", "venous thromboembolism", in all possible combinations (January 2013 to March 2023). The eligible studies were evaluated by four blind raters, employing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II) analysis tool. RESULTS: The literature research resulted in 931 studies. Finally, a total of 16 sets of guidelines were included in the current analysis. There were 8 national and 8 international CPGs. Eight CPGs made specific recommendations for orthopaedic surgery and referred mostly to joints; one guideline focused on pelvi-acetabular trauma, while the rest were more inclusive and non-specific. Four guidelines, one from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), two from the United Kingdom (UK) and one from India were found to have the highest methodological quality and reporting clarity according to the AGREE-II tool. Inter-rater agreement was very good with a mean Cohens Kappa 0.962 (95 % CI, 0.895-0.986) in the current analysis. So, the reliability of the measurements can be interpreted as good to excellent. CONCLUSION: Optimal thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic procedures is crucial. The available guidelines were found to be mostly of high methodological quality and inter-rater agreement was very good, according to our study.

Aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The article aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of aspirin with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis in orthopaedic surgery patients. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database were searched for studies comparing aspirin and LMWH in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis until 25 April 2023. The outcome measures included deep venous thrombosis(DVT)/Pulmonary embolism(PE) events, major bleeding events, wound complications, wound infection and death. Six studies met the requirements of our meta-analysis, including 12 470 patients in the aspirin group and 10 857 patients in the LMWH group. The meta-analysis showed that results showed that LMWH was superior to aspirin in preventing VTE events (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68, P  < 0.00001), whereas there was no significant difference between them in bleeding events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05, P  = 0.33), wound complication (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28-1.17, P  = 0.13), wound infection (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86-1.47, P  = 0.39) and mortality (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70-1.55, P  = 0.83). In addition, subgroup analysis showed that compared with aspirin, LMWH was more likely to reduce the incidence of DVT events in orthopaedic surgery patients (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33-1.91, P  < 0.00001), whereas there was no advantage in reducing the incidence of PE events (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62-2.40, P  = 0.56). Despite the similar safety profiles, this meta-analysis showed that LMWH was significantly superior to aspirin in thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic surgery. LMWH was still the first-line drug for thrombosis prevention in patients who underwent major orthopaedic surgeries.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma clinical protocol for postdischarge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after trauma.

ABSTRACT: Trauma patients are at an elevated risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. In the inpatient setting, prompt pharmacologic prophylaxis is utilized to prevent VTE. For patients with lower extremity fractures or limited mobility, VTE risk does not return to baseline levels postdischarge. Currently, there are limited data to guide postdischarge VTE prophylaxis in trauma patients. The goal of these postdischarge VTE prophylaxis guidelines are to identify patients at the highest risk of developing VTE after discharge and to offer pharmacologic prophylaxis strategies to limit this risk.

Retrieval of an inferior vena cava Greenfield filter 34 years after insertion.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are engineered medical devices deployed in the IVC primarily to prevent a pulmonary embolism from occurring. In this article, we present a case of an IVC filter that was successfully retrieved from a patient after being in place for 34 years. The patient presented to hospital for trauma in which subsequent imaging showed tines of an IVC filter protruding outside of the vessel with one of the tines penetrating the duodenal wall. The filter was successfully removed with no complications. This report adds to the existing literature by yielding an example of an adverse risk that can be associated with the placement of IVC filters. In addition, to the authors' best knowledge, this is the longest reported length of time that an IVC filter has stayed in a patient before being removed, thus adding another intriguing detail to the case.

When is it safe to start thromboprophylaxis after splenic angioembolization?

BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis after blunt splenic trauma is complicated by the risk of bleeding, but the risk after angioembolization is unknown. We hypothesized that earlier thromboprophylaxis initiation was associated with increased bleeding complications without mitigating venous thromboembolism events. METHODS: All blunt trauma patients who underwent splenic angioembolization within 24 hours of arrival were identified from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program datasets from 2017 to 2019. Cases with <24-hour length of stay, other serious injuries, and surgery before angioembolization were excluded. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding complications were defined as splenic surgery, additional embolization, or blood transfusion after thromboprophylaxis initiation. Data were compared with χ2 analysis and multivariate logistic regression at P < .05. RESULTS: In 1,102 patients, 84% had American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade III to V splenic injuries, and 73% received thromboprophylaxis. Splenic surgery after angioembolization was more common in those with thromboprophylaxis initiation within the first 24 hours (5.7% vs 1.7%, P = .007), whereas those with the initiation of thromboprophylaxis after 72 hours were more likely to have a pulmonary embolism (2.3% vs 0.2%, P = .001). Overall, venous thromboembolism increased considerably when thromboprophylaxis was initiated after day 3. In multivariate analysis, time to thromboprophylaxis initiation was associated with bleeding (odds ratio 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.58-0.94]) and venous thromboembolism complications (odds ratio 1.5 [95% confidence interval 1.20-1.81]). CONCLUSION: This national study evaluates bleeding and thromboembolic risk to elucidate the specific timing of thromboprophylaxis after splenic angioembolization. Initiation of thromboprophylaxis between 24 and 72 hours achieves the safest balance in minimizing bleeding and venous thromboembolism risk, with 48 hours particularly serving as the ideal time for protocolized administration.

Evaluating pharmacological THRomboprophylaxis in Individuals undergoing superficial endoVEnous treatment across NHS and private clinics in the UK: a multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial-THRIVE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endovenous therapy is the first choice management for symptomatic varicose veins in NICE guidelines, with 56-70 000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a known complication of endovenous therapy, occurring at a rate of up to 3.4%. Despite 73% of UK practitioners administering pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to reduce VTE, no high-quality evidence supporting this practice exists. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis may have clinical and cost benefit in preventing VTE; however, further evidence is needed. This study aims to establish whether when endovenous therapy is undertaken: a single dose or course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alters the risk of VTE; pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is associated with an increased rate of bleeding events; pharmacological prophylaxis is cost effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 6660 participants from 40 NHS and private sites across the UK. Participants will be randomised to intervention (single dose or extended course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis plus compression) or control (compression alone). Participants will undergo a lower limb venous duplex ultrasound scan at 21-28 days post-procedure to identify asymptomatic DVT. The duplex scan will be conducted locally by blinded assessors. Participants will be contacted remotely for follow-up at 7 days and 90 days post-procedure. The primary outcome is imaging-confirmed lower limb DVT with or without symptoms or PE with symptoms within 90 days of treatment. The main analysis will be according to the intention-to-treat principle and will compare the rates of VTE at 90 days, using a repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for any pre-specified strongly prognostic baseline covariates using a mixed effects logistic regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Brent Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0261). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18501431.

[Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic complications in orthopedic patients]. / Kompleksnaya profilaktika i lechenie venoznykh tromboembolicheskikh oslozhnenii u patsientov ortopedicheskogo profilya.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the comprehensive program for prevention of thromboembolic complications in orthopedic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have analyzed thromboembolic complications in orthopedic patients after surgeries on large joints over the past 5 years (2018-2022). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive approach to prevention and treatment of thromboembolic complications including ultrasound, early surgical prevention of pulmonary embolism can significantly improve postoperative outcomes after joint replacement surgery. Vacuum aspiration retrograde thrombectomy is effective, feasible and safe for acute ilio-femoral venous thrombosis reducing hospital-stay (p=0.0124) and restoring vein patency. Widespread thromboembolic complications, especially for pulmonary embolism in 2022, are likely due to a new coronavirus infection and require careful screening of patients with risk factors with appropriate preventive antithrombotic therapy.

Dissecting the rationale for thromboprophylaxis in challenging surgical cases.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading preventable cause of death in surgical patients, and rates of fatal PE are increasing. Individual assessment, to balance the risks of thrombosis and bleeding, is the key to providing appropriate prophylaxis. The risk assessment process includes use of evidence-based guidelines, literature published since the latest guidelines, large registries, and risk scoring systems together with clinical experience and judgment. Risk assessment is a dynamic process and needs to be updated both during the hospital stay and just prior to discharge since clinical events may change the level of risk. The final assessment may identify patients who require ongoing anticoagulant prophylaxis after discharge. The Caprini risk score is widely used in surgical patients and is a composite of the number of risk factors and their relative weights. The Caprini risk score set point for risk levels requiring anticoagulant prophylaxis varies depending on the type of surgical procedure, surgical population, and number of risk factors. Mandatory implementation of evidence-based care pathways is helpful in lowering PE-related mortality. This review presents several challenging cases, emphasizing the importance of employing all available assessment tools, including dynamic assessment of risk during hospitalization. Finally, the limitations of evidence-based guidelines in complex scenarios and the need to employ all available tools to properly protect very high-risk patients are emphasized.

