Observational analysis reveals consensus on key VTE management issues among physicians, indicating critical gaps remain.
Background/Objectives: Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major clinical issue in hospitalized patients. Some aspects of VTE management lack clarity due to differing physicians’ opinions and behaviors. Methods: A multidisciplinary steering committee identified two main areas of uncertainty: VTE prophylaxis and PE management in special settings. A multiple-choice questionnaire including 10 statements was circulated to 183 doctors trained in VTE management. The expected benefit-to-harm ratio was represented on a nine-point Likert scale, with consensus (≥75% agreement) on scores of 1–3 indicating inappropriate and 7–9 indicating appropriate care measures. Results: In online voting, a consensus was reached for 9/10 statements. Respondents considered the following to be appropriate: risk assessment of VTE (93.44%) and bleeding (91.6%) in hospitalized medical patients; low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis for inpatients with pneumonia and malignancy (82.78%); therapeutic doses of LMWH/fondaparinux in patients with intermediate/high risk of PE with (80.9%) or without (77.97%) instability criteria; and echocardiography to manage patients with a post-PE syndrome (93.99%). Respondents considered the following to be inappropriate: use of 4000 IU LMWH in chronic renal failure (80.46%); use of 2000 IU LMWH in persons on dual antiplatelet therapy (77.01%); and use of low-dose apixaban (2.5 mg) in pregnancy (88.57%) or in subsegmental PE with hypoxemia (82.46%). No consensus was reached on the identification of PE cases eligible for outpatient treatment. Conclusions: Our findings show persistent gaps between guideline recommendations and clinical implementation despite improved awareness among physicians. Uncertainty persists regarding criteria for outpatient PE eligibility and/or for validation of bleeding-risk models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Minno et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: