Background The diagnosis of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with compression ultrasonography (CUS) may be hindered by residual intravascular obstruction after previous DVT. A... Show moreBackground The diagnosis of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with compression ultrasonography (CUS) may be hindered by residual intravascular obstruction after previous DVT. A reference CUS, an additional ultrasound performed at anticoagulant discontinuation, may improve the diagnostic work-up of suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT by providing baseline images for future comparison.Objectives To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routinely performing reference CUS in DVT patients.Methods Patient-level data (n 1/4 96) from a prospective management study (Theia study; NCT02262052) and claims data were used in a decision analytic model to compare 12 scenarios for diagnostic management of suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT. Estimated health care costs and mortality due to misdiagnosis, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and bleeding during the first year of follow-up after presentation with suspected recurrence were compared.Results All six scenarios including reference CUS had higher estimated 1-year costs (1,763-1,913) than the six without reference CUS (1,192-1,474). Costs were higher because reference CUS results often remained unused, as 20% of patients (according to claims data) would return with suspected recurrent DVT. Estimated mortality was comparable in scenarios with (14.8-17.9 per 10,000 patients) and without reference CUS (14.0-18.5 per 10,000). None of the four potentially most desirable scenarios included reference CUS. Conclusion One-year health care costs of diagnostic strategies for suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT including reference CUS are higher compared to strategies without reference CUS, without mortality benefit. These results can inform policy-makers regarding use of health care resources during follow-up after DVT. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the findings do not support the routine application of reference CUS. Show less
Background: Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic... Show moreBackground: Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic therapy at the end of life is rare in practice. It is often continued until death, possibly resulting in excess bleeding, an increased disease burden and higher healthcare costs.Methods: The SERENITY consortium comprises researchers and clinicians from eight European countries with specialties in different clinical fields, epidemiology and psychology. SERENITY will use a comprehensive approach combining a realist review, flash mob research, epidemiological studies, and qualitative interviews. The results of these studies will be used in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on the optimal design of the shared decision support tool. Next, the shared decision support tool will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. A targeted implementation and dissemination plan will be developed to enable the use of the SERENITY tool across Europe, as well as its incorporation in clinical guidelines and policies. The entire project is funded by Horizon Europe.Results: SERENITY will develop an information-driven shared decision support tool that will facilitate treatment decisions regarding the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy in people with cancer at the end of life.Conclusions: We aim to develop an intervention that guides the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy, prevents bleeding complications, and saves healthcare costs. Hopefully, usage of the tool leads to enhanced empowerment and improved quality of life and treatment satisfaction of people with advanced cancer and their care givers. Show less
Luijten, D.; Klok, F.A.; Mens, T.E. van; Huisman, M. 2023
IntroductionAcute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a disease with a broad spectrum of clinical presentations. While some patients can be treated at home or may even be left untreated, other patients... Show moreIntroductionAcute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a disease with a broad spectrum of clinical presentations. While some patients can be treated at home or may even be left untreated, other patients require an aggressive approach with reperfusion treatment.Areas covered(1) Advanced reperfusion treatment in hemodynamically stable acute PE patients considered to be at high risk of decompensation and death, (2) the treatment of subsegmental pulmonary embolism, (3) outpatient treatment for hemodynamically stable PE patients with signs of right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, and (4) the optimal approach to identify and treatpost-PE syndrome.Expert opinionOutside clinical trials, hemodynamically stable acute PE patients should not be treated with primary reperfusion therapy. Thrombolysis and/or catheter-directed therapy are only to be considered as rescue treatment. Subsegmental PE can be left untreated in selected low-risk patients, after proximal deep vein thrombosis has been ruled out. Patients with an sPESI or Hestia score of 0 criteria can be treated at home, independent of the presence of RV overload. Finally, health-care providers should be aware of post-PE syndrome and diagnose chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (CTEPD) as early as possible. Persistently symptomatic patients without CTEPD benefit from exercise training and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation. Show less
The rate of identified isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ssPE) has doubled with advances in computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) technology, but its clinical relevance is... Show moreThe rate of identified isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ssPE) has doubled with advances in computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) technology, but its clinical relevance is debated. The YEARS diagnostic algorithm was shown to safely reduce the number of required CTPAs in the diagnostic management of PE. We hypothesized that the higher threshold for performing CTPA in YEARS was associated with a lower prevalence of ssPE compared to the conventional diagnostic algorithm. We compared 2291 consecutive patients with suspected PE managed according to YEARS to 3306 consecutive control patients managed according to the Wells score for the prevalence of isolated ssPE. In the YEARS cohort, 52% were managed without CTPA, 12% had pulmonary embolism (PE) of which 10% were isolated ssPE, and the 3-month diagnostic failure rate was 0.35%. In the control cohort, 32% were managed without CTPA, 20% had PE of which 16% were isolated ssPE, and the 3-month failure rate was 0.73%. The isolated ssPE prevalence was significantly lower in YEARS (absolute difference 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-10), Odds Ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.90). In conclusion, YEARS is associated with a lower prevalence of isolated ssPE, due to reduction in CTPAs by the higher D-dimer threshold. This was however not associated with a higher risk of recurrent VTE during follow-up. Show less
Mens, T.E. van; Pol, L.M. van der; Es, N. van; Bistervels, I.M.; Mairuhu, A.T.A.; Hulle, T. van der; ... ; Middeldorp, S. 2018
