Datasets:

prognosis

/

cardio-mix-chunks-qa

like 0

Follow

Prognosis 5

Parenteral therapy to be avoided Rivaroxaban; apixaban VKA, dabigatran, and edoxaban require initial parenteral therapy. Once daily oral therapy preferred Rivaroxaban; edoxaban; VKA Liver disease and coagulopathy LMWH NOACs contraindicated if INR raised because of liver disease; VKA dif cult to control and INR may not re ect antithrombotic effect. Renal disease and creatinine clearance <30 mL/min VKA NOACs and LMWH contraindicated with severe renal impairment. Dosing of NOACs with levels of renal impairment differ with the NOAC and among jurisdictions. Coronary artery disease VKA, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban Coronary artery events appear to occur more often with dabigatran than with VKA. This has not been seen with the other NOACs, and they have demonstrated ef cacy for coronary artery disease. Antiplatelet therapy should be avoided if possible in patients on anticoagulants because of increased bleeding. Dyspepsia or history of GI bleeding VKA, apixaban Dabigatran increased dyspepsia. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban may be associated with more GI bleeding than VKA. Poor compliance VKA INR monitoring can help to detect problems. However, some patients may be more compliant with a NOAC because it is less complex. Thrombolytic therapy use UFH infusion Greater experience with its use in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy Reversal agent needed VKA, UFH Pregnancy or pregnancy risk LMWH Potential for other agents to cross the placenta Cost, coverage, licensing Varies among regions and with individual circumstances INR International Normalized Ratio; NOAC non-vitamin K oral coagulant. See Table 1 legend for expansion of other abbreviations.

Thrombolytic therapy use UFH infusion Greater experience with its use in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy Reversal agent needed VKA, UFH Pregnancy or pregnancy risk LMWH Potential for other agents to cross the placenta Cost, coverage, licensing Varies among regions and with individual circumstances INR International Normalized Ratio; NOAC non-vitamin K oral coagulant. See Table 1 legend for expansion of other abbreviations. 326 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] proximal DVT or PE was 50% higher (1.5-fold) than after a rst unprovoked event.57,58 For the decision about whether to stop treatment at 3 months or to treat inde nitely ( extended treatment ), we categorized a patient s risk of bleeding on anticoagulant therapy as low (no bleeding risk factors; 0.8% annualized risk of major bleeding), moderate (one bleeding risk factor; 1.6% annualized risk of major bleeding), or high (two or TABLE 7 ] Summary of Findings: Dabigatran vs VKA for Extended Treatment of VTEa,b,c,d Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with VKA Risk Difference with Dabigatran (95% CI) All-cause mortality 2,856 Moderatee,f because of imprecision (from 7 fewer to 9 more) Recurrent VTE 2,856 Moderatee,f,g because of imprecision (from 3 fewer to 20 more) Major bleeding 2,856 Moderatee,f because of imprecision (from 13 fewer to 0 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). REMEDY Secondary Prevention of Venous Thrombo Embolism.

The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). REMEDY Secondary Prevention of Venous Thrombo Embolism. See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Included patients had acute, symptomatic, objectively veri ed proximal DVT of the legs or PE. b Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily taken orally for 6 mo after an initial treatment with LMWH or IV UFH. c Warfarin adjusted to achieve an INR of 2.0-3.0 for 6 mo after an initial treatment with LMWH or IV UFH. d Active-Control study outcomes used from Schulman et al47 (REMEDY). e Allocation was concealed. Patients, providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were blinded. Modi ed intention-to-treat analysis. 1.1% loss to follow-up. Not stopped early for bene t. f CI includes values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. g Primary end point was composite of recurrent or fatal VTE or unexplained death. Bibliography: Schulman et al47 (REMEDY) TABLE 8 ] Summary of Findings: Dabigatran vs Placebo for Extended Treatment of VTEa,b,c Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Placebo Risk Difference with Dabigatran (95% CI) All-cause mortality 1,343 Moderated because of imprecision Not estimablee Recurrent VTE 1,343 High (from 42 fewer to 55 fewer) Major bleeding 1,343 Moderated because of imprecision Not estimablef The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). RESONATE Twice-daily Oral Direct Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate in the Long Term Prevention of Recurrent Symptomatic VTE. See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Patients with VTE who had completed at least 3 initial mo of therapy. b Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. c Placebo-control study outcomes used from Schulman et al47 (RESONATE). d Event rate low in a large sample size. e Event rate with dabigatran was 0/681 (0%); event rate with placebo was 2/662 (0.3%); anticipated absolute effect risk difference with dabigatran is 3 fewer per 1,000 (from 11 fewer to 3 more). f Event rate with dabigatran was 2/681 (0.3%); event rate with placebo was 0/662 (0%); anticipated absolute effect risk difference with dabigatran is 3 more per 1,000 (from 3 fewer to 11 more). Bibliography: Schulman et al47 (RESONATE) more bleeding risk factors; $6.5% annualized risk of major bleeding) (Table 11). A VKA targeted to an International Normalized Ratio (INR) of about 2.5 was the anticoagulant in all studies that compared different time-limited durations of therapy. We, therefore, assumed that VKA therapy was the anticoagulant when we were making our AT9 recommendations, including for the comparison of extended therapy with stopping treatment at 3 months.

We, therefore, assumed that VKA therapy was the anticoagulant when we were making our AT9 recommendations, including for the comparison of extended therapy with stopping treatment at 3 months. Comparison of Different Time-Limited Durations of Anticoagulation Since AT9: Two additional studies have compared two time-limited durations of In patients with a rst unprovoked PE who had completed 6 months of VKA therapy (target INR 2.5), the Extended Duration of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After a First Episode of Idiopathic Pulmonary Embolism: a Randomized Controlled Trial (PADIS) study randomized patients to TABLE 9 ] Summary of Findings: Rivaroxaban vs Placebo for Extended Treatment of VTEa,b Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Placebo Risk Difference with Rivaroxaban (95% CI) All-cause mortality Moderatec because of imprecision (from 3 fewer to 15 more) Recurrent VTE High (from 42 fewer to 64 fewer) Major bleeding Moderate because of risk of bias Not estimabled The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Patients who had completed 6 to 12 mo of treatment for VTE. b Rivaroxaban 20 mg daily or placebo, speci c to the continued treatment study. c CI includes values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. d Event rate with rivaroxaban was 4/598 (0.67%); event rate with placebo was 0/590 (0%); anticipated absolute effect risk difference with rivaroxaban is 4 more per 1,000 (from 1 less to 17 more).

d Event rate with rivaroxaban was 4/598 (0.67%); event rate with placebo was 0/590 (0%); anticipated absolute effect risk difference with rivaroxaban is 4 more per 1,000 (from 1 less to 17 more). Bibliography: Bauersachs et al21 (EINSTEIN-Extension) TABLE 10 ] Summary of Findings: Apixaban vs Placebo for Extended Treatment of VTEa,b Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Placebo Risk Difference with Apixaban (95% CI) All-cause mortality 1,669 Moderatec,d because of imprecision (from 14 fewer to 4 more) Recurrent VTE 1,669 High (from 59 fewer to 78 fewer) Major bleeding 1,669 Moderatec,d because of imprecision (from 4 fewer to 8 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Patients with VTE who had completed 6 to 12 mo of anticoagulation therapy. b Apixaban 2.5 mg twice-daily dose vs placebo. c Signi cantly wide CIs, including appreciable bene t /harm and no effect line. d Low number of events.

c Signi cantly wide CIs, including appreciable bene t /harm and no effect line. d Low number of events. Bibliography: Agnelli et al48 (AMPLIFY-EXT) 328 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] another 18 months of treatment or to placebo, and then followed both groups of patients for an additional 24 months after study drug was stopped (Table 12, The study s ndings were consistent with our recommendations in AT9; the additional 18 months of VKA was very effective at preventing recurrent VTE but, once anticoagulation was stopped, the risk of recurrent VTE was the same in those who had been treated for 6 or for 24 months. This new information has not increased the quality of evidence for comparison of a longer vs a shorter, time-limited course of anticoagulation in patients without cancer.

This new information has not increased the quality of evidence for comparison of a longer vs a shorter, time-limited course of anticoagulation in patients without cancer. In patients with a rst proximal DVT or PE and active cancer who had residual DVT on US imaging after completing 6 months of LMWH therapy, the Cancer- Duration of Anticoagulation based on Compression Ultrasonography (DACUS) study randomized patients to another 6 months of LMWH or to stop therapy and followed patients for 12 months after they stopped The additional 6 months of LMWH reduced recurrent VTE but, once anticoagulation was stopped, the risk of recurrent VTE was the same in those who had TABLE 11 ] Risk Factors for Bleeding with Anticoagulant Therapy and Estimated Risk of Major Bleeding in Low-, Moderate-, and High-Risk categoriesa Risk Factorsb Poor anticoagulant control189,196,203 Comorbidity and reduced functional capacity191,196,204 Nonsteroidal anti-in ammatory drug210 Categorization of Risk of Bleedingd Estimated Absolute Risk of Major Bleeding Low Riske Factors) Moderate Riske Factor) High Riske Factors) Anticoagulation Increased risk (%) Total risk (%) 1.6g Anticoagulation after rst 3 mof Baseline risk (%/y) 0.3i Increased risk (%/y) Total risk (%/y) 0.8j AT9 9th Edition of the Antithrombotic Guideline. a From AT9. Since AT9, references for bleeding with individual factors have ; nonsteroidal anti-in ammatory drug has been added as a risk factor; a systematic review has described the risk in VTE trial patients who were randomized to no antithrombotic therapy211 ; and several recent publications have compared clinical prediction rules for bleeding in various populations.193,212-216 b Most studies assessed risk factors for bleeding in patients who were on VKA therapy. The risk of bleeding with different anticoagulants is not addressed in this table.

The risk of bleeding with different anticoagulants is not addressed in this table. The increase in bleeding associated with a risk factor will vary with: (1) severity of the risk factor (eg, location and extent of metastatic disease; platelet count); (2) temporal relationships (eg, interval from surgery or a previous bleeding episode197 ); and (3) how effectively a previous cause of bleeding was corrected (eg, upper GI bleeding). c Important for parenteral anticoagulation (eg, rst 10 d), but less important for long-term or extended anticoagulation. d Although there is evidence that risk of bleeding increases with the prevalence of risk factors,187,188,192,194,195,196,198,201,202,204,217,218 the categorization scheme suggested here has not been validated. Further- more, a single risk factor, when severe, will result in a high risk of bleeding (eg, major surgery within the past 2 d; severe thrombocytopenia). e Compared with low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients are assumed to have a twofold risk and high-risk patients are assumed to have an eightfold risk of major bleeding.79,185,187,189,195,196,198,204 f We estimate that anticoagulation is associated with a 2.6-fold increase in major bleeding based on comparison of extended anticoagulation with no extended anticoagulation (Table 6 in AT91 ).

e Compared with low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients are assumed to have a twofold risk and high-risk patients are assumed to have an eightfold risk of major bleeding.79,185,187,189,195,196,198,204 f We estimate that anticoagulation is associated with a 2.6-fold increase in major bleeding based on comparison of extended anticoagulation with no extended anticoagulation (Table 6 in AT91 ). The relative risk of major bleeding during the rst 3 mo of therapy may be greater that during extended VKA therapy because: (1) the intensity of anticoagulation with initial parenteral therapy may be greater that with VKA therapy; (2) anticoagulant control will be less stable during the rst 3 mo; and (3) predispositions to anticoagulant-induced bleeding may be uncovered during the rst 3 mo of therapy.189,198,203 However, studies of patients with acute coronary syndromes do not suggest a higher than 2.6 relative risk of major bleeding with parenteral anticoagulation (eg, UFH, LMWH) compared with control.219,220 g 1.6% corresponds to the average of major bleeding with initial UFH or LMWH therapy followed by VKA therapy (Table 7 in AT91 ). We estimated baseline risk by assuming a 2.6 relative risk of major bleeding with anticoagulation (footnote f). h Consistent with frequency of major bleeding observed by Hull in high- i Our estimated baseline risk of major bleeding for low-risk patients (and adjusted up for moderate- and high-risk groups as per footnote e). j Consistent with frequency of major bleeding during prospective studies of extended anticoagulation for VTE (Table 6 in AT91 been treated for 6 or for 12 months. In the same study, all patients without residual DVT after 6 months of LMWH stopped therapy and had a low risk of recurrence during the next year (three episodes in 91 patients).

In the same study, all patients without residual DVT after 6 months of LMWH stopped therapy and had a low risk of recurrence during the next year (three episodes in 91 patients). This study s ndings have not changed our recommendations for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Evaluations of Extended Anticoagulant Therapy Since AT9: When AT9 was written, extended treatment of VTE with VKA therapy had been evaluated in six studies (mostly patients with unprovoked proximal DVT or PE46,61-64 or a second episode of VTE65 ), and with an NOAC (rivaroxaban vs placebo) in one study of Since AT9, no studies have compared extended VKA therapy with stopping anticoagulants, although the large reduction in recurrent VTE with 18 additional months of VKA therapy compared with placebo (ie, before study drug was stopped) in the PADIS study60 supports AT9 estimates for the ef cacy of extended VKA therapy. Since AT9, two additional studies have compared extended NOAC therapy (dabigatran,47 ) with stopping treatment (ie, placebo). These two studies, and the previous study that evaluated extended treatment with rivaroxaban, found that extended therapy with these three NOAC regimens reduced recurrent VTE by at least 80% and was associated with a modest risk of bleeding (Tables 8-10, e-Tables 10-12).49 These three studies, however, enrolled heterogeneous populations of patients (ie, not con ned to unprovoked VTE) and only followed patients for 6 to 12 months, which limits the implications of their ndings in relationship to extended therapy. When considering the risks and bene ts of extended anticoagulation in this update, the AT10 panel decided TABLE 12 ] Summary of Findings: 6, 12, or 24 mo vs 3 or 6 mo as Minimum Duration of Anticoagulation for VTEa,b Outcomes No.

When considering the risks and bene ts of extended anticoagulation in this update, the AT10 panel decided TABLE 12 ] Summary of Findings: 6, 12, or 24 mo vs 3 or 6 mo as Minimum Duration of Anticoagulation for VTEa,b Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with No Extended Use Risk Difference with E xtended Use (95% CI) Moderatec,d,e because of imprecision (from 4 fewer to 46 more) Recurrent VTE 2,466 Moderatec,d,e because of imprecision (from 40 fewer to 8 more) Major bleeding 2,466 Moderatec,d,e because of imprecision (from 1 fewer to 27 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). DACUS Warfarin Optimal Duration Italian Pulmonary Embolism; DOTAVK Dur e Optimale du Traitement AntiVitamines K; WODIT-DVT Warfarin Optimal Duration Italian Deep Vein Thrombosis; WODIT-PE Warfarin Optimal Duration Italian Pulmonary Embolism. See Table 1, 4, and 6 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Studies vary in follow-up duration (10 mo-3 y) and in duration of time-limited VKA (3-6 mo). b VKA as NOACs are not included. c Timing of randomization relative to the start of treatment and length of treatment varied across studies: Pinede et al223 and Campbell et al222 randomized at diagnosis; and Agnelli et al,223 Eischer et al,227 and Couturaud et al60 randomized after the initial 3 mo (Agnelli et al224 ) or 6 mo (Eischer et al227 Couturaud et al60 ) of treatment to stop or continued treatment.

c Timing of randomization relative to the start of treatment and length of treatment varied across studies: Pinede et al223 and Campbell et al222 randomized at diagnosis; and Agnelli et al,223 Eischer et al,227 and Couturaud et al60 randomized after the initial 3 mo (Agnelli et al224 ) or 6 mo (Eischer et al227 Couturaud et al60 ) of treatment to stop or continued treatment. The longer duration of treatment was 6 mo in Agnelli et al224 (provoked PE) and Pinede et al,223 , 12 mo in Agnelli et al224,225 (unprovoked DVT; unprovoked PE), 24 mo in Couturaud et al,60 and 30 mo in Eischer et al.227 Generally, study design was strong. No study stopped early for bene t; 3 stopped early because of slow recruitment (Campbell et al,222 Pinede et al,223 Eischer et al227 ) and 1 because of lack of bene t (Agnelli et al224 ). In 1 study (Campbell et al222 ), 20% of VTE outcomes were not objectively con rmed. Patients and caregivers were blinded in Couturaud et al,60 but none of the other studies was. Adjudicators of outcomes were blinded in all but 1 study (Campbell et al222 ). All studies used effective randomization concealment, intention-to-treat analysis, and a low unexplained dropout frequency. d Study populations varied across studies: Pinede et al223 enrolled provoked and unprovoked proximal DVT and PE; Campbell et al,222 enrolled provoked and unprovoked isolated distal DVT, proximal DVT, and PE; Agnelli et al224 had separate randomizations for provoked PE (3 vs 6 mo) and unprovoked (3 vs 12 mo); Agnelli et al225 enrolled unprovoked proximal DVT; Eischer et al227 enrolled unprovoked isolated DVT, proximal DVT, and PE with high levels of factor VIII; and Couturaud et al60 enrolled unprovoked PE.

d Study populations varied across studies: Pinede et al223 enrolled provoked and unprovoked proximal DVT and PE; Campbell et al,222 enrolled provoked and unprovoked isolated distal DVT, proximal DVT, and PE; Agnelli et al224 had separate randomizations for provoked PE (3 vs 6 mo) and unprovoked (3 vs 12 mo); Agnelli et al225 enrolled unprovoked proximal DVT; Eischer et al227 enrolled unprovoked isolated DVT, proximal DVT, and PE with high levels of factor VIII; and Couturaud et al60 enrolled unprovoked PE. e CIs include both values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. Bibliography: Campbell et al,222 Pinede et al223 (DOTAVK), Agnelli (WODIT-PE Provoked and Unprovoked), Agnelli et al225 (WODIT-DVT), Couturaud et al60 (PADIS-PE), Siragusa et al226 (DACUS), Eischer et al227 (AUREC-FVIII) 330 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] to use the same estimates for the reduction in recurrent VTE and the increase in bleeding with anticoagulation that we used in AT9, and that were based on VKA therapy.

Bibliography: Campbell et al,222 Pinede et al223 (DOTAVK), Agnelli (WODIT-PE Provoked and Unprovoked), Agnelli et al225 (WODIT-DVT), Couturaud et al60 (PADIS-PE), Siragusa et al226 (DACUS), Eischer et al227 (AUREC-FVIII) 330 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] to use the same estimates for the reduction in recurrent VTE and the increase in bleeding with anticoagulation that we used in AT9, and that were based on VKA therapy. Our reasoning was: (1) VKA is still widely used for extended treatment of VTE; (2) we felt that there was not enough evidence of differences in ef cacy and bleeding during extended therapy to justify separate recommendations for NOACs, either as a group or as individual agents; and (3) our recommendations about whether or not to use extended therapy were not sensitive to assuming that there was a one-third reduction in bleeding with extended therapy compared with the estimated risk of bleeding with extended therapy that are shown in Table 11 and were used in AT9 (eg, with a NOAC compared with VKA)27,31,35,49 (the only recommendation to change would be a strong instead of a weak recommendation in favor of extended therapy in patients with a second unprovoked VTE who had a moderate risk of bleeding). Better Selection of Patients for Extended VTE Therapy: The most common and dif cult decision about whether to stop anticoagulants after a time- limited course or to use extended therapy is in patients with a rst unprovoked proximal DVT or PE without a high risk of bleeding.

Better Selection of Patients for Extended VTE Therapy: The most common and dif cult decision about whether to stop anticoagulants after a time- limited course or to use extended therapy is in patients with a rst unprovoked proximal DVT or PE without a high risk of bleeding. In this subgroup of patients, patient sex and D-dimer level measured about 1 month after stopping anticoagulant therapy can help to further stratify the risk of recurrent VTE.66-69 Men have about a 75% higher (1.75-fold) risk of recurrence compared with women, whereas patients with a positive D-dimer result have about double the risk of recurrence compared with those with a negative D-dimer, and the predictive value of these two factors appears to be additive. The risk of recurrence in women with a negative posttreatment D-dimer appears to be similar to the risk that we have estimated for patients with a proximal DVT or PE that was provoked by a minor transient risk factor (approximately 15% recurrence at 5 years); consequently, the argument for extended anticoagulation in these women is not strong, suggesting that D-dimer testing will often in uence a woman s decision. The risk of recurrence in men with a negative D-dimer is not much less than the overall risk of recurrence that we have estimated for patients with an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE (approximately 25% compared with approximately 30% recurrence at 5 years); consequently, the argument for extended anticoagulation in these men is still substantial, suggesting that D-dimer testing will often not in uence a male s decision. Because there is still uncertainty about how to use D-dimer testing and a patient s sex to make decisions about extended therapy in patients with a rst unprovoked VTE, we have not made recommendations based on these factors.

Because there is still uncertainty about how to use D-dimer testing and a patient s sex to make decisions about extended therapy in patients with a rst unprovoked VTE, we have not made recommendations based on these factors. Revised Recommendations: These are unchanged from AT9 with one minor exception. A qualifying remark has been added to the recommendation that suggests extended therapy over stopping treatment at 3 months in patients with a rst unprovoked proximal DVT or PE and a low or moderate risk of bleeding; this remark notes that patient sex and D-dimer level measured a month after stopping anticoagulant therapy may in uence this treatment decision. If it becomes clear that, during the extended phase of treatment, there are important differences in the risk of recurrence or bleeding with the different anticoagulant agents, agent-speci c recommendations for extended therapy may become justi ed. 5. In patients with a proximal DVT of the leg or PE provoked by surgery, we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over (i) treatment of a shorter period (Grade 1B), (ii) treatment of a longer, time-limited period (eg, 6, 12, or 24 months) (Grade 1B), or (iii) extended therapy (no scheduled stop date) (Grade 1B). 6. In patients with a proximal DVT of the leg or PE provoked by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over (i) treatment of a shorter period (Grade 1B) and (ii) treatment of a longer time-limited period (eg, 6, 12, or 24 months) (Grade 1B). We suggest treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over extended therapy if there is a low or moderate bleeding risk (Grade 2B), and recommend treatment for 3 months over extended therapy if there is a high risk of bleeding (Grade 1B).

We suggest treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over extended therapy if there is a low or moderate bleeding risk (Grade 2B), and recommend treatment for 3 months over extended therapy if there is a high risk of bleeding (Grade 1B). Remarks: In all patients who receive extended anticoagulant therapy, the continuing use of treatment should be reassessed at periodic intervals (eg, annually). 7. In patients with an isolated distal DVT of the leg provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we suggest treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over treatment of a shorter period (Grade 2C); we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over treatment of a longer, time-limited period (eg, 6, 12, or 24 months) (Grade 1B); and we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over extended therapy (no scheduled stop date) (Grade 1B). Remarks: Duration of treatment of patients with isolated distal DVT refers to patients in whom a decision has been made to treat with anticoagulant therapy; however, it is anticipated that not all patients who are diagnosed with isolated distal DVT will be prescribed anticoagulants. 8. In patients with an unprovoked DVT of the leg (isolated distal or proximal) or PE, we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for at least 3 months over treatment of a shorter duration (Grade 1B), and we recommend treatment with anticoagulation for 3 months over treatment of a longer, time-limited period (eg, 6, 12, or 24 months) (Grade 1B). Remarks: After 3 months of treatment, patients with unprovoked DVT of the leg or PE should be evaluated for the risk-bene t ratio of extended therapy.

Remarks: After 3 months of treatment, patients with unprovoked DVT of the leg or PE should be evaluated for the risk-bene t ratio of extended therapy. Duration of treatment of patients with isolated distal DVT refers to patients in whom a decision has been made to treat with anticoagulant therapy; however, it is anticipated that not all patients who are diagnosed with isolated distal DVT will be prescribed anticoagulants. *9. In patients with a rst VTE that is an unpro- voked proximal DVT of the leg or PE and who have a (i) low or moderate bleeding risk (see text), we suggest extended anticoagulant therapy (no sched- uled stop date) over 3 months of therapy (Grade 2B), and a (ii) high bleeding risk (see text), we recom- mend 3 months of anticoagulant therapy over extended therapy (no scheduled stop date) (Grade 1B). Remarks: Patient sex and D-dimer level measured a month after stopping anticoagulant therapy may in uence the decision to stop or extend anticoagulant therapy (see text). In all patients who receive extended anticoagulant therapy, the continuing use of treatment should be reassessed at periodic intervals (eg, annually). 10. In patients with a second unprovoked VTE and who have a (i) low bleeding risk (see text), we recommend extended anticoagulant therapy (no scheduled stop date) over 3 months (Grade 1B); (ii) moderate bleeding risk (see text), we suggest extended anticoagulant therapy over 3 months of therapy (Grade 2B); or (iii) high bleeding risk (see text), we suggest 3 months of anticoagulant therapy over extended therapy (no scheduled stop date) (Grade 2B). Remarks: In all patients who receive extended anticoagulant therapy, the continuing use of treatment should be reassessed at periodic intervals (eg, annually). 11.

Remarks: In all patients who receive extended anticoagulant therapy, the continuing use of treatment should be reassessed at periodic intervals (eg, annually). 11. In patients with DVT of the leg or PE and active cancer ( cancer-associated thrombosis ) and who (i) do not have a high bleeding risk, we recommend extended anticoagulant therapy (no scheduled stop date) over 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B), and (ii) have a high bleeding risk, we suggest extended anticoagulant therapy (no scheduled stop date) over 3 months of therapy (Grade 2B). Remarks: In all patients who receive extended anticoagulant therapy, the continuing use of treatment should be reassessed at periodic intervals (eg, annually). Aspirin for Extended Treatment of VTE Summary of the Evidence AT9 did not address if there was a role for aspirin, or antiplatelet therapy generally, in the treatment of VTE. Since then, two randomized trials have compared aspirin with placebo for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with a rst unprovoked proximal DVT or PE who have completed 3 to 18 months of anticoagulant These trials provide moderate-quality evidence that extended aspirin therapy reduces recurrent VTE by about one-third. In these trials, the bene ts of aspirin outweighed the increase in bleeding, which was not statistically signi cant (Table 13, e-Table 14). The two trials enrolled patients with a rst unprovoked VTE who did not have an increased risk of bleeding; patients for whom these guidelines have suggested extended anticoagulant therapy.

The two trials enrolled patients with a rst unprovoked VTE who did not have an increased risk of bleeding; patients for whom these guidelines have suggested extended anticoagulant therapy. Extended anticoagulant therapy is expected to reduce recurrent VTE by more than 80% and extended NOAC therapy may be associated with the same risk of bleeding as aspirin.49,50 If patients with a rst unprovoked VTE decline extended anticoagulant therapy because they have risk factors for bleeding or because they have a lower than average risk of recurrence, the net bene t of aspirin therapy is expected to be less than in the two trials that evaluated aspirin for extended treatment of VTE. Based on indirect comparisons, we expect the net bene t of extended anticoagulant therapy in patients with unprovoked VTE to be substantially greater than the bene ts of extended aspirin therapy.49 Consequently, we do not consider aspirin a reasonable alternative to anticoagulant therapy in patients who want extended therapy. However, if a patient has decided to stop 332 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] anticoagulants, prevention of recurrent VTE is one of the bene ts of aspirin (may also include reductions in arterial thrombosis and colon cancer) that needs to be balanced against aspirin s risk of bleeding and inconvenience. Use of aspirin should also be reevaluated when patients with VTE stop anticoagulant therapy because aspirin may have been stopped when anticoagulants were started (Table 13, e-Table 14). *12. In patients with an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE who are stopping anticoagulant therapy and do not have a contraindication to aspirin, we suggest aspirin over no aspirin to prevent recurrent VTE (Grade 2B).

In patients with an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE who are stopping anticoagulant therapy and do not have a contraindication to aspirin, we suggest aspirin over no aspirin to prevent recurrent VTE (Grade 2B). Remarks: Because aspirin is expected to be much less effective at preventing recurrent VTE than anticoagulants, we do not consider aspirin a reasonable alternative to anticoagulant therapy in patients who want extended therapy. However, if a patient has decided to stop anticoagulants, prevention of recurrent VTE is one of the bene ts of aspirin that needs to be balanced against aspirin s risk of bleeding and inconvenience. Use of aspirin should also be reevaluated when patients stop anticoagulant therapy because aspirin may have been stopped when anticoagulants were started.

Use of aspirin should also be reevaluated when patients stop anticoagulant therapy because aspirin may have been stopped when anticoagulants were started. Whether and How to Prescribe Anticoagulants to Patients With Isolated Distal DVT Summary of the Evidence AT9 discouraged routine whole-leg US examinations (ie, including the distal veins) in patients with suspected DVT, thereby reducing how often isolated distal DVT is The rationale for not routinely examining the distal veins in patients who have had proximal DVT excluded is that: (1) other assessment may already indicate that isolated distal DVT is either unlikely to be present or unlikely to cause complications if it is present (eg, low clinical probability of DVT, D-dimer is negative); (2) if these conditions are not met, a repeat US examination of the proximal veins can be done after a week to detect possible DVT extension and the need for treatment; and (3) false-positive ndings for DVT occur more often with US examinations of the distal compared with the proximal veins.1,73,74 If the calf veins are imaged (usually with US) and isolated distal DVT is diagnosed, there are two management options: (1) treat patients with anticoagulant therapy or (2) do not treat patients with anticoagulant therapy unless extension of their DVT is detected on a follow-up US examination (eg, after 1 and TABLE 13 ] Summary of Findings: Aspirin vs Placebo for Extended Treatment of VTE Outcomes No.

Whether and How to Prescribe Anticoagulants to Patients With Isolated Distal DVT Summary of the Evidence AT9 discouraged routine whole-leg US examinations (ie, including the distal veins) in patients with suspected DVT, thereby reducing how often isolated distal DVT is The rationale for not routinely examining the distal veins in patients who have had proximal DVT excluded is that: (1) other assessment may already indicate that isolated distal DVT is either unlikely to be present or unlikely to cause complications if it is present (eg, low clinical probability of DVT, D-dimer is negative); (2) if these conditions are not met, a repeat US examination of the proximal veins can be done after a week to detect possible DVT extension and the need for treatment; and (3) false-positive ndings for DVT occur more often with US examinations of the distal compared with the proximal veins.1,73,74 If the calf veins are imaged (usually with US) and isolated distal DVT is diagnosed, there are two management options: (1) treat patients with anticoagulant therapy or (2) do not treat patients with anticoagulant therapy unless extension of their DVT is detected on a follow-up US examination (eg, after 1 and TABLE 13 ] Summary of Findings: Aspirin vs Placebo for Extended Treatment of VTE Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Control Risk Difference with Aspirin (95% CI) All-cause mortality Up to 4 y Lowa,b because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populationd (from 3 fewer to 3 more) Recurrent VTE 1,224 Up to 4 y Moderatea because of imprecision (from 24 fewer to 89 fewer) Major bleeding 1,224 Up to 4 y Moderatea,b because of imprecision (from 6 fewer to 29 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes.

of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Control Risk Difference with Aspirin (95% CI) All-cause mortality Up to 4 y Lowa,b because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populationd (from 3 fewer to 3 more) Recurrent VTE 1,224 Up to 4 y Moderatea because of imprecision (from 24 fewer to 89 fewer) Major bleeding 1,224 Up to 4 y Moderatea,b because of imprecision (from 6 fewer to 29 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). ASPIRE Aspirin to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism; HR hazard ratio; INSPIRE International Collaboration of Aspirin Trials for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism; WARFASA Aspirin for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism (the Warfarin and Aspirin) study. See Table 1 legend for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a The Brighton et al70 study was stopped early and included only one-third of the intended patients. b CI includes values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. c Estimate based on Simes et al72 (INSPIRE) of synthesis of Brighton et al70 (ASPIRE) and Becattini et al71 (WARFASA).

c Estimate based on Simes et al72 (INSPIRE) of synthesis of Brighton et al70 (ASPIRE) and Becattini et al71 (WARFASA). d Estimate taken from Douketis et al.228 Bibliography: Simes et al72 (INSPIRE) 2 weeks, or sooner if there is concern; there is no widely accepted protocol for surveillance US testing).75 Because about 15% of untreated isolated distal DVT are expected to subsequently extend into the popliteal vein and may cause PE, it is not acceptable to neither anticoagulate nor do surveillance to detect thrombus extension.1,76-79 In AT9, we judged that there was high-quality evidence that anticoagulant therapy was effective for the treatment of proximal DVT and PE, but uncertainty that the bene ts of anticoagulation outweigh its risks in patients with isolated distal DVT because of their lower risk of progressive or recurrent VTE. We suggest the following as risk factors for extension of distal DVT that would favor anticoagulation over surveillance: (1) D-dimer is positive (particularly when markedly so without an alternative reason); (2) thrombosis is extensive (eg, >5 cm in length, involves multiple veins, >7 mm in maximum diameter); (3) thrombosis is close to the proximal veins; (4) there is no reversible provoking factor for DVT; (5) active cancer; (6) history of VTE; and (7) inpatient status.1,75-77,80-84 We consider thrombosis that is con ned to the muscular veins of the calf (ie,, soleus, gastrocnemius) to have a lower risk of extension than thrombosis that involves the axial (ie, true deep; peroneal, tibial) veins.76,81,85 Severe symptoms favor anticoagulation, a high risk for bleeding (Table 11) favors surveillance, and the decision to use anticoagulation or surveillance is expected to be sensitive to patient preferences.

