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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moretto, Patricia, Park, Junghyun, Rodger, Marc, Le Gal, Grégoire, Carrier, Marc
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