Key result
Review summarizes current risk models and guidelines for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients.
Why the study?
Venous thromboembolism is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in ambulatory cancer patients, yet the application of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis guidelines remains inconsistent.
This review provides an overview of current risk assessment models and guideline recommendations for preventing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.
Consolidates current risk models for VTE prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients; leaves open need for prospective validation studies.
Venous thromboembolism remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among ambulatory cancer patients, necessitating effective risk assessment and prevention strategies. Despite the availability of risk assessment models and guidelines recommending primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins or direct oral anticoagulants, the application of these strategies is inconsistent. This review provides an overview of the current state-of-the-art venous thromboembolism risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer, focusing on existing risk assessment models and the latest guideline recommendations. Finally, it summarizes gaps in knowledge, discusses future directions, and highlights recent advances and state-of-the-art research presented at the 2024 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in Bangkok, Thailand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladić et al. (2024) conducted a review in Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients with solid malignancies. Risk assessment models and primary thromboprophylaxis (low-molecular-weight heparins or direct oral anticoagulants) was evaluated. This review summarizes current risk assessment models and guidelines for primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins or direct oral anticoagulants in ambulatory cancer patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: