1,720,974 research outputs found
How to treat isolated distal deep vein thrombosis
No full textIsolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is a frequent manifestation of venous thromboembolism (VTE), accounting for up to 50% cases of lower‐extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). As compared with proximal DVT, IDDVT is more frequently associated with transient risk factors and less often occurs unprovoked or in the presence of permanent risk factors. IDDVT generally carries a significantly lower risk of proximal extension, post‐thrombotic syndrome, and recurrence than proximal DVT. Nevertheless, some patient subgroups, such as those with active cancer, other predisposing permanent risk factors, prior VTE, unprovoked IDDVT, persistently restricted mobility, and trifurcation or bilateral involvement, exhibit a non‐negligible recurrence risk. Unlike in proximal DVT, the optimal therapeutic management of IDDVT remains uncertain. In clinical practice, the vast majority of IDDVT patients are managed with anticoagulation rather than with surveillance serial compression ultrasonography, which tends to be reserved to individuals at a high bleeding risk. Available data seem to favor anticoagulant therapy over no anticoagulation, thanks to a significant reduction in the risk for proximal extension and recurrence, without increased bleeding risk. Recent results of the RIDTS (Rivaroxaban for the Treatment of Symptomatic Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis) randomized clinical trial with rivaroxaban further support the use of anticoagulant therapy for 3 months over shorter durations (eg, ≤6 weeks). In this review, we offer an updated overview of the epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical course of IDDVT, with a focus on the therapeutic management in light of current guideline recommendations and most recent evidence. We also present real‐life clinical cases of IDDVT with proposed therapeutic approaches, and highlight major challenges and gaps in this field
Anticoagulation in Patients with Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Bringing the Puzzle Together
No full textGeographical and ethnoracial differences in venous thromboembolism and anticoagulation: An expanding horizon
No full textEffect of dexamethasone on direct Xa-inhibitor oral anticoagulant plasma levels in patients with COVID-19
No full textExtended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textIntroduction: Patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that may persist beyond the currently recommended period of 6 to 14 days of thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of extended venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. Materials and methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing extended versus standard venous thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. The efficacy outcome was a composite of asymptomatic or symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related death. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Summary risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Four randomized controlled trials enrolling 33718 patients were included. Of 4330 (12.8%) patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, 2152 (49.7%) received extended thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks with betrixaban (n = 405, 18.8%), enoxaparin (n = 198, 9.2%), or rivaroxaban (n = 1549, 72.0%), and 2178 (50.3%) received standard venous thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin. VTE risk was lower in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving extended thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.04; 13 fewer per 1000), whereas the increase in major bleeding seemed trivial when compared with standard prophylaxis (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.31 to 3.95; 1 more per 1000). Conclusion: In patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke, the net clinical benefit may favor extended venous thromboprophylaxis for four to five weeks over standard thromboprophylaxis
Direct oral anticoagulant plasma levels in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with dexamethasone
Get PDFDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not recommended in COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone because of potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions affecting anticoagulant concentration and activity. To evaluate short- and long-term pharmacokinetic interactions, serial through and peak DOAC plasma levels were prospectively measured during and after dexamethasone therapy, as well as during the acute phase and after recovery from COVID-19 in hospitalized, non-critically ill patients undergoing treatment with DOACs. Thirty-three (18 males, mean age 79 years) consecutive patients received DOACs (17 apixaban, 12 rivaroxaban, 4 edoxaban) for atrial fibrillation (n = 22), venous thromboembolism (n = 10), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1). Twenty-six patients also received dexamethasone at a dose of 6 mg once daily for a median of 14 days. Trough DOAC levels on dexamethasone were within and below expected reference ranges respectively in 87.5 and 8.3% of patients, with no statistically significant differences at 48–72 h and 14–21 days after dexamethasone discontinuation. Peak DOAC levels on dexamethasone were within expected reference ranges in 58.3% of patients, and below ranges in 33.3%, of whom over two thirds had low values also off dexamethasone. No significant differences in DOAC levels were found during hospitalization and after resolution of COVID-19. Overall, 28 patients were discharged alive, and none experienced thrombotic or bleeding events. In this study, dexamethasone administration or acute COVID-19 seemed not to affect DOAC levels in hospitalized, non-critically ill COVID-19 patients
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