We suggest the following as risk factors for extension of distal DVT that would favor anticoagulation over surveillance: (1) D-dimer is positive (particularly when markedly so without an alternative reason); (2) thrombosis is extensive (eg, >5 cm in length, involves multiple veins, >7 mm in maximum diameter); (3) thrombosis is close to the proximal veins; (4) there is no reversible provoking factor for DVT; (5) active cancer; (6) history of VTE; and (7) inpatient status.1,75-77,80-84 We consider thrombosis that is con ned to the muscular veins of the calf (ie,, soleus, gastrocnemius) to have a lower risk of extension than thrombosis that involves the axial (ie, true deep; peroneal, tibial) veins.76,81,85 Severe symptoms favor anticoagulation, a high risk for bleeding (Table 11) favors surveillance, and the decision to use anticoagulation or surveillance is expected to be sensitive to patient preferences. We anticipate that isolated distal DVT that are detected using a selective approach to whole-leg US will often satisfy criteria for initial anticoagulation, whereas distal DVT detected by routine whole-leg US often will not. The updated literature search did not identify any new randomized trials that assessed management of patients with isolated distal DVT. Two new systematic and a narrative review83 addressed treatment of isolated distal DVT. In addition to summarizing available data, consistent with AT9, they emphasize the limitations of available evidence. In the absence of substantive new evidence, the panel endorsed the AT9 recommendations without revision. The evidence supporting these recommendations remains low quality because it is not based on direct comparisons of the two management strategies, and ability to predict extension of distal DVT is limited. 13.

The evidence supporting these recommendations remains low quality because it is not based on direct comparisons of the two management strategies, and ability to predict extension of distal DVT is limited. 13. In patients with acute isolated distal DVT of the leg and (i) without severe symptoms or risk factors for extension (see text), we suggest serial imaging of the deep veins for 2 weeks over anticoagulation (Grade 2C), and (ii) with severe symptoms or risk factors for extension (see text), we suggest anticoagulation over serial imaging of the deep veins (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients at high risk for bleeding are more likely to bene t from serial imaging. Patients who place a high value on avoiding the inconvenience of repeat imaging and a low value on the inconvenience of treatment and on the potential for bleeding are likely to choose initial anticoagulation over serial imaging. 14. In patients with acute, isolated, distal DVT of the leg who are managed with anticoagulation, we recommend using the same anticoagulation as for patients with acute proximal DVT (Grade 1B). 15. In patients with acute, isolated, distal DVT of the leg who are managed with serial imaging, we (i) recommend no anticoagulation if the thrombus does not extend (Grade 1B), (ii) suggest anticoagulation if the thrombus extends but remains con ned to the distal veins (Grade 2C), and (iii) recommend anticoagulation if the thrombus extends into the proximal veins (Grade 1B).

In patients with acute, isolated, distal DVT of the leg who are managed with serial imaging, we (i) recommend no anticoagulation if the thrombus does not extend (Grade 1B), (ii) suggest anticoagulation if the thrombus extends but remains con ned to the distal veins (Grade 2C), and (iii) recommend anticoagulation if the thrombus extends into the proximal veins (Grade 1B). CDT for Acute DVT of the Leg Summary of the Evidence At the time of AT9, there was one small randomized comparing the effect of CDT vs anticoagulant alone on development of PTS, and another larger randomized trial (Catheter-Directed Venous Thrombolysis in Acute Iliofemoral Vein Thrombosis [CAVENT] Study) assessing short-term (eg, venous patency and bleeding) but not long-term (eg, PTS) The CAVENT Study has since reported that CDT reduced PTS, did not alter quality of life, and appears to be cost-effective (Table 14, e-Table 15).89-92 A retrospective analysis found that CDT (3649 patients) was associated with an increase in transfusion (twofold), intracranial bleeding (threefold), PE (1.5-fold), and vena caval lter insertion (twofold); long-term outcomes and PTS were not reported.93 A single-center prospective registry found that US-assisted CDT in acute iliofemoral (87 patients) achieved high rates of venous patency, was rarely associated with bleeding, and that only 6% of patients had PTS at 1 year.94 This new evidence has not led to a change in our recommendation for the use of CDT in patients with 334 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] DVT. Although the quality of the evidence has improved, the overall quality is still low because of very serious imprecision.

Although the quality of the evidence has improved, the overall quality is still low because of very serious imprecision. Unchanged from AT9, we propose that the patients who are most likely to bene t from CDT have iliofemoral DVT, symptoms for <14 days, good functional status, life expectancy of $1 year, and a low risk of bleeding (Tables 14 and 15, e-Table 15). Because the balance of risks and bene ts with CDT is TABLE 14 ] Summary of Findings: Catheter-Assisted Thrombus Removal vs Anticoagulation Alone for Acute Leg DVT Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Anticoagulation Alone Risk Difference with Catheter-Assisted Thrombus Removal (95% CI) All-cause mortality Lowa,b because of imprecision (from 43 fewer to 54 more) Recurrent VTE 189 Lowa,b because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populatione (from 34 fewer to 12 more) Major bleeding 224 studies) Lowa,b because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populatione,f (from 17 fewer to 1000 more) Moderatea because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populationh (from 265 fewer to 0 more)i Moderateb because of imprecision (from 41 more to 386 more) Moderatek because of risk of bias The mean quality of life in the intervention groups was 0.2 higher (2.8 lower to 3 higher)l,m The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CAVENT Catheter-Directed Venous Thrombolysis in Acute Iliofemoral Vein Thrombosis; EQ-5D EuroQol 5 Dimensions; PTS postthrombotic syndrome; QoL quality of life. See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.

See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a CI includes values suggesting both bene t and harm. b Low number of events. c Reported deaths from Enden et al90 (CAVENT). d Estimate taken from Watson et al.229 The 1 study included for this outcome was Enden et al90 (CAVENT). e Baseline risks for nonfatal recurrent VTE and for major bleeding derived from Douketis et al.231 f Most of bleeding events occur during the rst 7 d. g This estimate is based on the Watson et al.229 The 1 study included for this outcome was Enden et al90 (CAVENT). For PTS at 6 mo, published data from Enden et al90 (CAVENT) provide an estimate RR of 0.93 (0.61-1.42) via Watson et al.229 h This estimate is based on the ndings of the VETO study.232 i For severe PTS, assuming the same RR of 0.46 and a baseline risk of 13.8%,232 the absolute reduction is 75 fewer severe PTS per 1,000 (from 29 fewer to 138 fewer) over 2 y. j Reported patency from Enden et al90 (CAVENT). k Open-label. l Disease-speci c QoL (VEINES-QOL) estimate used at 24 mo according to treatment allocation. m Generic QoL (EQ-5D) at 24 mo according to treatment allocation estimate is mean difference 0.04 (-0.01 to 0.17). Bibliography: Watson et al229 used for all outcomes except patency and QoL; Enden et al90 used for patency estimates; Enden et al230 used for QoL estimates. uncertain, we consider that anticoagulant therapy alone is an acceptable alternative to CDT in all patients with acute DVT who do not have impending venous gangrene. 16. In patients with acute proximal DVT of the leg, we suggest anticoagulant therapy alone over CDT (Grade 2C).

In patients with acute proximal DVT of the leg, we suggest anticoagulant therapy alone over CDT (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients who are most likely to bene t from CDT (see text), who attach a high value to prevention of PTS, and a lower value to the initial complexity, cost, and risk of bleeding with CDT, are likely to choose CDT over anticoagulation alone. Role of IVC Filter in Addition to Anticoagulation for Acute DVT or PE Summary of the Evidence Our recommendation in AT9 was primarily based on ndings of the Prevention du Risque d Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave (PREPIC) randomized which showed that placement of a permanent IVC lter increased DVT, decreased PE, and did not in uence VTE(DVTand PEcombined)ormortality.Since then, several registries have suggested that IVC lters can reduce early mortality inpatients with acute VTE, although this evidence has been questioned.97-101 The recently published PREPIC 2 randomized trial found that placement of an IVC lter for 3 months did not reduce recurrent PE, including fatal PE, in anticoagulated patients with PE and DVT who had additional risk factors for This newevidence is consistent with our recommendations in AT9. However, because it is uncertain if there is bene t to placement of an IVC lter in anticoagulated patients with severe PE (eg, with hypotension), and this is done by some experts, our recommendation against insertion of an IVC lter in patients with acute PE who are anticoagulated may not apply to this select subgroup of patients. Although the PREPIC 2 study has improved the quality of evidence for this recommendation, overall quality is still moderate because of imprecision (Table 16, e-Table 16).

Although the PREPIC 2 study has improved the quality of evidence for this recommendation, overall quality is still moderate because of imprecision (Table 16, e-Table 16). The AT10 panel decided against combining the results of TABLE 15 ] Risk Factors for Bleeding With, and Contraindications to Use of, Thrombolytic Therapy (Both Systemic and Locally Administered) Major Contraindicationsa Structural intracranial disease Previous intracranial hemorrhage Ischemic stroke within 3 mo Active bleeding Recent brain or spinal surgery Recent head trauma with fracture or brain injury Bleeding diathesis Relative contraindicationsb Systolic BP >180 Diastolic BP >110 Recent bleeding (nonintracranial) Recent surgery Recent invasive procedure Ischemic stroke more than 3 mo previously Anticoagulated (eg, VKA therapy) Traumatic cardiopulmonary resuscitation Pericarditis or pericardial uid Diabetic retinopathy Pregnancy Age >75 y Low body weight (eg, <60 kg) Female Black race See Table 1 and 6 legends for expansion of abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a The presence of major contraindications usually precludes use of thrombolytic therapy; consequently, these factors have not been well studied as risk factors for bleeding associated with thrombolytic therapy. Patients with 1 or more major contraindication are usually considered to be high risk for bleeding with thrombolytic therapy. The factors listed in this table are consistent with other recommendations for the use of thrombolytic therapy in patients with PE.138,233-235 b Risk factors for bleeding during anticoagulant therapy that are noted in Table 11 that are not included in this table are also likely to be relative contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. The increase in bleeding associ- atedwith a risk factor will vary with:(1) severity of the risk factor (eg, extent of trauma or recent surgery) and (2) temporal relationships (eg, interval from surgery or a previous bleeding episode; believed to decrease markedly after approximately 2 wk).

The increase in bleeding associ- atedwith a risk factor will vary with:(1) severity of the risk factor (eg, extent of trauma or recent surgery) and (2) temporal relationships (eg, interval from surgery or a previous bleeding episode; believed to decrease markedly after approximately 2 wk). Risk factorsfor bleeding at critical sites (eg, intracranial, intraocular) or noncompressible sites are stronger contraindications for thrombolytic therapy. Depending on the nature, severity, temporality, and numberofrelative contraindications,patientsmay beconsidered highriskof bleeding with thrombolytic therapy or non-high risk for thrombolytic therapy. Patients with no risk factors, 1-2 minor risk factors (eg, female and black race) are usually considered low risk of bleeding with thrombolytic therapy. Among 32,000 Medicare patients ($65 y) with myocardial infrac- tion who were treated with thrombolytic therapy, the following factors were independently associated with intracranial haemorrhage: age $75 y (OR, 1.6); black (OR, 1.6); female (OR, 1.4); previous stroke (OR, 1.5); systolic BP $160 mm Hg (OR, 1.8); women #65 kg or men # 80 kg (OR, 1.5); The rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased from 0.7% with 0 or 1 of these risk factors, to 4.1% with $5 risk factors.

Among 32,000 Medicare patients ($65 y) with myocardial infrac- tion who were treated with thrombolytic therapy, the following factors were independently associated with intracranial haemorrhage: age $75 y (OR, 1.6); black (OR, 1.6); female (OR, 1.4); previous stroke (OR, 1.5); systolic BP $160 mm Hg (OR, 1.8); women #65 kg or men # 80 kg (OR, 1.5); The rate of intracranial hemorrhage increased from 0.7% with 0 or 1 of these risk factors, to 4.1% with $5 risk factors. Among 32,000 patients with myocardial infraction who were treated with thrombolytic therapy in 5 clinical trials, the following factors were indepen- dently associated with moderate or severe bleeding: older age (OR, 1.04 per year); black (OR, 1.4); female (OR, 1.5); hypertension (OR, 1.2); lower weight We estimate that systemic thrombolytic therapy is associated with relative risk of major bleeding of 3.5 within 35 d (RR, approximately 7 for intracranial bleeding); about three-quarters of the excess of major bleeds with thrombolytic therapy occur in the rst 24 h.141 336 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] the PREPIC and PREPIC 2 studies because of differences in the type of lter used, the duration of lter placement, and differences in the length of follow-up. 17. In patients with acute DVT or PE who are treated with anticoagulants, we recommend against the use of an IVC lter (Grade 1B). Compression Stocking to Prevent PTS Summary of the Evidence AT9 suggested routine use of graduated compression stockings for 2 years after DVT to reduce the risk of PTS.

Compression Stocking to Prevent PTS Summary of the Evidence AT9 suggested routine use of graduated compression stockings for 2 years after DVT to reduce the risk of PTS. Thatrecommendationwasmainlybased on ndingsoftwo small, single-center, randomized trials in which patients and study personnel were not blinded to stocking use (no The quality of the evidence was moderate because of risk of bias resulting from a lack of blinding of an outcome (PTS) that has a large subjective component and because of serious imprecision of the combined ndings of the two trials (Table 17, e-Table 17). Since AT9, a much larger multicenter, placebo-controlled trial at low risk of bias found that routine use of graduated compression stockings did not reduce PTS or have other Based on this trial, we now suggest that graduated compression stockings not be used routinely to prevent PTS and consider the quality to the evidence to be moderate (Table 17, e-Table 17). The same study found that routine use of graduated compression stockings did not reduce leg pain during the 3 months after DVT diagnosis (Table 17, e-Tables 2 This nding, however, does not mean that graduated compression stockings will not reduce acute symptoms of DVT or chronic symptoms in those who have developed PTS. *18. In patients with acute DVT of the leg, we sug- gest not using compression stockings routinely to prevent PTS (Grade 2B). Remarks: This recommendation focuses on prevention of the chronic complication of PTS and not on the treatment of symptoms. For patients with acute or chronic symptoms, a trial of graduated compression stockings is often justi ed. Whether to Treat Subsegmental PE Summary of the Evidence Subsegmental PE refers to PE that is con ned to the subsegmental pulmonary arteries.

Whether to Treat Subsegmental PE Summary of the Evidence Subsegmental PE refers to PE that is con ned to the subsegmental pulmonary arteries. Whether these patients should be treated, a question that was not addressed in AT9, has grown in importance because improvements in CT pulmonary angiography have increased how often subsegmental PE is diagnosed (ie, from approximately 5% to more than 10% of TABLE 16 ] Summary of Findings: Temporary IVC Filter vs No Temporary IVC Filter in Addition to Anticoagulation for Acute DVT or PEa,b Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk With No Temporary IVC Filter in Addition to Anticoagulation Risk Difference with Temporary IVC Filter (95% CI) All-cause mortality Moderatec,d because of imprecision (from 24 fewer to 96 more) Recurrent PE 399 Moderatec,d because of imprecision (from 7 fewer to 104 more) Major bleeding 399 Moderatec,d because of imprecision (from 34 fewer to 49 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). IVC inferior vena cava. See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a All patients received full-dose anticoagulant therapy according to guidelines for at least 6 mo. b Filter removal was attempted in 164 patients and successful for 153 (93.3%). c CI includes values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. d Small number of events. Bibliography: Mismetti et al237 There is uncertainty whether these patients should be anticoagulated for two reasons.

