Search

Background Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods and Results In this cluster‐randomized controlled trial, all adult non–intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 academic hospital were randomized to either a real‐time, electronic alert–triggered, patient‐centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre‐ versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57–0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P

Abstract Background and Objectives Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses. Methods We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID‐19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high‐flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time‐dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22‐3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21‐1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate‐dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates. Conclusions Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate‐dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID‐19.

Abstract Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), classified by a translocation between chromosomes 15 and 17 [t(15;17)], that is considered a true oncologic emergency though appropriate therapy is considered curative. Therapy is often initiated on clinical suspicion, informed by both clinical presentation as well as direct visualization of the peripheral smear. We hypothesized that genomic imprinting of morphologic features learned by deep learning pattern recognition would have greater discriminatory power and consistency compared to humans, thereby facilitating identification of t(15;17) positive APL. By applying both cell-level and patient-level classification linked to t(15;17) PML/RARA ground-truth, we demonstrate that deep learning is capable of distinguishing APL in both discovery and prospective independent cohort of patients. Furthermore, we extract learned information from the trained network to identify previously undescribed morphological features of APL. The deep learning method we describe herein potentially allows a rapid, explainable, and accurate physician-aid for diagnosing APL at the time of presentation in any resource-poor or -rich medical setting given the universally available peripheral smear.

Abstract Background The Khorana score (KS) clinical algorithm is used to predict VTE risk in cancer patients. The study objective was to evaluate VTE and survival rates among patients newly diagnosed with cancer and stratified by KS in a real‐world population. Methods Data from the Optum® Clinformatics® DataMart database between 01/01/2012–09/30/2017 was used to identify adults with ≥ 1 hospitalization or ≥ 2 outpatient claims with a cancer diagnosis (index date). Only patients who were initiated on chemotherapy or radiation therapy were included. Patients were classified based on KS (KS = 0, 1, 2 or ≥ 3). Time‐to‐first VTE and survival were evaluated from the index date to the earliest among end of data availability or insurance coverage, death, or 12 months post‐index using Kaplan‐Meier (KM) analyses. Results A total of 2,488 (KS = 0); 2,125 (KS = 1), 1,074 (KS = 2), and 507 (KS ≥ 3) cancer patients were included. The 12‐month KM rates of VTE were 3.1%, 5.4%, 7.9%, and 14.9% (associated median time to VTE of 2.7, 3.0, 1.4, and 1.7 months) among KS = 0, 1, 2, and ≥ 3 cohorts, respectively. Corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) relative to the KS = 0 cohort were 1.72 (1.25‐2.38), 2.46 (1.73‐3.50), and 4.99 (3.40‐7.31) for the KS = 1, 2, and ≥ 3 cohorts, respectively (all P

Abstract Background Prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban significantly reduced the risk of cancer‐associated thrombosis during the intervention period in the CASSINI trial. Direct oral anticoagulants may increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding in patients with an in situ GI tract cancer or lesion. Objective This post hoc analysis characterized the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with and without gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) tumors. Methods Primary and secondary efficacy end points and adjudicated bleeding events, including bleeding sites, were analyzed for the intent‐to‐treat population by cancer type (G/GEJ vs non‐G/GEJ) for the 180‐day observation period. Results In patients with G/GEJ tumors, the rates for the primary efficacy end point were 3.4% for rivaroxaban versus 6.9% for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11‐1.80). In patients with non‐G/GEJ tumors, the rivaroxaban group had a lower risk of the primary end point (6.6% vs 9.3%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40–1.21). Rates of major bleeding in patients with G/GEJ tumors were 4.6% (4/88) versus 1.2% (1/85) for rivaroxaban and placebo; rates in patients with non‐G/GEJ tumors were 1.3% (4/317) versus 0.9% (3/319), respectively. Conclusions Excluding patients with G/GEJ tumors resulted in a definable population of cancer patients who achieved an improved benefit‐risk balance from rivaroxaban prophylaxis.

