Search

Background Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. Research Question What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? Study Design and Methods Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. Results We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). Interpretation Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. Trial Registry Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj

Background The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adjustments to ICU organization and care processes globally. Research Questions Did hospital emergency responses to the COVID-19 pandemic differ depending on hospital setting? Which strategies worked well to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists? Study Design and Methods Between August and November 2020, we carried out semistructured interviews of intensivists from tertiary and community hospitals across six regions in the United States that experienced early or large surges of COVID-19 patients, or both. We identified themes of hospital emergency responses using the four S framework of acute surge planning: space, staff, stuff, system. Results Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Clinicians across both settings believed that canceling elective surgeries was helpful to increase ICU capabilities and that hospitals should establish clearly defined thresholds at which surgeries are limited during future surge events. ICU staff was the most limited resource; staff shortages were improved by the use of tiered staffing models, just-in-time training for non-ICU clinicians, designated treatment teams, and deployment of trainees. Personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages and reuse were widespread, causing substantial distress among clinicians; hands-on PPE training was helpful to reduce clinicians’ anxiety. Transparency and involvement of frontline clinicians as stakeholders were important components of effective emergency responses and helped to maintain trust among staff. Interpretation We identified several strategies potentially to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists working in both tertiary and community hospital settings. Our study also demonstrated the importance of trust and transparency between frontline staff and hospital leadership as key components of effective emergency responses during public health crises.

Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes.What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients?A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs.The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes.Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value.

Patients surviving an ICU admission for deliberate self-harm are at high risk of recurrent self-harm or suicide after discharge. It is unknown whether mental health follow-up after discharge (with either a family physician or psychiatrist) reduces this risk.What is the association between mental health follow-up after discharge and recurrent self-harm among patients admitted to the ICU for intentional self-harm?Population-based cohort study of consecutive adults (≥ 18 years of age) from Ontario, Canada, who were admitted to ICU because of intentional self-harm between 2009 and 2017. We categorized patients according to follow-up, with early follow-up indicating 1 to 21 days after discharge, late follow-up indicating 22 to 60 days after discharge, and no follow-up indicating within 60 days of discharge. We conducted analyses using a cause-specific extended Cox regression model to account for varying time for mental health follow-up relative to the outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was recurrent ICU admission for self-harm within 1 year of discharge.We included 9,569 consecutive adults admitted to the ICU for deliberate self-harm. Compared with receiving no mental health follow-up, both early follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.75) and late follow-up (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.22-2.35) were associated with increased risk in recurrent ICU admission for self-harm. As compared with no follow-up, early follow-up (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.70-1.73]) was not associated with death resulting from suicide, but late follow-up (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.37-1.83) was associated with an increase in death resulting from suicide.Among adults admitted to the ICU for deliberate self-harm, mental health follow-up after discharge was not associated with reduced risk of recurrent ICU admission for self-harm or death resulting from suicide, and patients seeking outpatient follow-up may be those at highest risk of these outcomes. Future research should focus on additional and novel methods of risk mitigation in this vulnerable population.

Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population.What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults?Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty).Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear.Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.

BACKGROUND: The bedside swallowing evaluation (BSE) is an assessment of swallowing function and airway safety during swallowing. After extubation, the BSE often is used to identify the risk of aspiration in acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors. RESEARCH QUESTION: We conducted a multicenter prospective study of ARF survivors to determine the accuracy of the BSE and to develop a decision tree algorithm to identify aspiration risk. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients extubated after ≥ 48 hours of mechanical ventilation were eligible. Study procedures included the BSE followed by a gold standard evaluation, the flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients were included in the final analysis. Median time from extubation to BSE was 25 hours (interquartile range, 21-45 hours). The FEES was completed 1 hour after the BSE (interquartile range, 0.5-2 hours). A total of 33% (70/213; 95% CI, 26.6%-39.2%) of patients aspirated on at least one FEES bolus consistency test. Thin liquids were the most commonly aspirated consistency: 27% (54/197; 95% CI, 21%-34%). The BSE detected any aspiration with an accuracy of 52% (95% CI, 45%-58%), a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 74%-92%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81% (95% CI, 72%-91%). Using recursive partitioning analyses, a five-variable BSE-based decision tree algorithm was developed that improved the detection of aspiration with an accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 75%-87%), sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 90%-98%), and NPV of 97% (95% CI, 95%-99%). INTERPRETATION: The BSE demonstrates variable accuracy to identify patients at high risk for aspiration. Our decision tree algorithm may enhance the BSE and may be used to identify patients at high risk for aspiration, yet requires further validation. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02363686; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Rapid response teams (RRTs) respond to hospitalized patients with deterioration and help determine subsequent management, including ICU admission. In such patients with sepsis and septic shock, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) clinical criteria have a potential role in detection, risk stratification, and prognostication; however, their accuracy in comparison with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based septic shock criteria is unknown. We sought to evaluate prognostic accuracy of the Sepsis-3 criteria for in-hospital mortality among infected hospitalized patients with acute deterioration.Prospectively collected registry data (2012-2016) from two hospitals, including consecutive hospitalized patients with suspected infection seen by the RRT. We compared the Sepsis-3 criteria with the SIRS-based criteria for prediction of in-hospital mortality.Of 1,708 included patients, 418 (24.5%) met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria, whereas 545 (31.9%) met the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria had higher in-hospital mortality (40.9% vs 33.5%; P .0001), ICU admission (99.5% vs 89.2%; P .001), and discharge rates to long-term care (66.3% vs 53.7%; P .0001) than patients meeting the SIRS-based septic shock criteria, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment were 64.9% and 92.2% for prediction of in-hospital mortality, whereas SIRS criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.6% and 23.6%, respectively.Hospitalized patients with deterioration from suspected infection had higher risk of in-hospital mortality if they met the Sepsis-3 septic shock criteria than the SIRS-based septic shock criteria. Therefore, use of the Sepsis-3 criteria may be preferable in the prognostication and disposition of these patients who are critically ill.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a dangerous complication of heparin therapy. HIT diagnosis is established by recognizing thrombocytopenia and/or thrombosis in an affected patient and from the results of serological tests such as the platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin immunoassay (PF4 ELISA) and serotonin release assay (SRA). Recent studies suggest that HIT antibodies activate platelets by recognizing PF4 in a complex with platelet glycosaminoglycans (and/or polyphosphates) and that an assay based on this principle, the PF4-dependent P-selectin expression assay (PEA), may be even more accurate than the SRA for HIT diagnosis. Here, we demonstrate that the PEA detected pathogenic antibodies before the SRA became positive in two patients with HIT studied serially, in one case even before seropositivity in the PF4 ELISA. In one of the patients treated with plasma exchange, persistent dissociation between the PEA and SRA test results was observed. These results support a role for the PEA in early HIT diagnosis.

