Citations

Background: Guidelines recommend placement of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters in patients with acute thrombotic episodes and a concurrent contraindication to anticoagulation, however filter placement during or immediately postpartum presents significant technical challenges. The use and complications of IVC filters in the peripartum period is poorly documented in current literature. Objective(s): To evaluate the use of and outcomes related to IVC filters in an obstetric population at a large tertiary care center. Study Design: Retrospective review of all patients at a tertiary academic medical center from 2001-2016 who either conceived with an IVC filter in place or underwent IVC filter placement during the antepartum or postpartum interval. Manual abstraction of each chart was performed, with data stored in a RedCap database. Results: A total of 24 patients were included in the final analysis: 5 with IVC filter placement prior to pregnancy, 7 with antepartum placement, and 12 with postpartum placement. One patient had multiple pregnancies during our study timeframe and was therefore included twice. The cohort of postpartum placement were the youngest mean age (23.7 years), had a higher number of IVC filters placed for polytrauma (n=4), and had the shortest time to removal (135.9 days). The vast majority (91.3%) of IVC filters placed during pregnancy were retrievable filters in the suprarenal position, while most deployed in an infrarenal position (83.3%) when placed prior to conception. Complications encountered included multiple attempts to remove IVC filter, severe angulation, embedded struts, fracture, and one case of cardiac tamponade during filter placement requiring emergent sternotomy and evacuation. Of the filters requiring multiple attempts for removal, in 1 patient (4%) it was unable to be removed despite multiple attempts and the filter was ultimately left in situ. Complications were more common when placement was performed prior to pregnancy or antepartum (40% and 57.1% respectively) versus postpartum (16.7%). From an obstetrical perspective, 1 patient (4%) required early preterm delivery due to preeclampsia; 1 maternal death occurred in a postpartum patient who experienced a massive pulmonary embolism and subsequently died despite emergent thrombectomy and IVC filter placement, and 1 neonatal death occurred due to congenital heart disease following periviable preterm delivery. Conclusion(s): In our study across 16 years at a large academic medical center we identified 23 patients who had an IVC filter placed prior to pregnancy or placed during the antepartum or postpartum periods. Data from our experience suggested a higher incidence of complications with preconceptual and antepartum placement, although the majority of these did not impact clinical outcomes. While not frequently needed, IVC filters remain an option for clinicians treating pregnant and postpartum patients but should be considered a last resource as they can lead to various complications.

Abstract Background Published data on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are scarce and inconclusive, leading to an unmet need for further studies. Methods A retrospective, multicentered study of adult patients vaccinated for one of the three approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States of America and a pre-COVID-19 cohort of patients vaccinated for influenza at two institutions: Mayo Clinic Enterprise sites and the Medical College of Wisconsin, looking at rate of VTE over 90 days. VTE was identified by applying validated natural language processing algorithms to relevant imaging studies. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to evaluate rate of VTE and Cox proportional hazard models for incident VTE after vaccinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed for age, sex, outpatient versus inpatient status, and type of COVID-19 vaccine. Results A total of 911,381 study subjects received COVID-19 vaccine (mean age: 56.8 [standard deviation, SD: 18.3] years, 55.3% females) and 442,612 received influenza vaccine (mean age: 56.5 [SD: 18.3] years, 58.7% females). VTE occurred within 90 days in 1,498 (0.11%) of the total 1,353,993 vaccinations: 882 (0.10%) in the COVID-19 and 616 (0.14%) in the influenza vaccination cohort. After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no difference in VTE event rate after COVID-19 vaccination compared with influenza vaccination (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.85–1.05]). No significant difference in VTE rates was observed between the two cohorts on sensitivity analyses. Conclusion In this large cohort of COVID-19-vaccinated patients, risk of VTE at 90 days was low and no different than a pre-COVID-19 cohort of influenza-vaccinated patients.