Essentials Acquired hemophilia A is a rare bleeding disorder often accompanied by other comorbidities. We describe emicizumab use in acquired hemophilia A complicated by acute coronary syndrome. Emicizumab proved safe and effective in a patient with acquired hemophilia A. Emicizumab facilitated successful administration of dual antiplatelet therapy. Abstract We report a patient with a high‐titer factor VIII inhibitor refractory to immunosuppression. He initially presented with myocardial infarction requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent placement. Despite Feiba prophylaxis, inadequate hemostasis prompted premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Fifteen weeks later, the patient presented with a left anterior descending artery in‐stent restenosis. This case report examines the Key Clinical Question of how to manage in‐stent restenosis in a patient with acquired hemophilia A (AHA). After multidisciplinary discussions including hematology, cardiology, cardiac surgery, laboratory medicine, and pharmacy, emicizumab was initiated to facilitate PCI. Four weeks after emicizumab initiation, the patient underwent successful PCI with drug‐eluting stent placement. Five months after discharge, he remains without signs or symptoms of cardiac disease or bleeding on DAPT and emicizumab. This case provides evidence of the potential of emicizumab for bleeding prophylaxis in AHA.

SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) results in local and systemic activation of inflammation and coagulation. In this review article, we will discuss the potential role of coagulation factor Xa (FXa) in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. FXa, a serine protease, has been shown to play a role in the cleavage of SARS-CoV-1 spike protein (SP), with the inhibition of FXa resulting in the inhibition of viral infectivity. FX is known to be primarily produced in the liver, but it is also expressed by multiple cells types, including alveolar epithelium, cardiac myocytes, and macrophages. Considering that patients with preexisting conditions, including cardiopulmonary disease, are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19, we discuss the potential role of increased levels of FX in these patients, resulting in a potential increased propensity to have a higher infectious rate and viral load, increased activation of coagulation and inflammation, and development of fibrosis. With these observations in mind, we postulate as to the potential therapeutic role of FXa inhibitors as a prophylactic and therapeutic treatment for high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Introduction In the CASSINI study, rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis significantly reduced primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) endpoints during the intervention period, but several thromboembolic events designated as secondary efficacy endpoints were not included in the primary analysis. This study was aimed to evaluate the full impact of rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis on all prespecified thromboembolic endpoints occurring on study. Methods CASSINI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in adult ambulatory patients with cancer at risk for VTE (Khorana score ≥2). Patients were screened at baseline for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and randomized if none was found. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of lower extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper extremity, or lower extremity distal DVT, any pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related death. This analysis evaluated all prespecified thromboembolic endpoints occurring on study to determine the full benefit of rivaroxaban prophylaxis. All endpoints were independently adjudicated. Results Total thromboembolic events occurred in fewer patients randomized to rivaroxaban during the full study period (29/420 [6.9%] and 49/421 [11.6%] patients in rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.90; p = 0.01]; number needed to treat [NNT] = 21). Similarly, fewer patients randomized to rivaroxaban experienced thromboembolism during the intervention period (13/420 [3.1%] patients) versus placebo (38/421 [9.0%] patients; HR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.18–0.62; p < 0.001; NNT = 17). Conclusion Our findings confirm the substantial benefit of rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis when considering all prespecified thromboembolic events, even after excluding baseline screen-detected DVT. The low NNT, coupled with prior data demonstrating a high number needed to harm, should assist clinicians in determining the risk/benefit of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients with cancer.

