Background: Patients with hip fractures (HF) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In elective orthopedic surgery direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven to be similarly or... Show moreBackground: Patients with hip fractures (HF) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In elective orthopedic surgery direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven to be similarly or more effective compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but DOACs are not yet approved for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with HF. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature comparing the effectiveness of DOACs and LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with surgically treated HF.Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic VTE; a symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE); major, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM), and minor bleeding. Meta-analysis was performed to compare the odds of VTE and secondary outcomes between DOACs and LMWH.Results: The search resulted in 738 titles. Five studies matched inclusion criteria. In total, 4748 hip fracture patients were analyzed (DOACs: 2276 patients, LMWH: 2472 patients). The pooled odds ratio for the risk of VTE for DOAC use was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.11, p = 0.09) compared to LMWH. No statistically significant differences between DOAC and LMWH were found for asymptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, PE, major or CRNM bleeding, and minor bleeding.Conclusions: Meta-analysis of the literature suggests that DOACs are associated with equivalent effectiveness and safety compared to LMWH. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Background: In patients with active cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulation, thrombotic and bleeding risk still entail uncertainty.Aim: We explored the results of an international... Show moreBackground: In patients with active cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulation, thrombotic and bleeding risk still entail uncertainty.Aim: We explored the results of an international survey examining the knowledge and behaviours of a large group of physicians.Methods and results: A web-based survey was completed by 960 physicians (82.4% cardiologists, 75.5% from Europe). Among the currently available anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with active cancer, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were preferred by 62.6%, with lower values for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (24.1%) and for warfarin (only 7.3%). About 46% of respondents considered that DOACs should be used in all types of cancers except in non-operable gastrointestinal cancers. The lack of controlled studies on bleeding risk (33.5% of respondents) and the risk of drug interactions (31.5%) were perceived as problematic issues associated with use of anticoagulants in cancer. The decision on anticoagulation involved a cardiologist in 27.8% of cases, a cardiologist and an oncologist in 41.1%, and a team approach in 21.6%. The patient also was involved in decision-making, according to similar to 60% of the respondents. For risk stratification, use of CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores was considered appropriate, although not specifically validated in cancer patients, by 66.7% and 56.4%, respectively.Conclusion: This survey highlights that management of anticoagulation in patients with AF and active cancer is challenging, with substantial heterogeneity in therapeutic choices. Direct oral anticoagulants seems having an emerging role but still the use of LMWH remains substantial, despite the absence of long-term data on thromboprophylaxis in AF. Show less
Background: Trauma patients are at a significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with lower extremity fractures (LEF) being independent risk factors. Use of direct oral anticoagusants (DOACs)... Show moreBackground: Trauma patients are at a significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with lower extremity fractures (LEF) being independent risk factors. Use of direct oral anticoagusants (DOACs) for VTE prophylaxis is effective in elective orthopedic surgery, but currently not approved for trauma patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis of DOACs with lowmolecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in trauma patients sustaining LEF.Materials and methods: We included adult trauma patients admitted to trauma quality improvement program participating trauma centers (between 2013 and 2016), who sustained LEF and were started on DOACs or LMWH for thromboprophylaxis after admission. Propensity score matching was performed to compare symptomatic VTE and bleeding control interventions between the groups.Results: Of 1,009,922 patients in trauma quality improvement program, 167,640 met inclusion criteria (165,009 received LMWH and 2631 received DOACs). After propensity score matching, 2280 predominantly elderly (median age: 67 y) isolated femur fracture patients (median ISS: 10) were included in each group (4560 patients in total). Symptomatic VTE occurred in 1.4% of patients in both matched groups (P = 0.992). Bleeding control interventions occurred less often in the DOAC group, albeit statistically insignificant (5.8% versus 6.0%, P = 0.772).Conclusions: This study found similar rates of VTE and bleeding control measures for thromboprophylaxis with DOACs or LMWH in matched trauma patients with LEF. Further prospective research is warranted to consolidate the safety of DOAC thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with LEF. Favorable oral administration and likely increased adherence could benefit this high-risk population. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
