To prophylax or not, and how much and how long? Controversies in VTE prevention for medical inpatients, including COVID-19 inpatients

Abstract

Abstract The field of thromboprophylaxis for acutely ill medical patients, including those hospitalized for COVID-19, is rapidly evolving both in the inpatient setting and the immediate post–hospital discharge period. Recent data reveal the importance of incorporating holistic thromboembolic outcomes that encompass both venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism, as thromboprophylaxis with low-dose direct oral anticoagulants has been shown to reduce major and fatal vascular events, especially against a background of dual pathway inhibition with aspirin. In addition, recent post hoc analyses from randomized trial data have established 5 key bleeding-risk factors that, if removed, reveal a low-bleeding- risk medically ill population and, conversely, key individual risk factors, such as advanced age, a past history of cancer or VTE, an elevated D-dimer, or the use of a validated VTE risk score—the IMPROVE VTE score using established cutoffs—to predict a high-VTE-risk medically ill population that benefits from extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Last, thromboprophylaxis of a high-thrombotic-risk subset of medically ill patients, those with COVID-19, is rapidly evolving, both during hospitalization and post discharge. This article reviews 3 controversial topics in the thromboprophylaxis of hospitalized acutely ill medical patients: (1) clinical relevance of key efficacy and safety outcomes incorporated into randomized trials but not incorporated into relevant antithrombotic guidelines on the topic, (2) the use of individual risk factors or risk models of low-bleeding-risk and high-thrombotic-risk subgroups of medically ill inpatients that benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis, and (3) thromboprophylaxis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, including extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.