Global hemostatic assays including thromboelastography (TEG), Innovance ETP (endogenous thrombin potential), and Thrombinoscope could measure thrombin generation potential and be useful to guide management of patients with factor VIII (FVIII) inhibitors. However, the performance characteristics of these global assays in the presence of FVIII inhibitors are incompletely characterized. In this study, the normal range of thrombin generation potential was measured in 20 healthy individuals by all 3 assays. In 5 commercial and 7 clinical samples with FVIII inhibitors, it was shown that PPP-reagent thrombinoscope shows a dose-dependent response to different levels of FVIII inhibitors from the same patients, while Innovance ETP shows virtually no response to FVIII inhibitors. The TEG is more sensitive to FVIII inhibitors than thrombinoscope. Importantly, we show the same levels of FVIII inhibitor from different patients results in different levels of inhibition for thrombin generation potential by thrombinoscope, which potentially explains the phenotypic heterogeneity of patients with FVIII inhibitors. Global assays such as thrombinoscope, but not Innovance ETP, show appropriate sensitivity to FVIII inhibitors that could offer an objective and clinically relevant marker to guide patient management.

Objective. We present the case of a 73-year-old female, with no family or personal history of a bleeding disorder, who had a classic presentation for acquired hemophilia A. Factor VIII activity was low but detectable and a factor VIII inhibitor was undetectable. Methods. The patient’s plasma was comprehensively studied to determine the cause of the acquired coagulopathy. Using the Nijmegen modification of the Bethesda assay, no factor VIII autoantibody was measureable despite varying the incubation time from 1 to 3 hours. Results. The aPTT was prolonged at 46.8 seconds, which did not correct in the 4 : 1 mix but did with 1 : 1 mix. Using a one stage factor VIII activity assay, the FVIII activity was 16% and chromogenic FVIII activity was also 16%. The patient was treated with recombinant FVII and transfusion, significantly reducing bleeding. Long-term therapy was initiated with cyclophosphamide and prednisone with normalization of FVIII activity. Conclusions. Physicians can be presented with the challenging clinical picture of an acquired factor VIII inhibitor without a detectable inhibitor by the Bethesda assay. Standard therapy for an acquired hemophilia A should be considered.

This study systematically reviews outcomes after inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). A comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed using MEDLINE, COCHRANE library, Embase and CINAHL on outcomes (i.e., pulmonary embolism, recurrent DVT, postphlebitic syndrome and survival) following IVC filtration in cancer-associated VTE. Fourteen studies with 2,154 cancer patients receiving IVC filters post-VTE were included. All were observational studies. The mean duration of followup was 0.7–38 months and mean patient age was 56.8– 68 years. Among study participants, 47–87% had stage 3 or 4 cancers. Of the 47–93% of filters inserted for contraindications to anticoagulation (AC), 10–33% were placed for relative contraindications. Recurrent PE was seen in 0–6%, fatal PE in 0–4.5%, recurrent DVT in 0–18.2%, postphlebitic syndrome (PPS) in 0–2.7%, and IVC thrombosis (ICVT) in 3% of cancer patients. Median survival post-filter insertion was 2–10 months. Evidence supporting the utility of IVC filter insertion in cancer-associated VTE is limited to observational studies only. Preliminary data demonstrate similar safety and efficacy of filters in cancer and noncancer populations. The combination of filters and anticoagulation is no more effective than either modality alone. Retrievable filters are an attractive option for prevention of VTE in the presence of temporary risk factors or temporary contraindications to anticoagulation in patients who have a reasonable life expectancy, but there is no evidence to support their preferential use in patients with advanced malignancy.