Predictors of retrieval and long-term mortality in patients treated with inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava filters (VCFs) are a therapeutic resource for the treatment of patients with thromboembolic disease who have a contraindication to full-dose anticoagulation. In the present study, we report the retrieval rate and long-term mortality of patients receiving optional inferior VCFs and identify the predictors for retrieval and all-cause mortality during follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 739 consecutive recipients of optional inferior VCFs from January 2002 to December 2021 in two hospitals. Different clinical characteristics and procedure-related variables were included in the analysis. The all-cause mortality rate and retrieval rate and the predictive factors were evaluated using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the 739 patients, 393 (53%) were women. The mean patient age was 69 ± 15 years. Of the patients, 67% presented with pulmonary thromboembolism and 43% with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). A contraindication to anticoagulation was present for nearly 90% of the patients, mainly (47%) related to the surgical procedure. In addition, 44% of the patients had active cancer. Follow-up data were available for 94% of the patients, with an average follow-up time of 6.08 ± 5.83 years. Long-term mortality was 53%. Cancer (odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.22-5.83), age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42), and DVT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42) were identified as independent predictors of mortality. The retrieval rate at follow-up was 33%. The predictors for retrieval included the indication of the filter related to a surgical procedure (OR, 4.85; 95% CI, 2.54-9.59), the absence of cancer (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.45-5.75), and younger age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: High long-term mortality was observed. The predictors of mortality were cancer, older age, and DVT. One third of the filters implanted were retrieved. The predictors for retrieval were a contraindication to surgery-related anticoagulation, the absence of cancer, and younger age.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The administration of mechanical and pharmacological VTE prophylaxis after sICH is important but challenging. The safety and efficacy of the optimal anticoagulant dose, timing, and type of VTE chemoprophylaxis in cases of sICH are still unclear, and clinicians are concerned that it may lead to cerebral hematoma expansion, which is associated with poor prognosis. Through this literature review, we aim to summarize the latest guidelines, recommendations, and clinical research progress to support evidence-based treatment strategies. REVIEW SUMMARY: It has been proven that intermittent pneumatic compression can effectively reduce the risk of VTE and should be used at the time of hospital admission, whereas gradient compression stockings or lack of prophylaxis in sICH cases are not recommended by current guidelines. Studies regarding pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in patients with ICH were reviewed and summarized. Prophylactic anticoagulation for VTE in patients with ICH seems to be safe and was not associated with cerebral hematoma expansion. Meanwhile, the prophylactic efficacy of anticoagulation for pulmonary embolism seems to be more obvious than that of deep vein thrombosis in patients with ICH. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should pay attention to the prevention and management of VTE after sICH. Intermittent pneumatic compression should be applied to patients with sICH on the day of hospital admission. After documentation of bleeding cessation, early initiation of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis (24 h to 48 h from sICH onset) seems to be safe and effective in pulmonary embolism prophylaxis.

Venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis in geriatric trauma patients with isolated severe traumatic brain injury.

PURPOSE: Low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and mortality compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this study was to see if this association persists among a subset of patients, namely elderly patients with isolated TBI. METHODS: This Trauma Quality Improvement Project (TQIP) database study included patients ≥ 65 years old with severe TBI (Abbreviated injury score [AIS] ≥ 3) that received either LMWH or UH for VTE prophylaxis. Patients with associated severe injuries (extracranial AIS ≥ 3), transferals, deaths < 72-h, hospitalization < 2 days, VTE chemoprophylaxis other than UH or LMWH, or with a history of bleeding diathesis were excluded. The association between VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) with VTE chemoprophylaxis was analyzed with multivariable analysis, subset analyses of different grades of AIS-head injury, and a 1:1 matched LWMH:UH cohort of patients. RESULTS: Out of 14,926 patients, 11,036 (73.9%) received LMWH. Multivariate analysis showed that patients receiving LMWH had a decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97, p < 0.001) but a similar risk of VTE (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63-1.08). Analysis according to head-AIS showed that LMWH was associated with a decreased risk of PE in patients AIS-3 but not in AIS 4 or 5. In a 1:1 matched cohort of LMWH:UH patients, the risk of PE, DVT and VTE were all similar but LMWH continued to be associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.81, CI 0.67-0.97, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: LMWH was associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality and reduced risk of PE compared to UH among geriatric patients with a severe head injury.