This article discusses the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia, as well as the use of antithrombotic agents, during pregnancy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 recommendations are weaker and imply that the magnitude of the benefits and risks, burden, and costs are less certain. Support for recommendations may come from high-quality, moderate-quality or low-quality studies; labeled, respectively, A, B, and C. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for pregnant women, in general, we recommend that vitamin K antagonists should be substituted with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [Grade 1A], except perhaps in women with mechanical heart valves. For pregnant patients, we suggest LMWH over UFH for the prevention and treatment of VTE (Grade 2C). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we recommend that subcutaneous LMWH or UFH should be continued throughout pregnancy (Grade 1B) and suggest that anticoagulants should be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a total minimum duration of therapy of 6 months) [Grade 2C]. For pregnant patients with a single prior episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present and no thrombophilia, we recommend clinical surveillance antepartum and anticoagulant prophylaxis postpartum (Grade 1C). For other pregnant women with a history of a single prior episode of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulant therapy, we recommend one of the following, rather than routine care or full-dose anticoagulation: antepartum prophylactic LMWH/UFH or intermediate-dose LMWH/UFH or clinical surveillance throughout pregnancy plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). For such patients with a higher risk thrombophilia, in addition to postpartum prophylaxis, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH, rather than clinical surveillance (Grade 2C). We suggest that pregnant women with multiple episodes of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulants receive antepartum prophylactic, intermediate-dose, or adjusted-dose LMWH or intermediate or adjusted-dose UFH, followed by postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). For those pregnant women with prior VTE who are receiving long-term anticoagulants, we recommend LMWH or UFH throughout pregnancy (either adjusted-dose LMWH or UFH, 75% of adjusted-dose LMWH, or intermediate-dose LMWH) followed by resumption of long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 1C). We suggest both antepartum and postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with no prior history of VTE but antithrombin deficiency (Grade 2C). For all other pregnant women with thrombophilia but no prior VTE, we suggest antepartum clinical surveillance or prophylactic LMWH or UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants, rather than routine care (Grade 2C). For women with recurrent early pregnancy loss or unexplained late pregnancy loss, we recommend screening for antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) [Grade 1A]. For women with these pregnancy complications who test positive for APLAs and have no history of venous or arterial thrombosis, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH combined with aspirin (Grade 1B). We recommend that the decision about anticoagulant management during pregnancy for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves include an assessment of additional risk factors for thromboembolism including valve type, position, and history of thromboembolism (Grade 1C). While patient values and preferences are important for all decisions regarding antithrombotic therapy in pregnancy, this is particularly so for women with mechanical heart valves. For these women, we recommend either adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or one of these two regimens until the thirteenth week with warfarin substitution until close to delivery before restarting LMWH or UFH) [Grade 1C]. However, if a pregnant woman with a mechanical heart valve is judged to be at very high risk of thromboembolism and there are concerns about the efficacy and safety of LMWH or UFH as dosed above, we suggest vitamin K antagonists throughout pregnancy with replacement by UFH or LMWH close to delivery, after a thorough discussion of the potential risks and benefits of this approach (Grade 2C).

This chapter about the use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S–187S ). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for women requiring long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy who are attempting pregnancy, we suggest performing frequent pregnancy tests and substituting unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for warfarin when pregnancy is achieved (Grade 2C). In women with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), we recommend adjusted-dose LMWH throughout pregnancy or IV UFH for at least 5 days, followed by adjusted-dose UFH or LMWH for the remainder of the pregnancy and at least 6 weeks postpartum (Grade 1C+). In patients with a single episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present, we recommend antepartum clinical surveillance and postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). In patients with a single episode of VTE and thrombophilia or strong family history of thrombosis and not receiving long-term anticoagulants, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or minidose or moderate-dose UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with multiple (two or more) episodes of VTE and/or women receiving long-term anticoagulants, we suggest antepartum adjusted-dose UFH or adjusted-dose LMWH followed by long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 2C). For pregnant patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) and a history of two or more early pregnancy losses or one or more late pregnancy losses, preeclampsia, intrauterine growth retardation, or abruption, we suggest antepartum aspirin plus minidose or moderate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH (Grade 2B). We suggest one of the following approaches for women with APLAs without prior VTE or pregnancy loss: surveillance, minidose heparin, prophylactic LMWH, and/or low-dose aspirin, 75 to 325 mg/d (all Grade 2C). In women with prosthetic heart valves, we recommend adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), aggressive adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or UFH or LMWH until the thirteenth week and then change to warfarin until the middle of the third trimester before restarting UFH or LMWH (Grade 1C). In high-risk women with prosthetic heart valves, we suggest the addition of low-dose aspirin, 75 to 162 mg/d (Grade 2C).

Objective testing for DVT is crucial because clinical assessment alone is unreliable and the consequences of misdiagnosis are serious. This guideline focuses on the identification of optimal strategies for the diagnosis of DVT in ambulatory adults.The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.We suggest that clinical assessment of pretest probability of DVT, rather than performing the same tests in all patients, should guide the diagnostic process for a first lower extremity DVT (Grade 2B). In patients with a low pretest probability of first lower extremity DVT, we recommend initial testing with D-dimer or ultrasound (US) of the proximal veins over no diagnostic testing (Grade 1B), venography (Grade 1B), or whole-leg US (Grade 2B). In patients with moderate pretest probability, we recommend initial testing with a highly sensitive D-dimer, proximal compression US, or whole-leg US rather than no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B). In patients with a high pretest probability, we recommend proximal compression or whole-leg US over no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B).Favored strategies for diagnosis of first DVT combine use of pretest probability assessment, D-dimer, and US. There is lower-quality evidence available to guide diagnosis of recurrent DVT, upper extremity DVT, and DVT during pregnancy.