BackgroundRacial disparities are common in healthcare. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm, and disparities observed in prevention practices. We examined the impact of a patient-centered VTE education bundle on the non-administration of preventive prophylaxis by race.MethodsA post-hoc, subset analysis (stratified by race) of a larger nonrandomized trial. Pre-post comparisons analysis were conducted on 16 inpatient units; study periods were October 2014 through March 2015 (baseline) and April through December 2015 (post-intervention). Patients on 4 intervention units received the patient-centered, nurse educator-led intervention if the electronic health record alerted a non-administered dose of VTE prophylaxis. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. We compared the conditional odds of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis when patient refusal was a reason for non-administration, stratified by race.ResultsOf 272 patient interventions, 123 (45.2%) were white, 126 (46.3%) were black, and 23 (8.5%) were other races. A significant reduction was observed in the odds of non-administration of prophylaxis on intervention units compared to control units among patients who were black (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81, pConclusionOur finding suggests that the patient education materials, developed collaboratively with a diverse group of patients, improved patient's understanding and the importance of VTE prevention through prophylaxis. Quality improvement interventions should examine any differential effects by patient characteristics to ensure disparities are addressed and all patients experience the same benefits.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of preventable harm in hospitalized patients. While numerous successful interventions have been implemented to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis, a substantial proportion of doses of prescribed preventive medications are not administered to hospitalized patients. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of nurse education on medication administration practice.This was a double-blinded, cluster randomized trial in 21 medical or surgical floors of 933 nurses at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, an academic medical center, from April 1, 2014 -March 31, 2015. Nurses were cluster-randomized by hospital floor to receive either a linear static education (Static) module with voiceover or an interactive learner-centric dynamic scenario-based education (Dynamic) module. The primary and secondary outcomes were non-administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis medication and nurse-reported satisfaction with education modules, respectively.Overall, non-administration improved significantly following education (12.4% vs. 11.1%, conditional OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) achieving our primary objective. The reduction in non-administration was greater for those randomized to the Dynamic arm (10.8% vs. 9.2%, conditional OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.72-0.95) versus the Static arm (14.5% vs. 13.5%, conditional OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81-1.03), although the difference between arms was not statistically significant (p = 0.26). Satisfaction scores were significantly higher (p

IMPORTANCE:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients and is largely preventable. Strategies to decrease the burden of VTE have focused on improving clinicians' prescribing of prophylaxis with relatively less emphasis on patient education. OBJECTIVE:To develop a patient-centered approach to education of patients and their families on VTE: including importance, risk factors, and benefit/harm of VTE prophylaxis in hospital settings. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:The objective of this study was to develop a patient-centered approach to education of patients and their families on VTE: including importance, risk factors, and benefit/harm of VTE prophylaxis in hospital settings. We implemented a three-phase, web-based survey (SurveyMonkey) between March 2014 and September 2014 and analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics. Four hundred twenty one members of several national stakeholder organizations and a single local patient and family advisory board were invited to participate via email. We assessed participants' preferences for VTE education topics and methods of delivery. Participants wanted to learn about VTE symptoms, risk factors, prevention, and complications in a context that emphasized harm. Although participants were willing to learn using a variety of methods, most preferred to receive education in the context of a doctor-patient encounter. The next most common preferences were for video and paper educational materials. CONCLUSIONS:Patients want to learn about the harm associated with VTE through a variety of methods. Efforts to improve VTE prophylaxis and decrease preventable harm from VTE should target the entire continuum of care and a variety of stakeholders including patients and their families.

Recent studies have documented high rates of non-administration of ordered venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis doses. Intervention strategies that target all patients have been effective, but prohibitively resource-intensive. We aimed to identify efficient intervention strategies based on patterns of non-administration of ordered VTE prophylaxis.In this retrospective review of electronic medication administration records, we included adult hospitalized patients who were ordered pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin over a seven-month period. The primary measure was the proportion of ordered doses of VTE prophylaxis not administered, assessed at the patient, floor, and floor type levels. Differences in non-administration rates between groups were assessed using generalized estimating equations. A total of 103,160 ordered VTE prophylaxis doses during 10,516 patient visits on twenty-nine patient floors were analyzed. Overall, 11.9% of ordered doses were not administered. Approximately 19% of patients missed at least one quarter and 8% of patients missed over one half of ordered doses. There was marked heterogeneity in non-administration rate at the floor level (range: 5-27%). Patients on medicine floors missed a significantly larger proportion (18%) of ordered doses compared to patients on other floor types (8%, Odds Ratio: 2.4, p