ImportancePatterns of clinical utilization and comparative effectiveness of anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remain largely unexplored.ObjectivesTo assess patterns of and factors associated with anticoagulant use and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary anticoagulants in patients with active cancer in a clinical setting.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study obtained deidentified OptumLabs electronic health record claims data from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary cancer diagnosis (except skin cancer) during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits within 6 months before the venous thromboembolism (VTE) date were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to September 2021.ExposuresThe patients were grouped according to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and (3) warfarin.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOdds ratios (ORs) were used to present the association between factors of interest and utilization of anticoagulants. Main efficacy outcomes included risk of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality. Main safety outcomes included the risk of hospitalization due to major bleeding. Relative treatment effect estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.ResultsThis study included 5100 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [12.3] years; 2670 [52.4%] women; 799 [15.7%] Black, 389 [7.6%] Hispanic, and 3559 [69.8%] White individuals). Overall, 2512 (49.3%), 1488 (29.2%), and 1460 (28.6%) filled prescriptions for DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin, respectively. The median (IQR) treatment duration was 3.2 (1.0-6.5) months for DOACs, 3.1 (1.0-6.8) months for warfarin, and 1.8 (0.9-3.8) months for LWMH. Patients with lung (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.65), urological (OR, 1.94; 95% CI,1.08-3.49), gynecological (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.31-7.82), and colorectal (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.20-4.32) cancer were associated with increased prescriptions for LMWH compared with DOACs. LMWH (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90) and warfarin (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87) were associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrences compared with DOACs. LMWH was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.62-3.20) and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25) compared with DOACs.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study of claims-based data, patients with CAT received anticoagulation for a remarkably short duration in clinical settings. DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and those with poor persistence on LMWH.

Background Hereditary and acquired thrombophilia are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether testing helps guide management decisions is controversial. Objective These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about thrombophilia testing. Methods ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel covering clinical and methodological expertise and minimizing bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre provided logistical support, performed systematic reviews, and created evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision tables. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was used. Recommendations were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and associated management. Nearly all recommendations are based on very low certainty in the evidence due to modeling assumptions. Conclusions The panel issued a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and conditional recommendations for thrombophilia testing in the following scenarios: (a) patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors; (b) patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis, in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued; (c) individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance to avoid COCs/hormone replacement therapy; (d) pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types; and (e) patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE. For all other questions, the panel provided conditional recommendations against testing for thrombophilia.

Background: Cotesting with the Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus tests detects most precancerous and cancerous lesions and increases the sensitivity for detecting high-grade precancerous and invasive cervical cancers compared with human papillomavirus testing alone. Objective: To compare the use of the Papette brush (hereafter Papette) to the traditional spatula with endocervical brush (cytobrush) for cervical cancer screening. Design: Pragmatic observational study. Methods: Adult women aged 21–64 years who were eligible for a Papanicolaou test at a Midwest Community Internal Medicine practice underwent cervical cancer screening using the Papette or spatula with cytobrush from 18 August 2021 through 1 February 2022. Cluster sampling was used across the practice. Pathology reports were then analyzed to compare the number of satisfactory versus unsatisfactory results between the two collection techniques. Results: We collected results for 756 Pap tests. The test results were satisfactory with the Papette 93.8% of the time compared with 93.0% for the spatula with cytobrush. Conclusion: The Papette is not inferior to a spatula with cytobrush as a collection method for Pap tests.

AbstractBackgroundThere are minimal epidemiological data comparing the burden of disorders of gut brain interaction (DGBI) in the UK with other countries. We compared the prevalence of DGBI in the UK with other countries that participated in the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study (RFGES) online.MethodsParticipants from 26 countries completed the RFGES survey online including the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire and an in‐depth supplemental questionnaire with questions about dietary habits. UK sociodemographic and prevalence data were compared with the other 25 countries pooled together.Key ResultsThe proportion of participants with at least one DGBI was lower in UK participants compared with in the other 25 countries (37.6% 95% CI 35.5%–39.7% vs. 41.2%; 95% CI 40.8%–41.6%,p = 0.001). The UK prevalence of 14 of 22 Rome IV DGBI, including irritable bowel syndrome (4.3%) and functional dyspepsia (6.8%), was similar to the other countries. Fecal incontinence, opioid‐induced constipation, chronic nausea and vomiting, and cannabinoid hyperemesis (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the UK. Cyclic vomiting, functional constipation, unspecified functional bowel disorder, and proctalgia fugax (p < 0.05) were more prevalent in the other 25 countries. Diet in the UK population consisted of higher consumption of meat and milk (p < 0.001), and lower consumption of rice, fruit, eggs, tofu, pasta, vegetables/legumes, and fish (p < 0.001).Conclusions and InferencesThe prevalence and burden of DGBI is consistently high in the UK and in the rest of the world. Opioid prescribing, cultural, dietary, and lifestyle factors may contribute to differences in the prevalence of some DGBI between the UK and other countries.