Cargando…

Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?

Venous thromboembolism [VTE] is a common medical condition that has significant morbidity and mortality. Although stringent guidelines recommend lifelong anticoagulation for patients with unprovoked VTE, the optimal management strategy for their long term treatment remains controversial. Whereas in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moodley, Otto, Goubran, Hadi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500456
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0063-z
_version_ 1782396938414456832
author Moodley, Otto
Goubran, Hadi
author_facet Moodley, Otto
Goubran, Hadi
author_sort Moodley, Otto
collection PubMed
description Venous thromboembolism [VTE] is a common medical condition that has significant morbidity and mortality. Although stringent guidelines recommend lifelong anticoagulation for patients with unprovoked VTE, the optimal management strategy for their long term treatment remains controversial. Whereas in cancer-associated VTE and second unprovoked VTE lifelong anticoagulation is universally accepted, a careful analysis of the benefit vs. risk of long-term anticoagulation following a first unprovoked VTE should be considered as case fatality rates [CFR] from VTE appear more pronounced in the first few months. The CFR from major bleeding remains constant throughout therapy. Therefore, the risk of bleeding may be underestimated over longer treatment periods relative to the morbidity of recurrent VTE which appears to peak in the first year. The current review highlights the balance between the recurrence risk and bleeding risks in the era of direct oral anticoagulants. Vitamin K antagonists have been the standard of care for over 50 years bearing significant bleeding risks. The new oral anticoagulants [NOACs] have shown similar efficacy and perhaps a questionable improved safety profile when compared to warfarin. Aspirin has historically not been a useful agent in the management of VTE. However, two recent trials [WARFASA and ASPIRE] showed a likely 20-30 % risk reduction when compared to placebo for recurrent VTE after initial anticoagulation. The risk of major hemorrhage was low in both trials. With the emergence of NOACs and the increased utility of aspirin, there are multiple therapeutic options for long term management for VTE. Given comparable efficacy and improved safety of NOACs and aspirin, the risk benefit of anticoagulation is improving. A risk stratification model may help identifying patients at high risk for recurrence necessitating a lifelong anticoagulation. This cohort should be separated from a low risk group that may benefit from clinical observation, aspirin or NOACs. Prospective clinical trials are needed to support these clinical observations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4618533
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46185332015-10-25 Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited? Moodley, Otto Goubran, Hadi Thromb J Review Venous thromboembolism [VTE] is a common medical condition that has significant morbidity and mortality. Although stringent guidelines recommend lifelong anticoagulation for patients with unprovoked VTE, the optimal management strategy for their long term treatment remains controversial. Whereas in cancer-associated VTE and second unprovoked VTE lifelong anticoagulation is universally accepted, a careful analysis of the benefit vs. risk of long-term anticoagulation following a first unprovoked VTE should be considered as case fatality rates [CFR] from VTE appear more pronounced in the first few months. The CFR from major bleeding remains constant throughout therapy. Therefore, the risk of bleeding may be underestimated over longer treatment periods relative to the morbidity of recurrent VTE which appears to peak in the first year. The current review highlights the balance between the recurrence risk and bleeding risks in the era of direct oral anticoagulants. Vitamin K antagonists have been the standard of care for over 50 years bearing significant bleeding risks. The new oral anticoagulants [NOACs] have shown similar efficacy and perhaps a questionable improved safety profile when compared to warfarin. Aspirin has historically not been a useful agent in the management of VTE. However, two recent trials [WARFASA and ASPIRE] showed a likely 20-30 % risk reduction when compared to placebo for recurrent VTE after initial anticoagulation. The risk of major hemorrhage was low in both trials. With the emergence of NOACs and the increased utility of aspirin, there are multiple therapeutic options for long term management for VTE. Given comparable efficacy and improved safety of NOACs and aspirin, the risk benefit of anticoagulation is improving. A risk stratification model may help identifying patients at high risk for recurrence necessitating a lifelong anticoagulation. This cohort should be separated from a low risk group that may benefit from clinical observation, aspirin or NOACs. Prospective clinical trials are needed to support these clinical observations. BioMed Central 2015-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4618533/ /pubmed/26500456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0063-z Text en © Moodley and Goubran. 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 Review
Moodley, Otto
Goubran, Hadi
Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title_full Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title_fullStr Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title_full_unstemmed Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title_short Should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
title_sort should lifelong anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism be revisited?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500456
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12959-015-0063-z
work_keys_str_mv AT moodleyotto shouldlifelonganticoagulationforunprovokedvenousthromboembolismberevisited
AT goubranhadi shouldlifelonganticoagulationforunprovokedvenousthromboembolismberevisited