Some patients who have presented a thromboembolic event persist with a high risk of recurrence despite anticoagulant treatment. It has been suggested that adding an inferior vena cava filter may reduce this risk, but the clinical effects of this measure are not clear. To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources. We identified three systematic reviews including four randomized trials answering this question. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded there might be little or no difference on the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis by adding an inferior vena cava filter in anticoagulated patients, and it is not clear whether there are differences in the occurrence of pulmonary embolism or mortality because the certainty of evidence is very low.
BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are becoming an impetus for quality health care delivery by nurses. The use of ICTs by nurses can impact their practice, modifying the ways in which they plan, provide, document, and review clinical care.
OBJECTIVE: An overview of systematic reviews was conducted to develop a broad picture of the dimensions and indicators of nursing care that have the potential to be influenced by the use of ICTs.
METHODS: Quantitative, mixed-method, and qualitative reviews that aimed to evaluate the influence of four eHealth domains (eg, management, computerized decision support systems [CDSSs], communication, and information systems) on nursing care were included. We used the nursing care performance framework (NCPF) as an extraction grid and analytical tool. This model illustrates how the interplay between nursing resources and the nursing services can produce changes in patient conditions. The primary outcomes included nurses' practice environment, nursing processes, professional satisfaction, and nursing-sensitive outcomes. The secondary outcomes included satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs according to nurses' and patients' perspectives. Reviews published in English, French, or Spanish from January 1, 1995 to January 15, 2015, were considered.
RESULTS: A total of 5515 titles or abstracts were assessed for eligibility and full-text papers of 72 articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation. It was found that 22 reviews published between 2002 and 2015 met the eligibility criteria. Many nursing care themes (ie, indicators) were influenced by the use of ICTs, including time management; time spent on patient care; documentation time; information quality and access; quality of documentation; knowledge updating and utilization; nurse autonomy; intra and interprofessional collaboration; nurses' competencies and skills; nurse-patient relationship; assessment, care planning, and evaluation; teaching of patients and families; communication and care coordination; perspectives of the quality of care provided; nurses and patients satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs; patient comfort and quality of life related to care; empowerment; and functional status.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings led to the identification of 19 indicators related to nursing care that are impacted by the use of ICTs. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first attempt to apply NCPF in the ICTs' context. This broad representation could be kept in mind when it will be the time to plan and to implement emerging ICTs in health care settings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42014014762; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014014762 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pIhMLBZh).
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.
Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from ‘real-world’ postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk–benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an ‘evidence summary’ approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.
Idiopathic thromboembolic disease presents a high risk of recurrence. There is controversy about the effects of aspirin in reducing this risk after the completion of anticoagulant treatment. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which screens 30 databases, we identified four systematic reviews that together include two randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded that aspirin administered after having completed anticoagulation reduces the risk of recurrence, probably without importantly increasing the risk of hemorrhage.
The preferred dosification for low molecular weight heparins is in two doses for most patients with venous thromboembolic disease. A daily dose would make treatment simpler, less expensive and more comfortable while retaining a similar benefit and safety. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified two systematic reviews including five randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether the risk of recurrence differs between the two alternatives because the certainty of the evidence is very low, and that administering low molecular weight heparin in two doses might be associated to little or no difference in the risk of major bleeding and mortality.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy.
DESIGN AND SETTINGS: As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer.
METHODS: Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS: Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?
RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?
RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?
RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?
RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism?
RECOMMENDATION: In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE?
RECOMMENDATION: In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. After diagnosis, its management frequently carries significant challenges to the clinical practitioner. Treatment of VTE with the inappropriate modality and/or in the inappropriate setting may lead to serious complications and have life-threatening consequences. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University Guideline working group, this clinical practice guideline was produced to assist health care providers in VTE management. Two questions were identified and were related to the inpatient versus outpatient treatment of acute DVT, and the early versus standard discharge from hospital for patients with acute PE. The corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.
BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis reduces the risk for venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). New oral anticoagulants (NOACs), including direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors, are emerging options for thromboprophylaxis after these procedures.
PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and risks of NOACs versus standard thromboprophylaxis for adults having THR or TKR.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2009 through March 2013.
STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Six good-quality systematic reviews compared NOACs with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis after THR or TKR. Risk for symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, but not risk for death or nonfatal pulmonary embolism, was reduced with factor Xa inhibitors compared with LMWH (4 fewer events per 1000 patients). Conversely, the risk for major bleeding increased (2 more events per 1000 patients). Outcomes of dabigatran did not significantly differ from those of LMWH. Indirect evaluation of NOACs by common comparison with LMWH showed nonsignificantly reduced risks for venous thromboembolism with rivaroxaban compared with dabigatran (risk ratio [RR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.21 to 2.23]) and apixaban (RR, 0.59 [CI, 0.26 to 1.33]) but increased major bleeding. New oral anticoagulants have not been compared with warfarin, aspirin, or unfractionated heparin.
LIMITATIONS: Head-to-head comparisons among NOACs were not available. Efficacy is uncertain in routine clinical practice.
CONCLUSION: New oral anticoagulants are effective for thromboprophylaxis after THR and TKR. Their clinical benefits over LMWH are marginal and offset by increased risk for major bleeding.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Some patients who have presented a thromboembolic event persist with a high risk of recurrence despite anticoagulant treatment. It has been suggested that adding an inferior vena cava filter may reduce this risk, but the clinical effects of this measure are not clear. To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources. We identified three systematic reviews including four randomized trials answering this question. We extracted data, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded there might be little or no difference on the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis by adding an inferior vena cava filter in anticoagulated patients, and it is not clear whether there are differences in the occurrence of pulmonary embolism or mortality because the certainty of evidence is very low.