A 56-year-old man presenting with a 6-month history of recurrent episodic hypotension and bradycardia was found to have limited-stage small cell lung cancer. During both quiescence and episodes of hemodynamic embarrassment, extensive evaluations were conducted. Possible explanations included the following: intermittent great vessel obstruction; baroreceptor failure/hypersensitivity; and autonomic dysfunction. His clinical course favored an antibody-negative dysautonomic paraneoplastic syndrome.

This chapter about the use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for women requiring long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy who are attempting pregnancy, we suggest performing frequent pregnancy tests and substituting unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for warfarin when pregnancy is achieved (Grade 2C). In women with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), we recommend adjusted-dose LMWH throughout pregnancy or IV UFH for at least 5 days, followed by adjusted-dose UFH or LMWH for the remainder of the pregnancy and at least 6 weeks postpartum (Grade 1C+). In patients with a single episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present, we recommend antepartum clinical surveillance and postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). In patients with a single episode of VTE and thrombophilia or strong family history of thrombosis and not receiving long-term anticoagulants, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or minidose or moderate-dose UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). In patients with multiple (two or more) episodes of VTE and/or women receiving long-term anticoagulants, we suggest antepartum adjusted-dose UFH or adjusted-dose LMWH followed by long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 2C). For pregnant patients with antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) and a history of two or more early pregnancy losses or one or more late pregnancy losses, preeclampsia, intrauterine growth retardation, or abruption, we suggest antepartum aspirin plus minidose or moderate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH (Grade 2B). We suggest one of the following approaches for women with APLAs without prior VTE or pregnancy loss: surveillance, minidose heparin, prophylactic LMWH, and/or low-dose aspirin, 75 to 325 mg/d (all Grade 2C). In women with prosthetic heart valves, we recommend adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), aggressive adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or UFH or LMWH until the thirteenth week and then change to warfarin until the middle of the third trimester before restarting UFH or LMWH (Grade 1C). In high-risk women with prosthetic heart valves, we suggest the addition of low-dose aspirin, 75 to 162 mg/d (Grade 2C).

Background Objective testing for DVT is crucial because clinical assessment alone is unreliable and the consequences of misdiagnosis are serious. This guideline focuses on the identification of optimal strategies for the diagnosis of DVT in ambulatory adults. Methods The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Results We suggest that clinical assessment of pretest probability of DVT, rather than performing the same tests in all patients, should guide the diagnostic process for a first lower extremity DVT (Grade 2B). In patients with a low pretest probability of first lower extremity DVT, we recommend initial testing with D-dimer or ultrasound (US) of the proximal veins over no diagnostic testing (Grade 1B), venography (Grade 1B), or whole-leg US (Grade 2B). In patients with moderate pretest probability, we recommend initial testing with a highly sensitive D-dimer, proximal compression US, or whole-leg US rather than no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B). In patients with a high pretest probability, we recommend proximal compression or whole-leg US over no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B). Conclusions Favored strategies for diagnosis of first DVT combine use of pretest probability assessment, D-dimer, and US. There is lower-quality evidence available to guide diagnosis of recurrent DVT, upper extremity DVT, and DVT during pregnancy.

Background The use of anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is challenging because of the potential for both fetal and maternal complications. This guideline focuses on the management of VTE and thrombophilia as well as the use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy. Methods The methods of this guideline follow the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. Results We recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention and treatment of VTE in pregnant women instead of unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we suggest that anticoagulants be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a minimum duration of therapy of 3 months) compared with shorter durations of treatment (Grade 2C). For women who fulfill the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid antibody (APLA) syndrome and meet the clinical APLA criteria based on a history of three or more pregnancy losses, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose unfractionated heparin or prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin combined with low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/d) over no treatment (Grade 1B). For women with inherited thrombophilia and a history of pregnancy complications, we suggest not to use antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For women with two or more miscarriages but without APLA or thrombophilia, we recommend against antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 1B). Conclusions Most recommendations in this guideline are based on observational studies and extrapolation from other populations. There is an urgent need for appropriately designed studies in this population.