Extended prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism after hospitalization for medical illness: A trial sequential and cumulative meta-analysis

The efficacy, safety, and clinical importance of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (EDT) for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical patients remain unclear. We compared the efficacy and safety of EDT in patients hospitalized for medical illness. Electronic databases of PubMed/MEDLI...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPLoS medicine Vol. 16; no. 4; p. e1002797
Main Authors Bajaj, Navkaranbir S., Vaduganathan, Muthiah, Qamar, Arman, Gupta, Kartik, Gupta, Ankur, Golwala, Harsh, Butler, Javed, Goldhaber, Samuel Z., Mehra, Mandeep R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 29.04.2019
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The efficacy, safety, and clinical importance of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (EDT) for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical patients remain unclear. We compared the efficacy and safety of EDT in patients hospitalized for medical illness. Electronic databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 21, 2019. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting use of EDT for prevention of VTE. We performed trial sequential and cumulative meta-analyses to evaluate EDT effects on the primary efficacy endpoint of symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major or fatal bleeding, and all-cause mortality. The pooled number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one symptomatic or fatal VTE event and the number needed to harm (NNH) to cause one major or fatal bleeding event were calculated. Across 5 RCTs with 40,247 patients (mean age: 67-77 years, proportion of women: 48%-54%, most common reason for admission: heart failure), the duration of EDT ranged from 24-47 days. EDT reduced symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death compared with standard of care (0.8% versus 1.2%; risk ratio [RR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002). EDT increased risk of ISTH major or fatal bleeding (0.6% versus 0.3%; RR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.42-2.91; p < 0.001) in both meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Pooled NNT to prevent one symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death was 250 (95% CI: 167-500), whereas NNH to cause one major or fatal bleeding event was 333 (95% CI: 200-1,000). Limitations of the study include variation in enrollment criteria, individual therapies, duration of EDT, and VTE detection protocols across included trials. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials, we observed that use of a post-hospital discharge EDT strategy for a 4-to-6-week period reduced symptomatic or fatal VTE events at the expense of increased risk of major or fatal bleeding. Further investigations are still required to define the risks and benefits in discrete medically ill cohorts, evaluate cost-effectiveness, and develop pathways for targeted implementation of this postdischarge EDT strategy. PROSPERO CRD42018109151.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
These authors share first authorship on this work.
We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: NSB is supported by American College of Cardiology Presidential Career Development Award and NIH/NCATS Award UL1TR001417. MV is supported by the KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training award from Harvard Catalyst (NIH/NCATS Award UL 1TR002541) and serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, and Baxter Healthcare. AQ is supported by the NHLBI T32 postdoctoral training grant (T32HL007604) and the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network in Vascular Disease grant (18SFRN3390085). JB has received research support from the NIH and European Union and has been a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVRx, Janssen, Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Vifor Pharma, and ZS Pharma. SZG receives honoraria for consulting activities from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Portola, Agile, eXlthera, and Soleno and receives research support from BiO2 Medical; Boehringer Ingelheim; BMS; BTG EKOS; Daiichi; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; Janssen; and the Thrombosis Research Institute. MRM is a consultant to Portola, Bayer, Janssen, Abbott, Medtronic, NupulseCV and Fineheart. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1549-1676
1549-1277
1549-1676
DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002797