Search

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thrombosis. The implementation of a cancer associated thrombosis clinic can be instrumental for the prevention, early recognition, and management of venous thromboembolism in this vulnerable population. Cancer thrombosis clinics rely on a multidisciplinary approach to care and require standardization along with a dedicated team of healthcare professionals. Cancer thrombosis clinics have the potential to improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare expenditure. Herein, we describe a successful model of a cancer thrombosis clinic and highlight the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thrombosis. The implementation of a cancer associated thrombosis clinic can be instrumental for the prevention, early recognition, and management of venous thromboembolism in this vulnerable population. Cancer thrombosis clinics rely on a multidisciplinary approach to care and require standardization along with a dedicated team of healthcare professionals. Cancer thrombosis clinics have the potential to improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare expenditure. Herein, we describe a successful model of a cancer thrombosis clinic and highlight the potential impact on clinical outcomes.

Background Previous studies suggest isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) has a self-limited clinical course. However, these studies excluded cancer patients, who remain a high-risk population. In addition, studies to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of IDDVT in cancer patients have been limited. Here, we report outcomes from our experience in treating cancer-associated IDDVT versus proximal venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods We prospectively evaluated a cohort of patients referred to our cancer-associated thrombosis clinic from August 2014 through May 2018. We compared clinical characteristics, anticoagulation prescription, VTE recurrence, overall survival, major bleeding, and subsequent hospital admission between cancer patients with IDDVT and proximal VTE. A propensity score matching method was used to reduce bias from confounding variables. Results Of 1100 patients referred to the clinic, 124 IDDVT and 178 proximal VTE events were analyzed. After propensity score matching, 96 patients were included in each cohort. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent VTE between cancer patients with proximal VTE vs IDDVT, with or without matching (matched: hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-1.92; P = .58). There was no difference in overall survival between cancer patients with proximal VTE vs. IDDVT with or without matching (matched: HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.82; P = .45). Furthermore, subsequent hospital admissions and major bleeding events were similar between patients with proximal VTE events versus IDDVT. Conclusions Cancer patients with IDDVT have similar outcomes as their proximal counterparts, including rate of recurrence and overall survival. These findings suggest treatment of cancer-associated IDDVT should mirror treatment of proximal events.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization in cancer patients. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility of an electronic alert to identify and screen at‐risk individuals and gather rates of early detection of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Patients/Methods An alert was built into the electronic medical record based on a validated risk tool (Khorana Score [KS]) and outcomes evaluated in an initial silent phase. The alert functioned in real time to warn physicians of high‐risk patients (KS ≥ 3) and suggested lower extremity screening ultrasonography in a subsequent active phase. Results Of 194 consecutive patients identified as high risk in the silent phase, 14 (7.2%) developed subsequent DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE) over 90‐day follow‐up, with a median of 27 days. Mean 90‐day emergency room (ER) visits, all‐cause admissions, and length of stay (days) for patients with DVT were 1.2, 1.6, and 9.1 compared to 0.89, 0.93, and 5.1 for all patients, respectively. In the active phase, 197 consecutive alerts met inclusion criteria, and 40 patients (20.3%) received a screening ultrasound. Five (12.5%) had a DVT and were started on therapeutic anticoagulation. Of patients with alerts who had screening deferred, 13 (8.3%) were later diagnosed with DVT (median 50.5 days) and 7 (4.5%) with PE. Conclusion An automated alert may have value in early detection of DVT in high‐risk cancer patients leading to earlier intervention, and could potentially prevent VTE‐related morbidity.

COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) is associated with coagulopathy through numerous mechanisms. The reported incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has varied widely, and several meta-analyses have been performed to assess the overall prevalence of VTE. The novelty of this coronavirus strain along with its unique mechanisms for microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis has led to uncertainty as to how to diagnose, prevent, and treat thrombosis in patients affected by this virus. This review discusses the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection along with an updated review on the preventative and treatment strategies for VTE associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The life expectancy of persons with hemophilia (PWH) has increased almost 10-fold over the past seven decades, largely due to access to safe factor replacement products. Concomitant with this success, however, comes the burden of aging. Older PWH are developing similar comorbidities as the general population, including increasing rates of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, which predispose them to chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). How their coagulopathy affects the expression of these conditions remains unclear. In addition, the elderly hemophilia population must cope with chronic joint arthropathy, which provokes falls and fractures, and complications related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, which greatly impact the incidence of cancer and liver disease. With a dearth of evidence-based guidelines to direct therapy, a new challenge has arisen for hematologists to optimally manage these complex age-related issues. This review will focus on common complications affecting the older hemophilia population, including joint disease, CVD, malignancy, renal insufficiency, and liver disease.