Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
McMaster University1, American University of Beirut2, University of Alcalá3, University of Geneva4, Leiden University Medical Center5, Virginia Commonwealth University6, University of California, San Diego7, Ohio State University8, University of Utah9, UCLA Medical Center10, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute11, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences12
TL;DR: Recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines are updated, and 3 new topics are addressed.
About: This article is published in Chest.The article was published on 2012-02-01. It has received 3934 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Edoxaban & Inferior vena cava.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee
5,739 citations
TL;DR: This year's edition of the Statistical Update includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, metrics to assess and monitor healthy diets, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, a focus on the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the American Heart Association’s 2020 Impact Goals.
Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovas...
5,078 citations
TL;DR: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...
Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...
3,034 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Michigan2, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center3, Georgetown University4, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust5, Roswell Park Cancer Institute6, Oncology Nursing Society7, University of Washington8, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center9, Harvard University10, University of Oklahoma11, American Society of Clinical Oncology12, Ohio State University13, New York University14
TL;DR: Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented and, in general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, with the exception of endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement.
Abstract: PurposeTo increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapyMethodsA multidisciplinary, multi-organizational panel of experts in medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, urology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialist, and advocacy was convened to develop the clinical practice guideline Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and an informal consensus process The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case series published from 2000 through 2017ResultsThe systematic review identified 204 eligible publications Much of the evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, case series, and case reports Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence on management
2,386 citations
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital1, University of Insubria2, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston3, Chinese PLA General Hospital4, University of Vermont Medical Center5, Harvard University6, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center7, Loyola University Medical Center8, University of Chicago9, University of Milan10, Auckland City Hospital11, St Thomas' Hospital12, Hofstra University13, University of Michigan14, Population Health Research Institute15, Hamilton Health Sciences16, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute17, Brigham and Women's Hospital18, Vanderbilt University19, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia20, University of Mainz21, McMaster University22, Aalborg University23, University of Liverpool24
TL;DR: The current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexistingThrombotic disease who develop CO VID-19 are reviewed.
2,222 citations
Cites background from "Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Dise..."
...Recurrent PE despite optimal anticoagulation, or clinically-significant VTE in the setting of abs olute contraindications to anticoagulation would be among the few scenarios in which placement of an inferior vena cava filter may be considered (11)....
[...]
...9 questions that seemed more challenging but relevant to patient care (11)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate.
Abstract: Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
22,227 citations
TL;DR: The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes, and provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect.
6,093 citations
"Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Dise..." refers methods in this paper
...6), we generated tables to summarize the judgments of the quality of the evidence and the relative and absolute effects.(13) The GRADE tables include Summary of Findings tables presented in the main text, and a more detailed version called Evidence Profiles presented in the online supplement....
[...]
TL;DR: Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.
5,924 citations
TL;DR: The approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies.
5,228 citations
"Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Dise..." refers background or methods in this paper
...The quality of evidence is categorized as high (A level), moderate (B level), or low (includes very low) (C level).(6,7) The rating of the quality of evidence reflects the strengths and limitations of the body of evidence and was based on the study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of results, and likelihood of publication bias, in addition to factors specific to observational studies....
[...]
...Based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, quality of evidence (also known as certainty of evidence) is defined as the extent to which our confidence in the effect estimate is adequate to support a recommendation.(6,7) The quality of evidence is categorized as high (A level), moderate (B level), or low (includes very low) (C level)....
[...]
...The rating of the quality of evidence reflects the strengths and limitations of the body of evidence and was based on the study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of results, and likelihood of publication bias, in addition to factors specific to observational studies.(5,6,8-12) Using GRADEpro software (version 3....
[...]
TL;DR: A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed that consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Abstract: Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
3,583 citations
"Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Dise..." refers methods in this paper
...When we identified systematic reviews, we assessed their quality according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool.(3) We used those that were of highest quality and up to date as the source of evidence....
[...]