Risk-stratified thromboprophylaxis effects of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin in orthopedic trauma patients: A secondary analysis of the PREVENT CLOT trial.

BACKGROUND: The PREVENT CLOT trial concluded that thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in preventing death after orthopedic trauma. However, it was unclear if these results applied to patients at highest risk of thrombosis. Therefore, we assessed if the effect of aspirin versus LMWH differed based on patients' baseline risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: The PREVENT CLOT trial enrolled 12,211 adult patients with fractures. This secondary analysis stratified the study population into VTE risk quartiles: low (<1%) to high (>10%) using the Caprini score. We assessed stratum-specific treatment effects using the win ratio method, in which each patient assigned to aspirin was paired with each assigned to LMWH. In each pair, we compared outcomes hierarchically, starting with death, then pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and bleeding. The secondary outcome added patients' medication satisfaction as a fifth composite component. RESULTS: In the high-risk quartile (n = 3052), 80% had femur fracture, pelvic, or acetabular fractures. Thoracic (47%) and head (37%) injuries were also common. In the low risk quartile (n = 3053), most patients had a tibia fracture (67%), 5% had a thoracic injury, and less than 1% had head or spinal injuries. Among high risk patients, thromboembolic events did not differ statistically between aspirin and LMWH (win ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.08, p = 0.42). This result was consistent in the low (win ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90-1.47, p = 0.27), low-medium (win ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29, p = 0.68), and medium-high risk quartiles (win ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.11, p = 0.48). When medication satisfaction was considered, favorable outcomes were 68% more likely with aspirin (win ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Thromboembolic outcomes were similar with aspirin or LMWH, even among patients at highest risk of VTE. Aspirin was favored if medication satisfaction was also considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. BACKGROUND: Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt on whether GCS confers additional protection against VTE, compared with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. METHODS: The review followed "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilizing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related mortality were pooled through fixed and random effects. RESULTS: In a head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of pulmonary embolism for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.

Contemporary Use of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Severe Traumatic Injuries and High Thromboembolic Event Risk.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) implantation and in-hospital deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality among adults with intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, or spinal cord injuries captured by the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2019) were identified. IVCFs implanted ≤72 hours after hospital presentation and before performance of lower extremity ultrasonography were defined as prophylactic. Patients were stratified by pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis status. Logistic regression models estimated prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration's effect on selected outcomes and identified attributes associated with prophylactic IVCF implantation. RESULTS: Of 544,739 included patients, 1.3% (n = 7,247) underwent prophylactic IVCF implantation. Among patients who received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration compared with expectant management was positively associated with DVT (odds ratio [OR], 4.30; P < .001) and PE (OR, 4.30; P < .001) but not associated with mortality (OR, 0.92; P = .43). Among patients who received no pharmacologic prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was positively associated with DVT (OR, 4.63; P < .001) and PE (OR, 5.02; P < .001) but negatively associated with mortality (OR, 0.43; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IVC filtration was associated with increased likelihood of VTE among all adults with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries. In patients who received no pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was associated with decreased likelihood of in-hospital mortality.

Expanding Indications of Nonvitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Beyond Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: A Review of Emerging Clinical Evidence.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have emerged as a new therapy for patients who need and can tolerate oral anticoagulation. DOACs were initially approved for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Ease of administration, no requirement of bridging with other anticoagulants, and less frequent dosing have made DOACs preferable choice for anticoagulation. Studies are showing promising results regarding use of DOACs beyond the common indications. Studies have been done to show the potential benefit of DOACs in valvular atrial fibrillation, heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. Data have shown safety as well as comparable bleeding incidences with DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants. Naturally interest is growing to see the use of DOACs apart from the NVAF, DVT, or PE. Authors have highlighted various study results to show the potential beneficial role of DOACs in the above-mentioned situations.