Search

The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolism Disease evidence-based guidelines are now updated in a more frequent, focused manner. Guidance statements from the most recent full guidelines and two subsequent updates have not been gathered into a single source. An international panel of experts with experience in prior antithrombotic therapy guideline development reviewed the 2012 CHEST antithrombotic therapy guidelines and its two subsequent updates. All guideline statements and their associated patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions were assembled. A modified Delphi process was used to select statements considered relevant to current clinical care. The panel further endorsed minor phrasing changes to match the standard language for guidance statements using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (ie, GRADE) format endorsed by the CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee. The panel appended comments after statements deemed as relevant, including suggesting that statements be updated in future guidelines because of interval evidence. We include 58 guidance statements from prior versions of the antithrombotic therapy guidelines, with updated phrasing as needed to adhere to contemporary nomenclature. Statements were classified as strong or weak recommendations based on high-certainty, moderate-certainty, and low-certainty evidence using GRADE methodology. The panel suggested that five statements are no longer relevant to current practice. As CHEST continues to update guidance statements relevant to antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease, this article serves as a unified collection of currenrtly relevant statements from the preceding three guidelines. Suggestions have been made to update specific statements in future publications., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: L. B. K. reports receiving research funding from CSL Behring and Takeda to her institution for unrelated research. None declared S. M. S., S. C. W., K. D., G.-J. G., F. A. K., C. S. K., S. M., J. R. E. V., P. S. W., S. W., and L. K. M., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treated with catheter-based thrombolysis and venous stenting, poststenting anticoagulant management is uncertain., Objectives: To determine the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy used in patients who have received venous stents for treatment of acute lower extremity DVT., Methods: We created an international registry of patients with leg DVT from 2005 to 2019 who received venous stents as part of their acute management. We collected data on baseline clinical characteristics and pre-venous and post-venous stent antithrombotic therapy., Results: We studied 173 patients with venous stents: 101 (58%) were aged ≤50 years, 105 (61%) were female, and 128 (74%) had risk factors for thrombotic disease. DVT was iliofemoral in 150 (87%) patients, and catheter-based treatment was given within 7 days of diagnosis in 92 (53%) patients. After venous stenting, 109 (63%) patients received anticoagulant-only therapy with a direct oral anticoagulant (29%), warfarin (22%), or low-molecular-weight heparin (10%), and 59 (34%) received anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy. In patients taking anticoagulant-only therapy, 29% received indefinite treatment; in patients on anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy, 19% received indefinite treatment. Factors associated with combined anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulant-only therapy were use of thrombolytic, thrombectomy, and aspiration interventions (odds ratio [OR], 5.11; 95% CI, 1.45-18.05); use of balloon angioplasty (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.76); and immediate stent restenosis (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 1.45-5.89)., Conclusion: Anticoagulant therapy without concomitant antiplatelet therapy appears to be the most common antithrombotic strategy in patients with DVT and venous stenting. More research is needed to determine outcomes of venous stenting in relation to antithrombotic therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests J.D.D. reports personal fees from Pfizer, Servier, Fresinius-Kabi, and Leo Pharma; and grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research outside the submitted work. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome remain controversial., Objectives: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 9, 2022. The 2 main efficacy outcomes were a composite of arterial thrombotic events and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Random effects models with inverse variance were used., Results: Our search retrieved 253 studies. Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included (mean control-arm time-in-therapeutic-range 60%). All had proper random sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment. Overall, the use of DOACs compared with VKAs was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (OR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.87-15.75; P < 0.001, I 2  = 0%), especially stroke, and the composite of arterial thrombotic events or VTE (OR: 4.46; 95% CI: 1.12-17.84; P = 0.03, I 2  = 0%). The odds of subsequent VTE (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.31-4.55; P = 0.79, I 2  = 0%), or major bleeding (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.42-2.47; P = 0.97; I 2  = 0%) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups., Conclusions: Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome randomized to DOACs compared with VKAs appear to have increased risk for arterial thrombosis. No significant differences were observed between patients randomized to DOACs vs VKAs in the risk of subsequent VTE or major bleeding., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Piazza has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen, and Boston Scientific Corporation; and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Boston Scientific Corporation, Janssen, Namsa, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Boston Clinical Research Institute, and Amgen. Dr Jiménez has received research support from Daiichi-Sankyo and Sanofi; and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, Rovi, and Sanofi. Dr Monreal has received research support from Sanofi, Leo, and Rovi; and has received consulting fees from Sanofi. Dr Pengo has received lecture fees from Werfen Group. Dr Cortes-Hernandez has received institutional research funding from Bayer Hispania to conduct the APS RCT. Dr Connors has received research funding to her institution from CSL Behring; has received consulting fees from Abbott; has received honoraria for lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, and Sanofi; and has participated on the advisory board of Abbott, Alnylam, Anthos, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. Dr Kanthi is an inventor on a pending patent application by the University of Michigan on the use of biogases in