Cargando…
A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness
BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparins for cancer patients requiring hospitalization for acute medical illness. However, a recently published meta-analysis suggested that the risk-benefit ratio of current thromboproph...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0040-6 |
_version_ | 1782481240957386752 |
---|---|
author | Moretto, Patricia Park, Junghyun Rodger, Marc Le Gal, Grégoire Carrier, Marc |
author_facet | Moretto, Patricia Park, Junghyun Rodger, Marc Le Gal, Grégoire Carrier, Marc |
author_sort | Moretto, Patricia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparins for cancer patients requiring hospitalization for acute medical illness. However, a recently published meta-analysis suggested that the risk-benefit ratio of current thromboprophylaxis regimens administered to all cancer patients admitted for medical illness is unclear. We sought to assess the clinical equipoise in using thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medically ill cancer patients. METHODS: An electronic survey was conducted. The target sample included Thrombosis experts and members of Thrombosis Canada or the VECTOR research group. RESULTS: The survey was distributed 54 participants. The final response rate was 67% (36/54). The majority (75%; 95% CI: 60.3 to 85%) of responders indicated that the benefits of pharmacological parenteral thromboprophylaxis outweigh the risks. However, 63.9% (95% CI: 50.6 to 77.3%) believe that there is still clinical equipoise around the use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population, and 88.9% (95% CI: 77.3 to 95.8%) would consider participating in a randomized trial—30.6% and 58.3% in a placebo-controlled or comparison of different agents/dosing-controlled randomized trial, respectively. For participants who would consider a randomized-controlled trial comparing different doses of thromboprophylaxis agents, the MCID was 2% between the two arms. The most common drug to be compared was enoxaparin (26%), and the two suggested doses were 30 mg and 40 mg SC twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical survey of thrombosis experts confirms that there is equipoise regarding the use of current regimens of parenteral pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in medically ill cancer patients. A majority of physicians would participate in a randomized-controlled trial comparing different dose of LMWH. The MCID in the risk of VTE identified was 2%. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4338621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43386212015-02-25 A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness Moretto, Patricia Park, Junghyun Rodger, Marc Le Gal, Grégoire Carrier, Marc Thromb J Original Clinical Investigation BACKGROUND: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparins for cancer patients requiring hospitalization for acute medical illness. However, a recently published meta-analysis suggested that the risk-benefit ratio of current thromboprophylaxis regimens administered to all cancer patients admitted for medical illness is unclear. We sought to assess the clinical equipoise in using thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medically ill cancer patients. METHODS: An electronic survey was conducted. The target sample included Thrombosis experts and members of Thrombosis Canada or the VECTOR research group. RESULTS: The survey was distributed 54 participants. The final response rate was 67% (36/54). The majority (75%; 95% CI: 60.3 to 85%) of responders indicated that the benefits of pharmacological parenteral thromboprophylaxis outweigh the risks. However, 63.9% (95% CI: 50.6 to 77.3%) believe that there is still clinical equipoise around the use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population, and 88.9% (95% CI: 77.3 to 95.8%) would consider participating in a randomized trial—30.6% and 58.3% in a placebo-controlled or comparison of different agents/dosing-controlled randomized trial, respectively. For participants who would consider a randomized-controlled trial comparing different doses of thromboprophylaxis agents, the MCID was 2% between the two arms. The most common drug to be compared was enoxaparin (26%), and the two suggested doses were 30 mg and 40 mg SC twice daily. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical survey of thrombosis experts confirms that there is equipoise regarding the use of current regimens of parenteral pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in medically ill cancer patients. A majority of physicians would participate in a randomized-controlled trial comparing different dose of LMWH. The MCID in the risk of VTE identified was 2%. BioMed Central 2015-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4338621/ /pubmed/25713501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0040-6 Text en © Morretto et al. ; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Original Clinical Investigation Moretto, Patricia Park, Junghyun Rodger, Marc Le Gal, Grégoire Carrier, Marc A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title | A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title_full | A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title_fullStr | A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title_full_unstemmed | A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title_short | A survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
title_sort | survey of thrombosis experts evaluating practices and opinions regarding venous thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer hospitalized with an acute medical illness |
topic | Original Clinical Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0040-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morettopatricia asurveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT parkjunghyun asurveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT rodgermarc asurveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT legalgregoire asurveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT carriermarc asurveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT morettopatricia surveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT parkjunghyun surveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT rodgermarc surveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT legalgregoire surveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness AT carriermarc surveyofthrombosisexpertsevaluatingpracticesandopinionsregardingvenousthromboprophylaxisinpatientswithactivecancerhospitalizedwithanacutemedicalillness |