Publications

Background and Purpose— The beneficial effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator in these patients. Methods— ICARO was a case-control multicenter study on prospectively collected data. Patients with acute ischemic stroke and ICA occlusion treated with intravenous recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator within 4.5 hours from symptom onset (cases) were compared to matched patients with acute stroke and ICA occlusion not treated with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (controls). Cases and controls were matched for age, gender, and stroke severity. The efficacy outcome was disability at 90 days assessed by the modified Rankin Scale, dichotomized as favorable (score of 0–2) or unfavorable (score of 3–6). Safety outcomes were death and any intracranial bleeding. Results— Included in the analysis were 253 cases and 253 controls. Seventy-three cases (28.9%) had a favorable outcome as compared with 52 controls (20.6%; adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–3.15; P =0.037). A total of 104 patients died, 65 cases (25.7%) and 39 controls (15.4%; adjusted OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.36–3.22; P =0.001). There were more fatal bleedings (2.8% versus 0.4%; OR, 7.17; 95% CI, 0.87–58.71; P =0.068) in the cases than in the controls. Conclusions— In patients with stroke attributable to ICA occlusion, thrombolytic therapy results in a significant reduction in the proportion of patients dependent in activities of daily living. Increases in death and any intracranial bleeding were the trade-offs for this clinical benefit.

In patients with idiopathic deep venous thrombosis, continuing anticoagulant therapy beyond three months is associated with a reduced incidence of recurrent thrombosis during the period of therapy. Whether this benefit persists after anticoagulant therapy is discontinued is controversial.

Venous thromboembolism includes two closely related clinical manifestations: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), more commonly of the lower limbs, and pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary embolism is the most common cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients. The definition of the risk factors for venous thromboembolism should allow to adopt the most suitable prophylactic regimen. Determinants for the risk of venous thromboembolism are patient risk factors, both clinical and molecular, and the clinical setting. In this article the prophylactic regimens most widely employed in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk clinical settings with be reviewed. Then, the available guidelines for the management of thrombophilic patients will be given.The authors have been working in this field contributing original papers. In addition, the material examined in this review article includes papers published in the journals covered by the Science Citation Index and Medline.Pharmacological prophylaxis is an effective approach for reducing morbidity and mortality from venous thromboembolism. Nevertheless, prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is under employed because the incidence of venous thromboembolism is underestimated and there is fear of bleeding side effects. Adopting the proper prophylactic strategy for venous thromboembolism requires defining the patient risk factor. Determinants for the risk of venous thromboembolism are patient risk factors, both clinical and molecular, and the clinical setting. The risk connected with the clinical setting is the only risk defined by properly performed epidemiological studies. High-risk clinical settings are major orthopedic surgery, elective neurosurgery, spinal cord injury, cancer surgery and multiple trauma. The most effective anticoagulant regimens in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients are adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and oral anticoagulants. LMWHs are as effective and safe as the other two agents, but they do not require laboratory monitoring. On the other hand, LMWHs are more expensive than unfractionated heparin and warfarin. The use of effective agents still leaves the patients with a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism. Hence the search for more effective agents such as selective thrombin inhibitors like hirudin and its analogues. In patients undergoing elective hip surgery, hirudin has been recently shown to be more effective than low-dose unfractionated heparin and the LMWH enoxaparin.

Comment on: Comparison of Different Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism and Active CancerThromb Haemost 2021; 121(06): 834-844DOI: 10.1055/a-1355-3549