vascular disease (US202201670756A1); and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Intramural Research Program and the Lasker Foundation. Dr Krumholz has received (within the last 3 years) expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Reality Labs, Tesseract/4Catalyst, F-Prime, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, the Arnold and Porter Law Firm, and the Martin/Baughman Law Firm; is a cofounder of Refactor Health, an enterprise health care artificial intelligence–augmented data management company, and HugoHealth, a personal health information platform; and is associated with contracts through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson. Dr Middeldorp has received grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received personal fees from Portola/Alexion, Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb Pfizer, Norgine, and Viatris, all paid to her institution. Dr Falanga has received honoraria/consulting fees from Stago, Sanofi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer. Dr Goldhaber has received research support from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific BTG EKOS, Janssen, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Agile, Bayer, and Pfizer. Dr Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to 2 specific brand models of IVC filters; and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women's Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians (#938814). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: This is the 2nd update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously., Methods: We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high-, moderate-, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology., Results: The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of VTE from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of postthrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements have been added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or 1st update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the 1st update., Conclusion: New evidence has emerged since 2016 that further informs the standard of care for patients with VTE. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This is the 2nd update to the 9th edition of these guidelines. We provide recommendations on 17 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions, four of which have not been addressed previously., Methods: We generate strong and weak recommendations based on high-, moderate-, and low-certainty evidence, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology., Results: The panel generated 29 guidance statements, 13 of which are graded as strong recommendations, covering aspects of antithrombotic management of VTE from initial management through secondary prevention and risk reduction of postthrombotic syndrome. Four new guidance statements have been added that did not appear in the 9th edition (2012) or 1st update (2016). Eight statements have been substantially modified from the 1st update., Conclusion: New evidence has emerged since 2016 that further informs the standard of care for patients with VTE. Substantial uncertainty remains regarding important management questions, particularly in limited disease and special patient populations., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Randomized acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials testing various antithrombotic (AT) regimens have largely excluded patients with coexisting conditions and indications for anticoagulation (AC). The purpose of this study is to examine the 2-year clinical outcomes of patients with ACS with indication for AC due to venous thromboembolism (VTE) during hospitalization for the ACS event or a prior or new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) with a CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure; Hypertension; Age; Diabetes; previous ischemic Stroke) score ⩾2., Methods: ACS patients with AC indication from 2004 to 2009 were identified (n = 619). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the primary efficacy outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The primary explanatory variable was at-discharge antithrombotic strategy [single antiplatelet ± AC, dual antiplatelet (DAP) ± AC or AC only; referent DAP + AC]., Results: A total of 261 (42.2%) patients had a MACE event. AT strategy was not a significant factor for MACE (all p > 0.09). The factors associated with MACE were high mortality risk score [hazard ratio (HR)=1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39- 2.52; p < 0.001), prior MI (HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.03-2.01; p= 0.033) and presentation of ST elevation MI (HR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.61-4.51; p < 0.001) or non-ST elevation MI (HR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.15-2.49; p < 0.001) compared with angina., Conclusions: In this real world observational study, the at-discharge AT strategy was not significantly associated with the 2-year risk of MACE. These findings do not negate the need for randomized trials to generate evidence-based approaches to management of this important population., (© The Author(s), 2016.)

Background: We update recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines, and address 3 new topics., Methods: We generate strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high- (Grade A), moderate- (Grade B), and low- (Grade C) quality evidence., Results: For VTE and no cancer, as long-term anticoagulant therapy, we suggest dabigatran (Grade 2B), rivaroxaban (Grade 2B), apixaban (Grade 2B), or edoxaban (Grade 2B) over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy, and suggest VKA therapy over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; Grade 2C). For VTE and cancer, we suggest LMWH over VKA (Grade 2B), dabigatran (Grade 2C), rivaroxaban (Grade 2C), apixaban (Grade 2C), or edoxaban (Grade 2C). We have not changed recommendations for who should stop anticoagulation at 3 months or receive extended therapy. For VTE treated with anticoagulants, we recommend against an inferior vena cava filter (Grade 1B). For DVT, we suggest not using compression stockings routinely to prevent PTS (Grade 2B). For subsegmental pulmonary embolism and no proximal DVT, we suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation with a low risk of recurrent VTE (Grade 2C), and anticoagulation over clinical surveillance with a high risk (Grade 2C). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism with hypotension (Grade 2B), and systemic therapy over catheter-directed thrombolysis (Grade 2C). For recurrent VTE on a non-LMWH anticoagulant, we suggest LMWH (Grade 2C); for recurrent VTE on LMWH, we suggest increasing the LMWH dose (Grade 2C)., Conclusions: Of 54 recommendations included in the 30 statements, 20 were strong and none was based on high-quality evidence, highlighting the need for further research., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)