ReviewHeart failure reviews2024
Extended thromboprophylaxis in heart failure patients; the unmet need.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is considered one of a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. The association between HF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported in several studies owing to many physiological and thromboembolic risk factors. Thus, the need for extended thromboprophylaxis during the post-discharge period in HF patients has been evaluated. Most guidelines do not recommend extended thromboprophylaxis because of its uncertain benefits and increased risk of bleeding. However, recent evidence in HF patients revealed no increased risk of bleeding with extended thromboprophylaxis, which highlights the importance of identifying ideal candidates who might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis. Several risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to identify patients at a high risk of VTE who would benefit from in-hospital and post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation therapy based on the risk-benefit principle. However, their accuracy in predicting VTE is questionable, and none have a standardized approach for evaluating the risk of VTE in HF patients. In this review, we provided an overview of the incidence and pathophysiology of VTE in HF patients, a summary of guideline recommendations for VTE prevention, and a summary of studies evaluating the use of extended thromboprophylaxis, with a focus on subgroup or post-hoc analyses of HF patients. We also discussed the need to design an ideal RAM that can identify candidate patients for extended thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the risk of VTE and identifying the key risk factors for bleeding in medically ill patients, including those with HF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39014135What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.