Bibliography: Mismetti et al237 There is uncertainty whether these patients should be anticoagulated for two reasons. First, because the abnormalities are small, a diagnosis of subsegmental PE is more likely to be a false-positive nding than a diagnosis of PE in the segmental or more proximal Second, because a true subsegmental PE is likely to have arisen from a small DVT, the risk of progressive or recurrent VTE without anticoagulation is expected to be lower than in patients with a larger PE.110,111,117,118 Our literature search did not identify any randomized trials in patients with subsegmental PE. There is, however, high-quality evidence for the ef cacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with larger PE, and this is expected to apply similarly to patients with subsegmental PE.1 Whether the risk of progressive or recurrent VTE is high enough to justify anticoagulation in patients with subsegmental PE is There were no episodes of recurrent VTE in retrospective reports that included about 60 TABLE 17 ] Summary of Findings: Elastic Compression Stockings vs No Elastic Compression Stockings to Prevent PTS of the Leg Outcomes No.

There is, however, high-quality evidence for the ef cacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with larger PE, and this is expected to apply similarly to patients with subsegmental PE.1 Whether the risk of progressive or recurrent VTE is high enough to justify anticoagulation in patients with subsegmental PE is There were no episodes of recurrent VTE in retrospective reports that included about 60 TABLE 17 ] Summary of Findings: Elastic Compression Stockings vs No Elastic Compression Stockings to Prevent PTS of the Leg Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Follow-up Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with No Elastic Compression Stockings Risk Difference with Elastic Compression Stockings (95% CI) PTS Villalta Scorea Moderateb because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populationd (from 67 fewer to 86 more) Recurrent VTE Moderateb,e because of imprecision Moderate-Risk Populationg (from 97 fewer to 65 more) Acute Leg Pain Moderatee,h because of imprecision The mean acute leg pain in the control groups was 1.13 leg pain severity assessed on an 11-point numerical pain rating scalei The mean acute leg pain in the intervention groups lower to 0.55 higher)i High The mean QoL in the intervention groups was 0.12 lower (1.11 lower to The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). ECS elastic compression stockings; SF- 36 Short Form 36. See Table 1 and 14 legends for expansion of other abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a For included studies, number of PTS events as assessed by Villalta s criteria b Low number of events.

a For included studies, number of PTS events as assessed by Villalta s criteria b Low number of events. c There were 3 studies originally included for this outcome (Brandjes et al,103 Prandoni et al,104 and Kahn et al106 [SOX]). There was very high heterogeneity among the 3 studies, I2 92% (P < .01). The pooled effect of the 3 studies was RR, 0.63 (0.35-1.13). Yet, because of the high risk of bias associated with Brandjes et al103 and Prandoni et al,104 it was decided to focus on the estimate of the low-risk trial, Kahn et al106 (SOX), which is used here. d This estimate is based on the ndings of the VETO study.232 e CI includes values suggesting no effect and values suggesting either bene t or harm. f There were 3 studies originally included for this outcome (Brandjes et al,103 Prandoni et al,104 and Kahn et al106 [SOX]). The pooled effect of the 3 studies was RR, 0.91 (0.65-1.27). Yet, because of the high risk of bias associated with Brandjes et al103 and Prandoni et al,104 it was decided to focus on the estimate of the low-risk trial, Kahn et al106 (SOX), which is used here. g This estimate is the mean of 2 estimates derived from 2 studies: 12.4% probable/de nite VTE170 h Wide CI that includes no effect. i Estimate derived from Kahn et al.107 j Estimate based on VEINES-QOL score improvement of 5.8 points (SD, 7.5) for active ECS vs 5.9 (SD, 7.1) for placebo ECS. k SF-36 physical component score improved by 8.4 points (SD, 13.6) for active ECS vs 9.9 (SD, 13.2) for placebo ECS (difference between groups of -1.53 points, 95% CI, -3.44 to 0.39; P .12).

k SF-36 physical component score improved by 8.4 points (SD, 13.6) for active ECS vs 9.9 (SD, 13.2) for placebo ECS (difference between groups of -1.53 points, 95% CI, -3.44 to 0.39; P .12). Bibliography: Kahn et al106 (SOX) for PTS and recurrent VTE; Kahn et al107 for acute leg pain 338 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] patients with subsegmental PE and no proximal DVT and who were not anticoagulated.110,111 However, in another retrospective analysis, patients with subsegmental PE appeared to have a similar risk of recurrent VTE during 3 months of anticoagulant therapy as patients with larger PE, and a higher risk than in patients who were suspected of having PE but had PE The AT10 panel endorsed that, if no anticoagulant therapy is an option, patients with subsegmental PE should have bilateral US examinations to exclude proximal DVT of the legs.110,114 DVT should also be excluded in other high-risk locations, such as in upper extremities with central venous catheters. If DVT is detected, patients require anticoagulation. If DVT is not detected, there is uncertainty whether patients should be anticoagulated.

If DVT is not detected, there is uncertainty whether patients should be anticoagulated. If a decision is made not to anticoagulate, there is the option of doing one or more follow-up US examinations of the legs to detect (and then treat) evolving proximal DVT.110,114 Serial testing for proximal DVT has been shown to be a safe management strategy in patients with suspected PE who have nondiagnostic ventilation-perfusion scans, many of whom are expected to have subsegmental PE.110,111,120 We suggest that a diagnosis of subsegmental PE is more likely to be correct (ie, a true positive) if: (1) the CT pulmonary angiogram is of high quality with good opaci cation of the distal pulmonary arteries; (2) there are multiple intraluminal defects; (3) defects involve more proximal subsegmental arteries (ie, are larger); (4) defects are seen on more than one image; (5) defects are surrounded by contrast rather than appearing to be adherent to the pulmonary artery walls; (6) defects are seen on more than one projection; (7) patients are symptomatic, as opposed to PE being an incidental nding; (8) there is a high clinical pretest probability for PE; and (9) D-dimer level is elevated, particularly if the increase is marked and otherwise unexplained. In addition to whether or not patients truly have subsegmental PE, we consider the following to be risk factors for recurrent or progressive VTE if patients are not anticoagulated patients who: are hospitalized or have reduced mobility for another reason; have active cancer (particularly if metastatic or being treated with chemotherapy); or have no reversible risk factor for VTE such as recent surgery. Furthermore, a low cardiopulmonary reserve or marked symptoms that cannot be attributed to another condition favor anticoagulant therapy, whereas a high risk of bleeding favors no anticoagulant therapy.

Furthermore, a low cardiopulmonary reserve or marked symptoms that cannot be attributed to another condition favor anticoagulant therapy, whereas a high risk of bleeding favors no anticoagulant therapy. The decision to anticoagulate or not is also expected to be sensitive to patient preferences. Patients who are not anticoagulated should be told to return for reevaluation if symptoms persist or worsen. The evidence supporting our recommendations is low quality because of indirectness and because there is limited ability to predict which patients will have VTE complications without anticoagulation. *19. In patients with subsegmental PE (no involvement of more proximal pulmonary arteries) and no proximal DVT in the legs who have a (i) low risk for recurrent VTE (see text), we suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation (Grade 2C), and (ii) high risk for recurrent VTE (see text), we suggest anticoagulation over clinical surveillance (Grade 2C). Remarks: US imaging of the deep veins of both legs should be done to exclude proximal DVT. Clinical surveillance can be supplemented by serial US imaging of the proximal deep veins of both legs to detect evolving DVT (see text). Patients and physicians are more likely to opt for clinical surveillance over anticoagulation if there is good cardiopulmonary reserve or a high risk of bleeding. Treatment of Acute PE Out of the Hospital Summary of the Evidence Our recommendation in AT9 was based on: (1) two trials that randomized patients with acute PE to receive LMWH for only 3 days in the hospital121 or entirely at compared with being treated with LMWH in the hospital for a longer period; (2) 15 observational studies, 9 of which were prospective, that evaluated treatment of acute PE out of the hospital1 ; and (3) longstanding experience treating DVT without admission to a hospital.

Treatment of Acute PE Out of the Hospital Summary of the Evidence Our recommendation in AT9 was based on: (1) two trials that randomized patients with acute PE to receive LMWH for only 3 days in the hospital121 or entirely at compared with being treated with LMWH in the hospital for a longer period; (2) 15 observational studies, 9 of which were prospective, that evaluated treatment of acute PE out of the hospital1 ; and (3) longstanding experience treating DVT without admission to a hospital. Since AT9, no further randomized trials have evaluated out-of-hospital treatment of acute PE. Several additional prospective and retrospective observational studies have reported ndings consistent with earlier reports, and the ndings of all of these studies have been included in recent meta- analyses that have addressed treatment of acute PE out of the hospital.123-125 Studies that evaluated NOACs for the acute treatment of PE did not report the proportion of patients who were treated entirely out of hospital, but it is probable that this was uncommon. Treatment of acute PE with a NOAC that does not require initial heparin therapy (eg, rivaroxaban, apixaban) facilitates treatment without hospital admission. Consistent with AT9, we suggest that patients who satisfy all of the following criteria are suitable for treatment of acute PE out of the hospital: (1) clinically stable with good cardiopulmonary reserve; (2) no contraindications such as recent bleeding, severe renal or liver disease, or severe thrombocytopenia ); (3) expected to be compliant with treatment; and (4) the patient feels well enough to be treated at home.

Consistent with AT9, we suggest that patients who satisfy all of the following criteria are suitable for treatment of acute PE out of the hospital: (1) clinically stable with good cardiopulmonary reserve; (2) no contraindications such as recent bleeding, severe renal or liver disease, or severe thrombocytopenia ); (3) expected to be compliant with treatment; and (4) the patient feels well enough to be treated at home. Clinical decision rules such as the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), either the original form with score <85 or the simpli ed form with score of 0, can help to identify low-risk patients who are suitable for treatment at home.126-131 However, we consider clinical prediction rules as aids to decision- making and do not require patients to have a prede ned score (eg, low-risk PESI score) to be considered for treatment at home. Similarly, although we do not suggest the need for routine assessment in patients with acute PE, we agree that the presence of right ventricular dysfunction or increased cardiac biomarker levels should discourage treatment out of the hospital.130,132-138 The quality of the evidence for treatment of acute PE at home remains moderate because of marked imprecision. The updated recommendation has been modi ed to state that appropriately selected patients may be treated entirely at home, rather than just be discharged early. *20. In patients with low-risk PE and whose home circumstances are adequate, we suggest treatment at home or early discharge over standard discharge (eg, after the rst 5 days of treatment) (Grade 2B).

In patients with low-risk PE and whose home circumstances are adequate, we suggest treatment at home or early discharge over standard discharge (eg, after the rst 5 days of treatment) (Grade 2B). Systemic Thrombolytic Therapy for PE Summary of the Evidence It has long been established that systemic thrombolytic therapy accelerates resolution of PE as evidenced by more rapid lowering of pulmonary artery pressure, increases in arterial oxygenation, and resolution of perfusion scan defects, and that this therapy increases The net mortality bene t of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute PE, however, has been uncertain and depends on an individual patient s baseline (ie, without thrombolytic therapy) risk of dying from acute PE and risk of bleeding. Patients with the highest risk of dying from PE and the lowest risk of bleeding obtain the greatest net bene t from thrombolytic therapy. Patients with the lowest risk of dying from PE and the highest risk of bleeding obtain the least net bene t from thrombolytic therapy and are likely to be harmed. Evidence for the Use of Thrombolytic Therapy in Patients With Acute PE: AT9 recommendations for the use of thrombolytic therapy in acute PE were based on At that time, only about 800 patients with acute PE had been randomized to receive thrombolytic therapy or anticoagulant therapy alone and, consequently, estimates of ef cacy, safety, and overall mortality were very imprecise. In addition, the trials that enrolled these 800 patients had a high risk of bias and there was a strong suspicion that there was selective reporting of studies that favored thrombolytic therapy (ie, publication bias). Randomized trials have clearly established that thrombolytic therapy increases bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction,140 but that evidence was indirect when applied to patients with PE.

Randomized trials have clearly established that thrombolytic therapy increases bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction,140 but that evidence was indirect when applied to patients with PE. Since AT9, two additional small, randomized trials141,142 and a much larger trial143 have evaluated systemic thrombolytic therapy in about 1,200 patients with acute PE. The ndings of these new studies have been combined with those of earlier studies in a number of These new data, by reducing imprecision for estimates of ef cacy and safety and the overall risk of bias, have increased the quality of the evidence from low to moderate for recommendations about the use of systemic thrombolytic therapy in acute PE (Table 18, e-Table 18). Most of the new evidence comes from the Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis trial, which randomized 1,006 patients with PE and right ventricular dysfunction to tenecteplase and heparin or to heparin therapy alone The most notable ndings of this study were that thrombolytic therapy prevented cardiovascular collapse but increased major (including intracranial) bleeding; these bene ts and harms were nely balanced, with no convincing net bene t from thrombolytic therapy. An additional nding was that rescue thrombolytic therapy appeared to be of bene t in patients who developed cardiovascular collapse after initially being treated with anticoagulant therapy alone.

An additional nding was that rescue thrombolytic therapy appeared to be of bene t in patients who developed cardiovascular collapse after initially being treated with anticoagulant therapy alone. Management Implication of the Updated Evidence: The improved quality of evidence has not resulted in substantial changes to our recommendations because: (1) the new data support that the bene ts of systemic thrombolytic therapy in patients without hypotension, including those with right ventricular dysfunction or an increase in cardiac biomarkers ( intermediate-risk PE ), 340 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] are largely offset by the increase in bleeding; and (2) among patients without hypotension, it is still not possible to con dently identify those who will derive net bene t from this therapy. PE With Hypotension: Consistent with AT9, we suggest that patients with acute PE with hypotension (ie, systolic BP <90 mm Hg for 15 min) and without high bleeding risk (Table 15) are treated with thrombolytic therapy. The more severe and persistent the hypotension, and the more marked the associated features of shock and myocardial dysfunction or damage, the more compelling the indication for systemic thrombolytic therapy. Conversely, if hypotension is transient or less marked, not associated with features of shock or myocardial dysfunction, and if there are risk factors for bleeding, physicians and patients are likely to initially choose anticoagulant therapy without thrombolytic therapy. If thrombolytic therapy is not used and hypotension persists or becomes more marked, or clinical features of shock or myocardial damage develop or worsen, thrombolytic therapy may then be used.

If thrombolytic therapy is not used and hypotension persists or becomes more marked, or clinical features of shock or myocardial damage develop or worsen, thrombolytic therapy may then be used. PE Without Hypotension: Consistent with AT9, we recommend that most patients with acute PE who do not have hypotension are not treated with thrombolytic therapy. However, patients with PE without hypotension include a broad spectrum of presentations. At the mild end of the spectrum are those who have minimal symptoms and minimal cardiopulmonary impairment. As noted in the section Setting for initial anticoagulation for PE, many of these patients can be treated entirely at home or can be discharged after a brief admission. At the severe end of the spectrum are those with severe symptoms and more marked cardiopulmonary impairment (even though systolic BP is >90 mm Hg). In addition to clinical features of cardiopulmonary impairment (eg, heart rate, BP, respiratory rate, jugular venous pressure, tissue hypoperfusion, pulse oximetry), they may have evidence of right ventricular dysfunction on their CT pulmonary angiogram or on echocardiography, or evidence of myocardial damage as re ected by increases in cardiac biomarkers (eg, troponins, brain natriuretic peptide). TABLE 18 ] Summary of Findings: Systemic Thrombolytic Therapy vs Anticoagulation Alone for Acute PE Outcomes No.

TABLE 18 ] Summary of Findings: Systemic Thrombolytic Therapy vs Anticoagulation Alone for Acute PE Outcomes No. of Participants (Studies) Quality of the Evidence (GRADE) Relative Effect Anticipated Absolute Effects Risk with Anticoagulation Alone Risk Difference with Systemic Thrombolytic Therapy (95% CI) All-cause mortality Moderatea because of imprecision (from 5 fewer to 26 fewer) Recurrent PE 2,043 Moderatea because of imprecision (from 8 fewer to 24 fewer) Major bleeding 2,115 High (from 29 more to 87 more) Intracranial hemorrhage Moderatea because of imprecision (from 2 more to 21 more) The basis for the assumed risk (eg, the median control group risk across studies) is provided in the footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). See Table 1 and 4 legends for expansion of abbreviations and GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. a Low number of events. b Estimate from Chatterjee et al.147 Other estimates from meta-analyses on this topic include Dong et al:238 (intermediate-risk PE only): OR, 0.46 (intermediate-risk PE only): OR, 0.42 (0.17-1.03). c Majority (83%) of participants in Chatterjee et al147 were moderate risk. d Estimate from Chatterjee et al.147 Other estimates from meta-analyses on this topic include Dong et al:238 RR, 0.60 (0.21-1.69). e Estimate from Chatterjee et al.147 Other estimates from meta-analyses on this topic include Dong et al:238 : RR, 1.16 RR, 2.07 (0.58-7.35). f Estimate from Chatterjee et al.147 Bibliography: Chatterjee et al147 We suggest that patients without hypotension who are at the severe end of the spectrum be treated with aggressive anticoagulation and other supportive measures, and not with thrombolytic therapy. These patients need to be closely monitored to ensure that deteriorations are detected.

These patients need to be closely monitored to ensure that deteriorations are detected. Development of hypotension suggests that thrombolytic therapy has become indicated. Deterioration that has not resulted in hypotension may also prompt the use of thrombolytic therapy. For example, there may be a progressive increase in heart rate, a decrease in systolic BP (which remains >90 mm Hg), an increase in jugular venous pressure, worsening gas exchange, signs of shock (eg, cold sweaty skin, reduced urine output, confusion), progressive right heart dysfunction on echocardiography, or an increase in cardiac biomarkers. We do not propose that echocardiography or cardiac biomarkers are measured routinely in all patients with PE, or in all patients with a non low-risk PESI This is because, when measured routinely, the results of these assessments do not have clear therapeutic implications. For example, we do not recommend thrombolytic therapy routinely for patients without hypotension who have right ventricular dysfunction and an increase in cardiac biomarkers. However, we encourage assessment of right ventricular function by echocardiography and/or measurement of cardiac biomarkers if, following clinical assessment, there is uncertainty about whether patients require more intensive monitoring or should receive thrombolytic therapy. 21. In patients with acute PE associated with hypotension (eg, systolic BP < 90 mm Hg) who do not have a high bleeding risk, we suggest systemically administered thrombolytic therapy over no such therapy (Grade 2B). *22. In most patients with acute PE not associated with hypotension, we recommend against systemi- cally administered thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B). *23. In selected patients with acute PE who deteriorate after starting anticoagulant therapy but have yet to develop hypotension and who have a low bleeding risk, we suggest systemically administered thrombolytic therapy over no such therapy (Grade 2C).

In selected patients with acute PE who deteriorate after starting anticoagulant therapy but have yet to develop hypotension and who have a low bleeding risk, we suggest systemically administered thrombolytic therapy over no such therapy (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients with PE and without hypotension who have severe symptoms or marked cardiopulmonary impairment should be monitored closely for deterioration. Development of hypotension suggests that thrombolytic therapy has become indicated. Cardiopulmonary deterioration (eg, symptoms, vital signs, tissue perfusion, gas exchange, cardiac biomarkers) that has not progressed to hypotension may also alter the risk-bene t assessment in favor of thrombolytic therapy in patients initially treated with anticoagulation alone. Catheter-Based Thrombus Removal for the Initial Treatment of PE Summary of the Evidence Interventional catheter-based treatments for acute PE include delivery of CDT if there is not a high risk of bleeding, or catheter-based treatment without thrombolytic therapy if there is a high risk of bleeding. CDT: The most important limitation of systemic thrombolytic therapy is that it increases bleeding, including intracranial bleeding. CDT, because it uses a lower dose of thrombolytic drug (eg, about one-third), is expected to cause less bleeding at remote sites (eg, intracranial, GI).138,150-153 CDT, however, may be as or more effective than systemic thrombolytic therapy for two reasons: (1) it achieves a high local concentration of thrombolytic drug by infusing drug directly into the PE and (2) thrombus fragmentation resulting from placement of the infusion catheter in the thrombus or additional maneuvers, or an increase in thrombus permeability from US delivered via the catheter, may enhance endogenous or pharmacologic thrombolysis. Thrombolytic therapy is usually infused over many hours or overnight. In emergent situations, systemic thrombolytic therapy can be given while CDT is being arranged, and active thrombus fragmentation and aspiration (see below) can be combined with CDT.

In emergent situations, systemic thrombolytic therapy can be given while CDT is being arranged, and active thrombus fragmentation and aspiration (see below) can be combined with CDT. A single randomized trial of 59 patients found that, compared with anticoagulation alone, US-assisted CDT improved right ventricular function at 24 h.154 Observational studies also suggest that CDT is effective at removing thrombus, lowering pulmonary arterial pressure, and improving right ventricular function without being associated with a high risk of Most of these studies are small (fewer than 30 patients) and retrospective, although a recent prospective registry of 101 patients and a prospective cohort study of 150 patients also support the ef cacy of Whereas there was no major bleeding in the registry, there were 15 episodes in the cohort study 342 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] (10%; no intracranial or fatal bleeds). An older randomized trial of 34 patients with massive PE found that infusion of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator into a pulmonary artery as opposed to a peripheral vein did not accelerate thrombolysis, but caused more frequent bleeding at the catheter insertion No randomized trials or observational studies have compared contemporary CDT with systemic thrombolytic therapy. For patients who require thrombolytic therapy and do not have a high risk of bleeding, the AT10 panel favored systemic thrombolytic therapy over CDT because, compared with anticoagulation alone, there is a higher quality of evidence in support of systemic thrombolytic therapy than for CDT.

For patients who require thrombolytic therapy and do not have a high risk of bleeding, the AT10 panel favored systemic thrombolytic therapy over CDT because, compared with anticoagulation alone, there is a higher quality of evidence in support of systemic thrombolytic therapy than for CDT. Catheter-Based Thrombus Removal Without Thrombolytic Therapy: Catheter-based mechanical techniques for thrombus removal involve thrombus fragmentation using various types of catheters, some of which are designed speci cally for this purpose.150-153 Fragmentation results in distal displacement of thrombus, with or without suctioning and removal of some thrombus through the catheter. Mechanical methods alone are used when thrombus removal is indicated but there is a high risk of bleeding that precludes thrombolytic therapy. No randomized trial or prospective cohort studies have evaluated catheter-based thrombus removal of PE without thrombolytic therapy. Evidence for the use of CDT compared with anticoagulation alone, CDT compared with systemic thrombolytic therapy, and catheter-based treatment without thrombolytic therapy is of low quality and our recommendations are weak. *24. In patients with acute PE who are treated with a thrombolytic agent, we suggest systemic thrombo- lytic therapy using a peripheral vein over CDT (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients who have a higher risk of bleeding with systemic thrombolytic therapy, and who have access to the expertise and resources required to do CDT, are likely to choose CDT over systemic thrombolytic therapy. *25. In patients with acute PE associated with hy- potension and who have (i) a high bleeding risk, (ii) failed systemic thrombolysis, or (iii) shock that is likely to cause death before systemic thrombolysis can take effect (eg, within hours), if appropriate expertise and resources are available, we suggest catheter-assisted thrombus removal over no such intervention (Grade 2C). Remarks: Catheter-assisted thrombus removal refers to mechanical interventions, with or without catheter directed thrombolysis.

Remarks: Catheter-assisted thrombus removal refers to mechanical interventions, with or without catheter directed thrombolysis. Pulmonary Thromboendarterectomy in for the Treatment of Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Summary of the Evidence The AT9 recommendation was based on case series that have shown marked improvements in cardiopulmonary status after thromboendarterectomy in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension Although additional case series have been reported, the quality of the evidence for thromboendarterectomy in patients with CTEPH has The AT10 panel decided, however, that our previous recommendation for thromboendarterectomy in selected patients with CTEPH was too restrictive and could contribute to suboptimal evaluation and treatment of patients with CTEPH. For example, because of improvements in surgical technique, it is now often possible to remove organized thrombi from peripheral pulmonary arteries. In patients with inoperable CTEPH or persistent pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, there is new evidence from a randomized trial that pulmonary vasodilator therapy may be of bene t.163 For these reasons, we no longer identify central disease as a selection factor for thromboendarterectomy in patients with CTEPH, and we emphasize that patients with CTEPH should be assessed by a team with expertise in the evaluation and management of pulmonary hypertension.153,159,164-166 *26. In selected patients with chronic thromboem- bolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) who are identi ed by an experienced thromboendarter- ectomy team, we suggest pulmonary thromboen- darterectomy over no pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients with CTEPH should be evaluated by a team with expertise in treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy is often lifesaving and life-transforming. Patients with CTEPH who are not candidates for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy may bene t from other mechanical and pharmacological interventions designed to lower pulmonary arterial pressure.

Patients with CTEPH who are not candidates for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy may bene t from other mechanical and pharmacological interventions designed to lower pulmonary arterial pressure. Thrombolytic Therapy in Patients With Upper Extremity DVT Summary of the Evidence The AT9 recommendation was based on: (1) mostly retrospective observational studies suggesting that thrombolysis could improve short- and long-term venous patency, but a lack of data about whether thrombolysis reduced PTS of the arm; (2) occasional reports of bleeding in patients with UEDVT who were treated with thrombolysis, and clear evidence that thrombolysis increases bleeding in other settings; and (3) recognition that, compared to anticoagulation alone, thrombolytic therapy is complex and costly.1,167,168 We suggest that thrombolysis is most likely to be of bene t in patients who meet the following criteria: severe symptoms; thrombus involving most of the subclavian vein and the axillary vein; symptoms for <14 days; good functional status; life expectancy of $1 year; and low risk for bleeding. We also suggested CDT over systemic thrombolysis to reduce the dose of thrombolytic drug and the risk of bleeding. There is new moderate quality evidence that CDT can reduce PTS of the leg90 (Table 14, e-Table 15) and that systemic thrombolysis increases bleeding in patients with acute PE,143,147 and low-quality evidence that CDT can accelerate breakdown of acute PE.154 This evidence has indirect bearing on thrombolysis in patients with UEDVT, but it has not changed the overall quality of the evidence or our recommendations for use of thrombolysis in these patients. 27. In patients with acute upper extremity DVT (UEDVT) that involves the axillary or more proximal veins, we suggest anticoagulant therapy alone over thrombolysis (Grade 2C).

In patients with acute upper extremity DVT (UEDVT) that involves the axillary or more proximal veins, we suggest anticoagulant therapy alone over thrombolysis (Grade 2C). Remarks: Patients who (i) are most likely to bene t from thrombolysis (see text); (ii) have access to CDT; (iii) attach a high value to prevention of PTS; and (iv) attach a lower value to the initial complexity, cost, and risk of bleeding with thrombolytic therapy are likely to choose thrombolytic therapy over anticoagulation alone. 28. In patients with UEDVT who undergo thrombolysis, we recommend the same intensity and duration of anticoagulant therapy as in patients with UEDVT who do not undergo thrombolysis (Grade 1B). Management of Recurrent VTE on Anticoagulant Therapy Summary of Evidence There are no randomized trials or prospective cohort studies that have evaluated management of patients with recurrent VTE on anticoagulant therapy. Consequently, management is based on low-quality evidence and an assessment of the probable reason for the recurrence. Risk factors for recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy can be divided into two broad categories: (1) treatment factors and (2) the patient s intrinsic risk of recurrence. How a new event should be treated will depend on the reason(s) for recurrence. Treatment Factors: The risk of recurrent VTE decreases rapidly after starting anticoagulant therapy, with a much higher risk during the rst week (or month) compared with the second week (or month).169,170 A recurrence soon after starting therapy can generally be managed by a time-limited (eg, 1 month) period of more aggressive anticoagulant intensity (eg, switching from an oral agent back to LMWH, an increase in LMWH dose).

Treatment Factors: The risk of recurrent VTE decreases rapidly after starting anticoagulant therapy, with a much higher risk during the rst week (or month) compared with the second week (or month).169,170 A recurrence soon after starting therapy can generally be managed by a time-limited (eg, 1 month) period of more aggressive anticoagulant intensity (eg, switching from an oral agent back to LMWH, an increase in LMWH dose). Other treatment factors that are associated with recurrent VTE and will suggest speci c approaches to management include: (1) was LMWH being used; (2) was the patient adherent; (3) was VKA subtherapeutic; (4) was anticoagulant therapy prescribed correctly; (5) was the patient taking an NOAC and a drug that reduced anticoagulant effect; and (6) had anticoagulant dose been reduced (drugs other than VKA)? There is moderate-quality evidence that LMWH is more effective than VKA therapy in patients with VTE and cancer. A switch to full-dose LMWH, therefore, is often made if there has been an unexplained recurrent VTE on VKA therapy or an NOAC. If the recurrence happened on LMWH, the dose of LMWH can be increased. If the dose of LMWH was previously reduced (eg, by 25% after 1 month of treatment), it is usually increased to the previous level. If the patient was receiving full-dose LMWH, the dose may be increased by about 25%. In practice, the increase in dose is often in uenced by the LMWH pre lled syringe dose options that are available. Once-daily LMWH may also be switched to a twice- daily regimen, particularly if two injections are required to deliver the increase in LMWH dose.

Once-daily LMWH may also be switched to a twice- daily regimen, particularly if two injections are required to deliver the increase in LMWH dose. Treatment adherence, including compliance, can be dif cult to assess; for example, symptoms of a recurrent DVT may 344 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] encourage medication adherence and a return of coagulation results to the therapeutic range. Patient Factors: The most important intrinsic risk factor for recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy is active cancer, with an unexplained recurrence often pointing to yet-to-be-diagnosed disease. Antiphospholipid syndrome is also associated with recurrent VTE, either because of associated hypercoagulability or because a lupus anticoagulant has led to underdosing of VKA because of spurious increases in INR results. Anticoagulated patients may be taking medications that increase the risk of thrombosis such as estrogens or cancer chemotherapy, in which case these treatments may be withdrawn. A retrospective observational study found an acceptable risk of recurrence (8.6%) and major bleeding (1.4%) during 3 months of follow-up in 70 cancer patients with recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy who either switched from VKA therapy to LMWH (23 patients) or had their LMWH dose increased by If there is no reversible reason for recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy, and anticoagulant intensity cannot be increased because of risk of bleeding, a vena caval lter can be inserted to prevent PE.172 However, it is not known if insertion of a lter in these circumstances is worthwhile, and the AT10 panel consider this an option of last resort. *29.

A retrospective observational study found an acceptable risk of recurrence (8.6%) and major bleeding (1.4%) during 3 months of follow-up in 70 cancer patients with recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy who either switched from VKA therapy to LMWH (23 patients) or had their LMWH dose increased by If there is no reversible reason for recurrent VTE while on anticoagulant therapy, and anticoagulant intensity cannot be increased because of risk of bleeding, a vena caval lter can be inserted to prevent PE.172 However, it is not known if insertion of a lter in these circumstances is worthwhile, and the AT10 panel consider this an option of last resort. *29. In patients who have recurrent VTE on VKA therapy (in the therapeutic range) or on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban (and are believed to be compliant), we suggest switching to treatment with LMWH at least temporarily (Grade 2C). Remarks: Recurrent VTE while on therapeutic-dose anticoagulant therapy is unusual and should prompt the following assessments: (1) reevaluation of whether there truly was a recurrent VTE; (2) evaluation of compliance with anticoagulant therapy; and (3) consideration of an underlying malignancy. A temporary switch to LMWH will usually be for at least 1 month. *30. In patients who have recurrent VTE on long- term LMWH (and are believed to be compliant), we suggest increasing the dose of LMWH by about one- quarter to one-third (Grade 2C). Remarks: Recurrent VTE while on therapeutic-dose anticoagulant therapy is unusual and should prompt the following assessments: (1) reevaluation of whether there truly was a recurrent VTE; (2) evaluation of compliance with anticoagulant therapy; and (3) consideration of an underlying malignancy. Conclusion There is substantial new evidence since AT9 about how to treat VTE.

Conclusion There is substantial new evidence since AT9 about how to treat VTE. This evidence led the panel to change many of the AT9 recommendations that are included in this update, and has strengthened the evidence quality that underlies others that are unchanged. We now suggest the use of NOACs over VKA for the treatment of VTE in patients without cancer. Although we still suggest LMWH as the preferred long-term treatment for VTE and cancer, we no longer suggest VKA over NOACs in these patients. Although we note factors in individual patients that may favor selection of one NOAC over another in patients without or with cancer, or may favor selection of either a NOAC or VKA in patients with cancer, we have not expressed an overall preference for one NOAC over another, or for either a NOAC or VKA in patients with cancer, because: (1) there are no direct comparisons of different NOACs; (2) NOACs have not been compared with VKA in a broad spectrum of patients with VTE and cancer; and (3) indirect comparisons have not shown convincingly different outcomes with different NOACs. Another notable change in AT10 is that, based on a new low risk of bias study, we now suggest that graduated compression stocking are not routinely used to prevent PTS. Recommendations that are unchanged but are now supported by better evidence include: (1) discouragement of IVC lter use in anticoagulated patients; (2) encouragement of inde nite anticoagulant therapy after a rst unprovoked PE; and (3) discouragement of thrombolytic therapy in PE patients who are not hypotensive and are not deteriorating on anticoagulation. Of the 54 recommendations that are included in the 30 statements in this update, 20 (38%) are strong recommendations (Grade 1) and none is based on high- quality (Grade A) evidence.

Of the 54 recommendations that are included in the 30 statements in this update, 20 (38%) are strong recommendations (Grade 1) and none is based on high- quality (Grade A) evidence. The absence of high-quality evidence highlights the need for further research to guide VTE treatment decisions. As new evidence becomes available, these guidelines will need to be updated. Goals of our group and CHEST include transition to continually updated living guidelines. The modular format of this update is designed to facilitate this development, with individual topics and questions being addressed as new evidence becomes available. We will also facilitate implementation of our recommendations into practice by developing new and convenient ways to disseminate our recommendations. This will enable achievement of another of our goals reduction in the burden of VTE in individual patients and in the general population. Acknowledgments Author contributions: C. K. was the chair of the panel. C. K., E. A., A. B., J. O., D. J., and L .M. were executive committee members of the panel. C. K. and N. S. were the topic editors for Treatment of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Out of Hospital . C. K. and D. J. were the topic editors for Pulmonary Thromboendarterectomy in the Treatment of Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension . E. K. and A. B. were the topic editors for Compression Stocking to Prevent Post- Thrombotic Syndrome . E. K. and A. B. were the topic editors for Thrombolytic Therapy in Patients with Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis . D. J. and C. S. K. were the topic editors for Management of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism on Anticoagulant Therapy . H. B. and N. S. were the topic editors for Whether and How to Anticoagulate Patients with Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis .

H. B. and N. S. were the topic editors for Whether and How to Anticoagulate Patients with Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis . M. H. and H. B. were the topic editors for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Leg . M. H. and J. V. were the topic editors for Duration of Anticoagulant Therapy . L. M. and C. S. K. were the topic editors for Whether to Anticoagulate Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism . S. S., T. M. and P. W. were the topic editors for Catheter-Based Thrombus Removal for the Initial Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism . S.W. and T. M. were the topic editors for Choice of Long-Term (First 3 Months) and Extended (No Scheduled Stop Date) Anticoagulant . S. S., S. W. and J. V. were the topic editors for Systemic Thrombolytic Therapy for Pulmonary Embolism . L. M. and P. W. were the topic editors for Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism . L. M. and C. S. K. were the topic editors for Role of Inferior Vena Caval Filter in Addition to Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism . E. A. and J. O. were methodologists for the panel. A. B. was the GOC liaison to the panel. L. M. was an overall guideline editor. Financial/non nancial disclosures: The authors have reported to CHEST the following: In the past 3 years, E. A. A. was an author on a number of systematic reviews on anticoagulation in patients with cancer. H. B. has received compensation for participation on advisory committees with speaking engagements sponsored by Sano -Aventis, Bayer Healthcare, and Daiichi-Sankyo. His institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from Daiichi-Sankyo for studying VTE treatment.

His institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from Daiichi-Sankyo for studying VTE treatment. He has also served as a coauthor of original studies using rivaroxaban (EINSTEIN, EINSTEIN Pulmonary Embolism [PE]) and edoxaban (Hokusai-VTE study). M. H. has received grant funding and has delivered talks related to long-term and extended anticoagulation and treatment of subsegmental PE. He has also authored several papers related to long-term and extended anticoagulation, treatment of subsegmental PE, and compression stocking in preventing postthrombotic syndrome. D. J. s institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from Instituto de salud Carlos III, Sociedad Espa ola de Neumolog a y Cirug a Tor cica, and NeumoMadrid for studying PE. He was a member of Steering Committee of the Pulmonary Embolism Thrombosis Study (PEITHO), a principal investigator of an original study related to the role of the inferior vena cava lter in addition to anticoagulation in patients with acute DVT or PE and has participated in the derivation of scores for identi cation of low-risk PE. He has delivered talks related to treatment of acute PE. C. K. has been compensated for speaking engagements sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer Healthcare related to VTE therapy. His institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from the National Institutes of Health related to the topic of catheter-assisted thrombus removal in patients with leg DVT. He has also published many studies related to long- term anticoagulation and compression stockings in preventing postthrombotic syndrome. L. M. has frequently lectured on the duration of long-term anticoagulation and is a coauthor on several risk-strati cation papers. She has received honoraria from CHEST Enterprises for VTE talks. T. M. and C. S. K. have received honoraria from Chest Enterprises for VTE Prep Courses.

T. M. and C. S. K. have received honoraria from Chest Enterprises for VTE Prep Courses. T. M. s institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from Portola Pharmaceuticals for the Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention With Extended Duration Betrixaban Study (APEX) related to extended prophylaxis against VTE with betrixaban. T. M. s institution received grant support from Bayer Pharmaceuticals for a research project concerning the etiology of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. He has also authored textbook chapters related to thrombolytic interventions in patients with acute PE and pulmonary thromboendarterectomy in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. S. M. S. s and S. C. W. s institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from the Canadian Institutes of Health for the D-dimer Optimal Duration Study Phase II (DODS- Extension), from Washington University via the National Institutes of Health (Genetic Informatics Trial), Bayer related to VTE (EINSTEIN studies), and from Bristol-Myers Squibb related to apixaban for the Secondary Prevention of Thromboembolism (Apixaban for the Secondary prevention of Thromboembolism: A prospective Randomized Outcome pilot study among patients with the AntiphosPholipid Syndrome). J. R. E. V. s institution has received grant funding (no salary support) from Bristol-Myers Squibb for evaluating the role of apixaban for long-term treatment of VTE. P. W. is a coinvestigator on a grant regarding the treatment of subsegmental PE. He has authored several studies and grants related to the long- term and extended anticoagulation (using vitamin K antagonists and the direct oral anticoagulants). P. W. has received grant funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has received honoraria for talks from Bayer. E. A. A., H. B., C. K., P. W., and S. C. W. participated in the last edition of the CHEST Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease Guidelines (AT9). None declared (A. B., J. O., N. S.).

A., H. B., C. K., P. W., and S. C. W. participated in the last edition of the CHEST Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease Guidelines (AT9). None declared (A. B., J. O., N. S.). Role of sponsors: This study was funded in total by internal funds from the American College of Chest Physicians. Dedication: All of the authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of previous authors of the CHEST Antithrombotic Guidelines. Additional information: The e-Tables and e-Figures can be found in the Supplemental Materials section of the online article. References 1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Comerota AJ, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e419S-494S. 2. Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, et al. The vexing problem of guidelines and con ict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):738-741. 3. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. 4. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. 5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-415. 6. Balshem H, Helfand M, Sch nemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401-406. 7. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129(1):174-181. 8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277-1282. 9. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12): 1283-1293. 346 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] 10. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1294-1302. 11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1303-1310. 12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311-1316. 13. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction GRADE evidence pro les and summary of ndings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-394. 14. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the signi cance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):719-725. 15. Andrews JC, Sch nemann HJ, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation determinants of a recommendation s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726-735. 16. MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S-e23S. 17. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376-380. 18. Lewis SZ, Diekemper R, Ornelas J, Casey KR. Methodologies for the development of CHEST guidelines and expert panel reports. Chest.

Methodologies for the development of CHEST guidelines and expert panel reports. Chest. 2014;146(1):182-192. 19. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744. 20. Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(24):2342-2352. 21. Bauersachs R, Berkowitz SD, Brenner B, et al. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2499-2510. 22. Lee AY, Kamphuisen PW, Meyer G, et al. Tinzaparin vs Warfarin for Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Active Cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(7):677-686. 23. Hokusai-VTE Investigators, Buller HR, Decousus H, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(15):1406-1415. 24. Schulman S, Kakkar AK, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis. Circulation. 2014;129(7):764-772. 25. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, et al. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(9):799-808. 26. EINSTEIN-EP Investigators, Buller HR, Prins MH, et al. Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(14):1287-1297. 27. van Es N, Coppens M, Schulman S, Middeldorp S, Buller HR. Direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism: evidence from phase 3 trials. Blood. 2014;124(12):1968-1975. 28. Holster IL, Valkhoff VE, Kuipers EJ, Tjwa ET. New oral anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(1):105-112. 29. Gomez-Outes A, Terleira-Fernandez AI, Lecumberri R, Suarez- Gea ML, Vargas-Castrillon E. Direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2014;134(4):774-782. 30.

Gomez-Outes A, Terleira-Fernandez AI, Lecumberri R, Suarez- Gea ML, Vargas-Castrillon E. Direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2014;134(4):774-782. 30. Fox BD, Kahn SR, Langleben D, Eisenberg MJ, Shimony A. Ef cacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: direct and adjusted indirect meta- analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e7498. 31. van der Hulle T, Kooiman J, den Exter PL, Dekkers OM, Klok FA, Huisman MV. Effectiveness and safety of novel oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(3):320-328. 32. Mantha S, Ansell J. Indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2015;39(2):155-165. 33. Chai-Adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T, Lim W. The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-speci c oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2450-2458. 34. Wu C, Alotaibi GS, Alsaleh K, Linkins LA, Sean McMurtry M. Case- fatality of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding associated with aspirin, warfarin, and direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention. Thromb Res. 2015;135(2):243-248. 35. Castellucci LA, Cameron C, Le Gal G, et al. Clinical and safety outcomes associated with treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;312(11):1122-1135. 36. Carrier M, Cameron C, Delluc A, Castellucci L, Khorana AA, Lee AY. Ef cacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of acute cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2014;134(6):1214-1219. 37. Vedovati MC, Germini F, Agnelli G, Becattini C. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with vte and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2015;147(2):475-483. 38.

Vedovati MC, Germini F, Agnelli G, Becattini C. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with vte and cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2015;147(2):475-483. 38. Di Minno MN, Ageno W, Dentali F. Meta-analysis of the ef cacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer- associated acute venous thromboembolism: comment. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(12):2136-2138. 39. Franchini M, Bonfanti C, Lippi G. Cancer-associated thrombosis: investigating the role of new oral anticoagulants. Thromb Res. 2015;135(5):777-781. 40. Bochenek T, Nizankowski R. The treatment of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparins. A meta- analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2012;107(4):699-716. 41. Bloom BJ, Filion KB, Atallah R, Eisenberg MJ. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the risk of bleeding with dabigatran. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(6):1066-1074. 42. Touma L, Filion KB, Atallah R, Eberg M, Eisenberg MJ. A meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials of the risk of bleeding with apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(4): 533-541. 43. Abraham NS, Singh S, Alexander GC, et al. Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2015;350:h1857. 44. Kang N, Sobieraj DM. Indirect treatment comparison of new oral anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res. 2014;133(6):1145-1151. 45. Majeed A, Hwang HG, Connolly SJ, et al. Management and outcomes of major bleeding during treatment with dabigatran or warfarin. Circulation. 2013;128(21):2325-2332. 46. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Kovacs MJ, et al. Comparison of low- intensity warfarin therapy with conventional-intensity warfarin therapy for long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(7):631-639. 47. Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, et al. Extended use of dabigatran, warfarin, or placebo in venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):709-718. 48. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, et al. Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8): 699-708.

Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8): 699-708. 49. Castellucci LA, Cameron C, Le Gal G, et al. Ef cacy and safety outcomes of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs in the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f5133. 50. Sobieraj DM, Coleman CI, Pasupuleti V, Deshpande A, Kaw R, Hernandez AV. Comparative ef cacy and safety of anticoagulants and aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a network meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2015;135(5):888-896. 51. Iorio A, Kearon C, Filippucci E, et al. Risk of recurrence after a rst episode of symptomatic venous thromboembolism provoked by a transient risk factor: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(19):1710-1716. 52. Boutitie F, Pinede L, Schulman S, et al. In uence of preceding length of anticoagulant treatment and initial presentation of venous thromboembolism on risk of recurrence after stopping treatment: analysis of individual participants data from seven trials. BMJ. 2011;342:d3036. 53. Prandoni P, Noventa F, Ghirarduzzi A, et al. The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuing anticoagulation in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. A prospective cohort study in 1,626 patients. Haematologica. 2007;92(2):199-205. 54. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(1):1-7. 55. Palareti G, Legnani C, Lee A, et al. A comparison of the safety and ef cacy of oral anticoagulation for the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease in patients with or without malignancy. Thromb Haemost. 2000;84(5):805-810. 56. Baglin T, Douketis J, Tosetto A, et al. Does the clinical presentation and extent of venous thrombosis predict likelihood and type of recurrence? A patient level meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(11):2436-2442. 57.

Does the clinical presentation and extent of venous thrombosis predict likelihood and type of recurrence? A patient level meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(11):2436-2442. 57. Hansson PO, Sorbo J, Eriksson H. Recurrent venous thromboembolism after deep vein thrombosis: incidence and risk factors. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):769-774. 58. Schulman S, Wahlander K, Lundstr m T, Clason SB, Eriksson H; for the TIIII. Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(18):1713-1721. 59. Napolitano M, Saccullo G, Malato A, et al. Optimal duration of low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-related deep vein thrombosis: the Cancer-DACUS Study. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(32):3607-3612. 60. Couturaud F, Sanchez O, Pernod G, et al. Six months vs extended oral anticoagulation after a rst episode of pulmonary embolism: The PADIS-PE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(1): 31-40. 61. Kearon C, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al. A comparison of three months of anticoagulation with extended anticoagulation for a rst episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(12): 901-907. 62. Ridker PM, Goldhaber SZ, Danielson E, et al. Long-term, low- intensity warfarin therapy for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(15):1425-1434. 63. Farraj RS. Anticoagulation period in idiopathic venous thromboembolism. How long is enough? Saudi Med J. 2004;25(7): 848-851. 64. Palareti G, Cosmi B, Legnani C, et al. D-dimer testing to determine the duration of anticoagulation therapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(17):1780-1789. 65. Schulman S, Granqvist S, Holmstrom M, et al. The duration of oral anticoagulant therapy after a second episode of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(6):393-398. 66. Douketis J, Tosetto A, Marcucci M, et al. Risk of recurrence after venous thromboembolism in men and women: patient level meta- analysis. BMJ. 2011;342:d813. 67. Douketis J, Tosetto A, Marcucci M, et al.

2011;342:d813. 67. Douketis J, Tosetto A, Marcucci M, et al. Patient-level meta-analysis: effect of measurement timing, threshold, and patient age on ability of D-dimer testing to assess recurrence risk after unprovoked venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(8):523-531. 68. Palareti G, Cosmi B, Legnani C, et al. D-dimer to guide the duration of anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism: a management study. Blood. 2014;124(2):196-203. 69. Kearon C, Spencer FA, O Keeffe D, et al. D-dimer testing to select patients with a rst unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):27-34. 70. Brighton TA, Eikelboom JW, Mann K, et al. Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1979-1987. 71. Becattini C, Agnelli G, Schenone A, et al. Aspirin for preventing the recurrence of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1959-1967. 72. Simes J, Becattini C, Agnelli G, et al. Aspirin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism: the INSPIRE collaboration. Circulation. 2014;130(13):1062-1071. 73. Bates SM, Jaeschke R, Stevens SM, et al. Diagnosis of DVT: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (Ninth Edition). Chest. 2012;141(2 suppl): e351S-e418S. 74. Righini M, Paris S, Le Gal G, Laroche JP, Perrier A, Bounameaux H. Clinical relevance of distal deep vein thrombosis. Review of literature data. Thromb Haemost. 2006;95(1):56-64. 75. Masuda EM, Kistner RL. The case for managing calf vein thrombi with duplex surveillance and selective anticoagulation. Dis Mon. 2010;56(10):601-613. 76. Masuda EM, Kistner RL, Musikasinthorn C, Liquido F, Geling O, He Q. The controversy of managing calf vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(2):550-561. 77. De Martino RR, Wallaert JB, Rossi AP, Zbehlik AJ, Suckow B, Walsh DB. A meta-analysis of anticoagulation for calf deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56(1):228-237.e221. 78.

A meta-analysis of anticoagulation for calf deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56(1):228-237.e221. 78. Spencer F, Kroll A, Lessard D, et al. Isolated calf deep vein thrombosis in the community setting: the Worcester Venous Thromboembolism study. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2012;33(3):211-217. 79. Hughes MJ, Stein PD, Matta F. Silent pulmonary embolism in patients with distal deep venous thrombosis: systematic review. Thromb Res. 2014;134(6):1182-1185. 80. Kearon C. Natural history of venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003;107(23 suppl 1):I22-I30. 81. Macdonald PS, Kahn SR, Miller N, Obrand D. Short-term natural history of isolated gastrocnemius and soleal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37(3):523-527. 82. Parisi R, Visona A, Camporese G, et al. Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: ef cacy and safety of a protocol of treatment. Treatment of Isolated Calf Thrombosis (TICT) Study. Int Angiol. 2009;28(1):68-72. 83. Palareti G. How I treat isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT). Blood. 2014;123(12):1802-1809. 84. Galanaud JP, Sevestre MA, Genty C, et al. Incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism recurrence after a rst isolated distal deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(4):436-443. 85. Schwarz T, Buschmann L, Beyer J, Halbritter K, Rastan A, Schellong S. Therapy of isolated calf muscle vein thrombosis: a randomized, controlled study. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52(5):1246-1250. 86. Elsharawy M, Elzayat E. Early results of thrombolysis vs anticoagulation in iliofemoral venous thrombosis. A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc.Surg. 2002;24(3):209-214. 87. Enden T, Klow NE, Sandvik L, et al. Catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. anticoagulant therapy alone in deep vein thrombosis: results of an open randomized, controlled trial reporting on short-term patency. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(8):1268-1275. 88. Enden T, Sandvik L, Klow NE, et al. Catheter-directed Venous Thrombolysis in acute iliofemoral vein thrombosis the CaVenT study: rationale and design of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical trial (NCT00251771). Am Heart J. 2007;154(5): 808-814. 89.

Catheter-directed Venous Thrombolysis in acute iliofemoral vein thrombosis the CaVenT study: rationale and design of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical trial (NCT00251771). Am Heart J. 2007;154(5): 808-814. 89. Haig Y, Enden T, Slagsvold CE, Sandvik L, Sandset PM, Klow NE. Determinants of early and long-term ef cacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis in proximal deep vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(1):17-26. 348 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] 90. Enden T, Haig Y, Klow NE, et al. Long-term outcome after additional catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard treatment for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (the CaVenT study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9810):31-38. 91. Enden T, Resch S, White C, Wik HS, Klow NE, Sandset PM. Cost- effectiveness of additional catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11(6):1032-1042. 92. Watson LI, Armon MP. Thrombolysis for acute deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):Cd002783. 93. Bashir R, Zack CJ, Zhao H, Comerota AJ, Bove AA. Comparative outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone to treat lower-extremity proximal deep vein thrombosis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(9):1494-1501. 94. Engelberger RP, Fahrni J, Willenberg T, et al. Fixed low-dose ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis followed by routine stenting of residual stenosis for acute ilio-femoral deep-vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(6):1153-1160. 95. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. A clinical trial of vena caval lters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(7):409-415. 96. Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava lters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005;112(3):416-422. 97.

Eight-year follow-up of patients with permanent vena cava lters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism: the PREPIC (Prevention du Risque d Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave) randomized study. Circulation. 2005;112(3):416-422. 97. Stein PD, Matta F. Vena cava lters in unstable elderly patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2014;127(3):222-225. 98. Stein PD, Matta F, Keyes DC, Willyerd GL. Impact of vena cava lters on in-hospital case fatality rate from pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2012;125(5):478-484. 99. Muriel A, Jimenez D, Aujesky D, et al. Survival effects of inferior vena cava lter in patients with acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism and a signi cant bleeding risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(16):1675-1683. 100. Prasad V, Rho J, Cifu A. The inferior vena cava lter: how could a medical device be so well accepted without any evidence of ef cacy? JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):493-495. 101. Girard P, Meyer G, Parent F, Mismetti P. Medical literature, vena cava lters and evidence of ef cacy. A descriptive review. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(4):761-769. 102. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava lter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1627-1635. 103. Brandjes DP, Buller HR, Heijboer H, et al. Randomised trial of effect of compression stockings in patients with symptomatic proximal-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1997;349(9054):759-762. 104. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Prins MH, et al. Below-knee elastic compression stockings to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):249-256. 105. Kahn SR, Comerota AJ, Cushman M, et al. The postthrombotic syndrome: evidence-based prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies: a scienti c statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;130(18):1636-1661. 106. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al. Compression stockings to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo- controlled trial. Lancet.

Compression stockings to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo- controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):880-888. 107. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Ducruet T, et al. Graduated compression stockings to treat acute leg pain associated with proximal DVT. A randomised controlled trial. Thromb Haemost. 2014;112(6): 1137-1141. 108. Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. When a test is too good: how CT pulmonary angiograms nd pulmonary emboli that do not need to be found. BMJ. 2013;347:f3368. 109. Carrier M, Righini M, Wells PS, et al. Subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the management outcome studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(8): 1716-1722. 110. Carrier M, Righini M, Le Gal G. Symptomatic subsegmental pulmonary embolism: what is the next step? J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(8):1486-1490. 111. Stein PD, Goodman LR, Hull RD, Dalen JE, Matta F. Diagnosis and management of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism: review and assessment of the options. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2012;18(1):20-26. 112. Costantino G, Norsa AH, Amadori R, et al. Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of computed tomography in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27(9):1109-1111. 113. Lucassen WA, Beenen LF, Buller HR, et al. Concerns in using multi-detector computed tomography for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in daily practice. A cross-sectional analysis using expert opinion as reference standard. Thromb Res. 2013;131(2):145-149. 114. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(22):2317-2327. 115. Courtney DM, Miller C, Smithline H, Klekowski N, Hogg M, Kline JA. Prospective multicenter assessment of interobserver agreement for radiologist interpretation of multidetector computerized tomographic angiography for pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(3):533-539. 116.

Prospective multicenter assessment of interobserver agreement for radiologist interpretation of multidetector computerized tomographic angiography for pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(3):533-539. 116. Pena E, Kimpton M, Dennie C, Peterson R, G LEG, Carrier M. Difference in interpretation of computed tomography pulmonary angiography diagnosis of subsegmental thrombosis in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(3): 496-498. 117. Le Gal G, Righini M, Parent F, van Strijen M, Couturaud F. Diagnosis and management of subsegmental pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(4):724-731. 118. Le Gal G, Righini M, Sanchez O, et al. A positive compression ultrasonography of the lower limb veins is highly predictive of pulmonary embolism on computed tomography in suspected patients. Thromb Haemost. 2006;95(6):963-966. 119. den Exter PL, van Es J, Klok FA, et al. Risk pro le and clinical outcome of symptomatic subsegmental acute pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2013;122(7):1144-1149; quiz 1329. 120. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J. The role of venous ultrasonography in the diagnosis of suspected deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(12):1044-1049. 121. Otero R, Uresandi F, Jimenez D, et al. Home treatment in pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res. 2010;126(1):e1-e5. 122. Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9785):41-48. 123. Piran S, Le Gal G, Wells PS, et al. Outpatient treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Thromb Res. 2013;132(5):515-519. 124. Vinson DR, Zehtabchi S, Yealy DM. Can selected patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary embolism be safely treated without hospitalization? A systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(5): 651-662. 125. Zondag W, Kooiman J, Klok FA, Dekkers OM, Huisman MV. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment in patients with pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2013;42(1):134-144. 126. Chan CM, Woods C, Shorr AF.

Eur Respir J. 2013;42(1):134-144. 126. Chan CM, Woods C, Shorr AF. The validation and reproducibility of the pulmonary embolism severity index. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(7):1509-1514. 127. Jimenez D, Aujesky D, Moores L, et al. Simpli cation of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1383-1389. 128. Moores L, Aujesky D, Jimenez D, et al. Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index and troponin testing for the selection of low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(3):517-522. 129. Ozsu S, Abul Y, Orem A, et al. Predictive value of troponins and simpli ed pulmonary embolism severity index in patients with normotensive pulmonary embolism. Multidisc Respir Medic. 2013;8(1):34. 130. Righini M, Roy PM, Meyer G, Verschuren F, Aujesky D, Le Gal G. The Simpli ed Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI): validation of a clinical prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(10):2115-2117. 131. Zondag W, den Exter PL, Crobach MJ, et al. Comparison of two methods for selection of out of hospital treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost. 2013;109(1):47-52. 132. Jimenez D, Uresandi F, Otero R, et al. Troponin-based risk strati cation of patients with acute nonmassive pulmonary embolism: systematic review and metaanalysis. Chest. 2009;136(4):974-982. 133. Lankeit M, Jimenez D, Kostrubiec M, et al. Validation of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide cut-off values for risk strati cation of pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(6):1669-1677. 134. Becattini C, Agnelli G, Germini F, Vedovati MC. Computed tomography to assess risk of death in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(6):1678-1690. 135. Coutance G, Cauderlier E, Ehtisham J, Hamon M, Hamon M. The prognostic value of markers of right ventricular dysfunction in pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Critical care. 2011;15(2):R103. 136. Spirk D, Aujesky D, Husmann M, et al.

2011;15(2):R103. 136. Spirk D, Aujesky D, Husmann M, et al. Cardiac troponin testing and the simpli ed Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index. The SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER). Thromb Haemost. 2011;106(5):978-984. 137. Lankeit M, Gomez V, Wagner C, et al. A strategy combining imaging and laboratory biomarkers in comparison with a simpli ed clinical score for risk strati cation of patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2012;141(4):916-922. 138. Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(43):3033-3069, 3069a-3069k. 139. Dong B, Jirong Y, Wang Q, Wu T. Thrombolytic treatment for pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2: CD004437. 140. Indications for brinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists (FTT) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1994;343(8893):311-322. 141. Kline JA, Nordenholz KE, Courtney DM, et al. Treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism with tenecteplase or placebo: cardiopulmonary outcomes at 3 months: multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(4):459-468. 142. Shari M, Bay C, Skrocki L, Rahimi F, Mehdipour M. Moderate Pulmonary Embolism Treated With Thrombolysis (from the MOPETT Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(2):273-277. 143. Meyer G, Vicaut E, Danays T, et al. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1402-1411. 144. Wang TF, Squizzato A, Dentali F, Ageno W. The role of thrombolytic therapy in pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2015;125(14): 2191-2199. 145. Marti C, John G, Konstantinides S, et al. Systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(10):605-614. 146.

Systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(10):605-614. 146. Nakamura S, Takano H, Kubota Y, Asai K, Shimizu W. Impact of the ef cacy of thrombolytic therapy on the mortality of patients with acute submassive pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(7):1086-1095. 147. Chatterjee S, Chakraborty A, Weinberg I, et al. Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2414-2421. 148. Riera-Mestre A, Becattini C, Giustozzi M, Agnelli G. Thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2014;134(6):1265-1271. 149. Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA, et al. Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(8):1041-1046. 150. Kuo WT, Gould MK, Louie JD, Rosenberg JK, Sze DY, Hofmann LV. Catheter-directed therapy for the treatment of massive pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis of modern techniques. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(11):1431-1440. 151. Kuo WT. Endovascular therapy for acute pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(2):167-179. 152. Avgerinos ED, Chaer RA. Catheter-directed interventions for acute pulmonary embolism. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(2):559-565. 153. Jaff MR, McMurtry MS, Archer SL, et al. Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scienti c statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(16):1788-1830. 154. Kucher N, Boekstegers P, Muller OJ, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2014;129(4): 479-486. 155. Kuo WT, Banerjee A, Kim PS, et al. Pulmonary Embolism Response to Fragmentation, Embolectomy, and Catheter Thrombolysis (PERFECT): initial results from a prospective multicenter registry. Chest. 2015;148(3):667-673. 156. Piazza G, Hohlfelder B, Jaff MR, et al.

2015;148(3):667-673. 156. Piazza G, Hohlfelder B, Jaff MR, et al. A Prospective, Single-Arm, Multicenter Trial of Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed, Low-Dose Fibrinolysis for Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism: the SEATTLE II Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(10):1382-1392. 157. Verstraete M, Miller GAH, Bounameaux H, et al. Intravenous and intrapulmonary recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator in the treatment of acute massive pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 1988;77(2):353-360. 158. Pepke-Zaba J, Delcroix M, Lang I, et al. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH): results from an international prospective registry. Circulation. 2011;124(18):1973-1981. 159. Fedullo P, Kerr KM, Kim NH, Auger WR. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(12): 1605-1613. 160. Mayer E, Jenkins D, Lindner J, et al. Surgical management and outcome of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: results from an international prospective registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141(3):702-710. 161. Hayes, Inc. Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy for treatment of pulmonary hypertension (structured abstract). Health Technol Assess Database. 2012;(1). 162. Rahnavardi M, Yan TD, Cao C, Vallely MP, Bannon PG, Wilson MK. Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review (structured abstract). Annf Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;17(5):435-445. 163. Ghofrani HA, D Armini AM, Grimminger F, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(4):319-329. 164. Deano RC, Glassner-Kolmin C, Ruben re M, et al. Referral of patients with pulmonary hypertension diagnoses to tertiary pulmonary hypertension centers: the multicenter RePHerral study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):887-893. 165. Andreassen AK, Ragnarsson A, Gude E, Geiran O, Andersen R. Balloon pulmonary angioplasty in patients with inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Heart. 2013;99(19): 1415-1420. 166. Taichman DB, Ornelas J, Chung L, et al. Pharmacologic therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in adults: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2014;146(2):449-475. 167. Kucher N. Clinical practice. Deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremities.

Kucher N. Clinical practice. Deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremities. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(9):861-869. 168. Naeem M, Soares G, Ahn S, Murphy TP. Paget-Schroetter syndrome: a review and Algorithm (WASPS-IR). Phlebology. 2015;30(10):675-686. 350 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ] 169. Heit JA, Mohr DN, Silverstein MD, Petterson TM, O Fallon WM, Melton LJ III. Predictors of recurrence after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(6):761-768. 170. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2): 146-153. 171. Carrier M, Le Gal G, Cho R, Tierney S, Rodger M, Lee AY. Dose escalation of low molecular weight heparin to manage recurrent venous thromboembolic events despite systemic anticoagulation in cancer patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(5):760-765. 172. Farge D, Debourdeau P, Beckers M, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11(1):56-70. 173. Deitcher SR, Kessler CM, Merli G, et al. Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with active cancer: enoxaparin alone versus initial enoxaparin followed by warfarin for a 180-day period. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2006;12(4):389-396. 174. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Brant RF, et al. Self-managed long-term low- molecular-weight heparin therapy: the balance of bene ts and harms. Am J Med. 2007;120(1):72-82. 175. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Brant R, et al. Home therapy of venous thrombosis with long-term LMWH versus usual care: patient satisfaction and post-thrombotic syndrome. Am J Med. 2009;122(8):762-769. 176. Lopaciuk S, Bielska-Falda H, Noszczyk W, et al.

2009;122(8):762-769. 176. Lopaciuk S, Bielska-Falda H, Noszczyk W, et al. Low molecular weight heparin versus acenocoumarol in the secondary prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 1999;81(1):26-31. 177. Lopez-Beret P, Orgaz A, Fontcuberta J, et al. Low molecular weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(1):77-90. 178. Meyer G, Marjanovic Z, Valcke J, et al. Comparison of low- molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(15): 1729-1735. 179. Romera A, Cairols MA, Vila-Coll R, et al. A randomised open-label trial comparing long-term sub-cutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin compared with oral-anticoagulant therapy in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37(3): 349-356. 180. Prandoni P, Trujillo-Santos J, Surico T, et al. Recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding during oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with solid cancer: ndings from the RIETE registry. Haematologica. 2008;93(9):1432-1434. 181. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Piccioli A, et al. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding complications during anticoagulant treatment in patients with cancer and venous thrombosis. Blood. 2002;100(10):3484-3488. 182. Beyth RJ, Milligan PE, Gage BF. Risk factors for bleeding in patients taking coumarins. Curr Hematol Rep. 2002;1(1):41-49. 183. Prins MH, Lensing AW, Bauersachs R, et al. Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies. Thromb J. 2013;11(1):21. 184. van der Meer FJ, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E. Bleeding complications in oral anticoagulant therapy. An analysis of risk factors. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(13):1557-1562. 185. Beyth RJ, Quinn LM, Landefeld S. Prospective evaluation of an index for predicting the risk of major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin. Am J Med. 1998;105(2):91-99. 186.

Beyth RJ, Quinn LM, Landefeld S. Prospective evaluation of an index for predicting the risk of major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin. Am J Med. 1998;105(2):91-99. 186. Douketis JD, Arneklev K, Goldhaber SZ, Spandorfer J, Halperin F, Horrow J. Comparison of bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial brillation treated with ximelagatran or warfarin: assessment of incidence, case-fatality rate, time course and sites of bleeding, and risk factors for bleeding. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(8): 853-859. 187. Kuijer PMM, Hutten BA, Prins MH, Buller HR. Prediction of the risk of bleeding during anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(5):457-460. 188. Landefeld CS, McGuire E, 3rd, Rosenblatt MW. A bleeding risk index for estimating the probability of major bleeding in hospitalized patients starting anticoagulant therapy. Am J Med. 1990;89(5):569-578. 189. Palareti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, et al. Bleeding complications of oral anticoagulant treatment: An inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Lancet. 1996;348(9025):423-428. 190. Torn M, Bollen WL, van der Meer FJ, van der Wall EE, Rosendaal FR. Risks of oral anticoagulant therapy with increasing age. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1527-1532. 191. White RH, Beyth RJ, Zhou H, Romano PS. Major bleeding after hospitalization for deep-venous thrombosis. Am J Med. 1999;107(5):414-424. 192. Olesen JB, Lip GY, Hansen PR, et al. Bleeding risk in real world patients with atrial brillation: comparison of two established bleeding prediction schemes in a nationwide cohort. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(8):1460-1467. 193. Kooiman J, van Hagen N, Iglesias Del Sol A, et al. The HAS-BLED score identi es patients with acute venous thromboembolism at high risk of major bleeding complications during the rst six months of anticoagulant treatment. PloS One. 2015;10(4):e0122520. 194. Fihn SD, Callahan CM, Martin DC, McDonell MB, Henikoff JG, White RH. The risk for and severity of bleeding complications in elderly patients treated with warfarin.

The risk for and severity of bleeding complications in elderly patients treated with warfarin. The National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(11):970-979. 195. Gage BF, Yan Y, Milligan PE, et al. Clinical classi cation schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). Am Heart J. 2006;151(3):713-719. 196. Lip GY, Frison L, Halperin JL, Lane DA. Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial brillation: the HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(2):173-180. 197. Nieto JA, Bruscas MJ, Ruiz-Ribo D, et al. Acute venous thromboembolism in patients with recent major bleeding. The in uence of the site of bleeding and the time elapsed on outcome. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4(11):2367-2372. 198. Ruiz-Gimenez N, Suarez C, Gonzalez R, et al. Predictive variables for major bleeding events in patients presenting with documented acute venous thromboembolism. Findings from the RIETE Registry. Thrombosis and haemostasis. 2008;100(1):26-31. 199. van der Meer FJ, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP, Briet E. Assessment of a bleeding risk index in two cohorts of patients treated with oral anticoagulants. Thromb Haemost. 1996;76(1): 12-16. 200. Pengo V, Legnani C, Noventa F, Palareti G. Oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial brillation and risk of bleeding. A Multicenter Inception Cohort Study. Thromb Haemost. 2001;85(3):418-422. 201. Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. A new risk scheme to predict warfarin-associated hemorrhage: The ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(4):395-401. 202. Shireman TI, Mahnken JD, Howard PA, Kresowik TF, Hou Q, Ellerbeck EF. Development of a contemporary bleeding risk model for elderly warfarin recipients. Chest. 2006;130(5):1390-1396. 203. Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al.

2006;130(5):1390-1396. 203. Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al. Risk factors for complications of chronic anticoagulation. A multicenter study. Warfarin Optimized Outpatient Follow-up Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(7):511-520. 204. Nieto JA, Solano R, Ruiz-Ribo MD, et al. Fatal bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: ndings from the RIETE registry. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(6): 1216-1222. 205. Hutten BA, Prins MH, Gent M, Ginsberg J, Tijssen JG, Buller HR. Incidence of recurrent thromboembolic and bleeding complications among patients with venous thromboembolism in relation to both malignancy and achieved international normalized ratio: a retrospective analysis. Journal of clinical oncology: of cial journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2000;18(17):3078-3083. 206. Jun M, James MT, Manns BJ, et al. The association between kidney function and major bleeding in older adults with atrial brillation starting warfarin treatment: population based observational study. BMJ. 2015;350:h246. 207. Hylek EM, Singer DE. Risk factors for intracranial hemorrhage in outpatients taking warfarin. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(11): 897-902. 208. Dentali F, Ageno W, Becattini C, et al. Prevalence and clinical history of incidental, asymptomatic pulmonary embolism: a meta- analysis. Thromb Res. 2010;125(6):518-522. 209. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Rosenbloom D, et al. Heparin for 5 days as compared with 10 days in the initial treatment of proximal venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(18):1260-1264. 210. Lamberts M, Lip GY, Hansen ML, et al. Relation of nonsteroidal anti-in ammatory drugs to serious bleeding and thromboembolism risk in patients with atrial brillation receiving antithrombotic therapy: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(10): 690-698. 211. Castellucci LA, Le Gal G, Rodger MA, Carrier M. Major bleeding during secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who have completed anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(3):344-348. 212.

Castellucci LA, Le Gal G, Rodger MA, Carrier M. Major bleeding during secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who have completed anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(3):344-348. 212. Burgess S, Crown N, Louzada ML, Dresser G, Kim RB, Lazo- Langner A. Clinical performance of bleeding risk scores for predicting major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in patients receiving warfarin. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11(9): 1647-1654. 213. Scherz N, Mean M, Limacher A, et al. Prospective, multicenter validation of prediction scores for major bleeding in elderly patients with venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11(3): 435-443. 214. Poli D, Antonucci E, Testa S, et al. The predictive ability of bleeding risk strati cation models in very old patients on vitamin K antagonist treatment for venous thromboembolism: results of the prospective collaborative EPICA study. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11(6):1053-1058. 215. Roldan V, Marin F, Fernandez H, et al. Predictive value of the HAS-BLED and ATRIA bleeding scores for the risk of serious bleeding in a real-world population with atrial brillation receiving anticoagulant therapy. Chest. 2013;143(1):179-184. 216. Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Buller H, Lip GY. Comparison of the CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores for the prediction of clinically relevant bleeding in anticoagulated patients with atrial brillation: the AMADEUS trial. Thromb Haemost. 2013;110(5):1074-1079. 217. Dahri K, Loewen P. The risk of bleeding with warfarin: a systematic review and performance analysis of clinical prediction rules. Thromb Haemost. 2007;98(5):980-987. 218. Palareti G, Cosmi B. Bleeding with anticoagulation therapy who is at risk, and how best to identify such patients. Thromb Haemost. 2009;102(2):268-278. 219. Collins R, MacMahon S, Flather M, et al. Clinical effects of anticoagulant therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 1996;313(7058): 652-659. 220. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Xie C, et al.

1996;313(7058): 652-659. 220. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Xie C, et al. Effects of reviparin, a low- molecular-weight heparin, on mortality, reinfarction, and strokes in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting with ST-segment elevation. JAMA. 2005;293(4):427-435. 221. Wells PS, Forgie MA, Simms M, et al. The outpatient bleeding risk index: validation of a tool for predicting bleeding rates in patients treated for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(8):917-920. 222. Campbell IA, Bentley DP, Prescott RJ, Routledge PA, Shetty HG, Williamson IJ. Anticoagulation for three versus six months in patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or both: randomised trial. BMJ. 2007;334(7595):674. 223. Pinede L, Ninet J, Duhaut P, et al. Comparison of 3 and 6 months of oral anticoagulant therapy after a rst episode of proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and comparison of 6 and 12 weeks of therapy after isolated calf deep vein thrombosis. Circulation. 2001;103(20):2453-2460. 224. Agnelli G, Prandoni P, Becattini C, et al. Extended oral anticoagulant therapy after a rst episode of pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(1):19-25. 225. Agnelli G, Prandoni P, Santamaria MG, et al. Three months versus one year of oral anticoagulant therapy for idiopathic deep venous thrombosis. Warfarin Optimal Duration Italian Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(3):165-169. 226. Siragusa S, Malato A, Anastasio R, et al. Residual vein thrombosis to establish duration of anticoagulation after a rst episode of deep vein thrombosis: the Duration of Anticoagulation based on Compression UltraSonography (DACUS) study. Blood. 2008;112(3):511-515. 227. Eischer L, Gartner V, Schulman S, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S; investigators A-F. 6 versus 30 months anticoagulation for recurrent venous thrombosis in patients with high factor VIII. Ann Hematol. 2009;88(5):485-490. 228.

Eischer L, Gartner V, Schulman S, Kyrle PA, Eichinger S; investigators A-F. 6 versus 30 months anticoagulation for recurrent venous thrombosis in patients with high factor VIII. Ann Hematol. 2009;88(5):485-490. 228. Douketis JD, Gu CS, Schulman S, Ghirarduzzi A, Pengo V, Prandoni P. The risk for fatal pulmonary embolism after discontinuing anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(11):766-774. 229. Watson L, Broderick C, Armon MP. Thrombolysis for acute deep vein thrombosis. The Cochrane Database System Rev. 2014;1: CD002783. 230. Enden T, Wik HS, Kvam AK, Haig Y, Klow NE, Sandset PM. Health-related quality of life after catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: secondary outcomes of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group CaVenT study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8): e002984. 231. Douketis JD, Foster GA, Crowther MA, Prins MH, Ginsberg JS. Clinical risk factors and timing of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the initial 3 months of anticoagulant therapy. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(22):3431-3436. 232. Kahn SR, Shrier I, Julian JA, et al. Determinants and time course of the postthrombotic syndrome after acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(10):698-707. 233. Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ. Fibrinolysis for acute pulmonary embolism. Vasc Med. 2010;15(5):419-428. 234. Mehta RH, Stebbins A, Lopes RD, et al. Race, bleeding, and outcomes in STEMI patients treated with brinolytic therapy. Am J Med. 2011;124(1):48-57. 235. Todd JL, Tapson VF. Thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a critical appraisal. Chest. 2009;135(5):1321-1329. 236. Brass LM, Lichtman JH, Wang Y, Gurwitz JH, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Intracranial hemorrhage associated with thrombolytic therapy for elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Stroke. 2000;31(8):1802-1811. 237. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al; and the PREPIC 2 Study Group. Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava lter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial.

Effect of a retrievable inferior vena cava lter plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone on risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1627-1635. 238. Dong BR, Hao Q, Yue J, Wu T, Liu GJ. Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2009;(3): CD004437. 239. Cao Y, Zhao H, Gao W, Wang Y, Cao J. Systematic review and meta- analysis for thrombolysis treatment in patients with acute submassive pulmonary embolism. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:275-282. 352 Evidence-Based Medicine [ 1 4 9 # 2 C H E S T F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 ]

ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Circulation is available at http://circ.ahajournals.org DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000095 *Writing group members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply; see Appendix 1 for recusal information. ACC/AHA Representative. American Association for Thoracic Surgery Representative. Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association Representative. ACC/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Representative. #ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines Liaison. **Society of Thoracic Surgeons Representative. Former Task Force member; current member during the writing effort. This document was approved by theAmerican College of Cardiology Board of Trustees,American HeartAssociation ScienceAdvisory and Coordinating Committee, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons in July 2014. The online-only Comprehensive Relationships Data Supplement is available with this article at http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/ doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000095/-/DC1. The online-only Data Supplement files are available with this article at http://circ.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/CIR.00000000000 00095/-/DC2. The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited at follows: Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, Bittl JA, Byrne JG, Fletcher BJ, Fonarow GC, Lange RA, Levine GN, Maddox TM, Naidu SS, Ohman EM, Smith PK. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2014;130:1749 1767. This article is copublished in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.

This article is copublished in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org) and the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org). A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements by selecting either the By Topic link or the By Publication Date link. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail [email protected]. Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://my.americanheart.org/statements and select the Policies and Development link. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/General/Copyright- Permission-Guidelines_UCM_300404_Article.jsp. A link to the Copyright Permissions Request Form appears on the right side of the page.

A link to the Copyright Permissions Request Form appears on the right side of the page. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons WRITING Group MEMBERS* Stephan D. Fihn, MD, MPH, Chair ; James C. Blankenship, MD, MHCM, MACC, FAHA, Vice Chair* ; Karen P. Alexander, MD, FACC, FAHA* ; John A. Bittl, MD, FACC ; John G. Byrne, MD, FACC ; Barbara J. Fletcher, RN, MN, FAHA ; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, FACC, FAHA* ; Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA ; Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA ; Thomas M. Maddox, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA ; Srihari S. Naidu, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI ; E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC*#; Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC** ACC/AHA TASK FORCE MEMBERS Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect; Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA; Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA; Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC; Lesley H. Curtis, PhD, FAHA; David DeMets, PhD ; Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC ; Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA ; Richard J. Kovacs, MD, FACC, FAHA; E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC; Susan J. Pressler, PhD, RN, FAHA; Frank W. Sellke, MD, FACC, FAHA; Win-Kuang Shen, MD, FACC, FAHA Table of Contents Preamble 1750 1. Introduction 1752 1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review 1752 Organization of Committee and Relationships With Industry 1752 1.3. Review and Approval 1752 2.

Methodology and Evidence Review 1752 Organization of Committee and Relationships With Industry 1752 1.3. Review and Approval 1752 2. Diagnosis of SIHD 1753 Invasive Testing for Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients s With Suspected SIHD: Recommendations (New Section) 1753 4. Treatment 1755 4.4. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy 1755 Additional Medical Therapy to Prevent MI and Death: Recommendation 1755 Additional Therapy to Reduce Risk of MI and Death 1755 4.4.2.5.4. Chelation Therapy 1755 Alternative Therapies for Relief of Symptoms in Patients With Refractory Angina: Recommendation 1755 4.4.4.1. Enhanced External Counterpulsation 1755 5. CAD Revascularization 1756 Revascularization to Improve Survival: Recommendations 1756 5.6. CABG Versus PCI 1756 5.6.2. CABG Versus Drug-Eluting Stents 1756 Studies Comparing PCI Versus CABG for Left Main CAD 1757 5.12. Special Considerations 1758 5.12.3. Diabetes Mellitus 1758 Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 1762 Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant) 1764 Preamble Keeping pace with emerging evidence is an ongoing chal- lenge to timely development of clinical practice guidelines. In an effort to respond promptly to new evidence, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force) has cre- ated a focused update process to revise the existing guideline recommendations that are affected by evolving data or opinion. New evidence is reviewed in an ongoing manner to respond quickly to important scientific and treatment trends that could have a major impact on patient outcomes and quality of care. Evidence is reviewed at least twice a year, and updates are initi- ated on an as-needed basis and completed as quickly as possible while maintaining the rigorous methodology that the ACC and AHA have developed during their partnership of >20 years.

Evidence is reviewed at least twice a year, and updates are initi- ated on an as-needed basis and completed as quickly as possible while maintaining the rigorous methodology that the ACC and AHA have developed during their partnership of >20 years. A focused update is initiated when new data that are deemed potentially important for patient care are published or presented at national and international meetings (Section 1.1, Methodology and Evidence Review ). Through a broad- based vetting process, the studies included are identified as being important to the relevant patient population. The focused update is not intended to be based on a complete literature review from the date of the previous guideline publication but rather to include pivotal new evidence that may effect changes in current recommendations. Specific criteria or consider- ations for inclusion of new data include the following: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal; Large, randomized, placebo-controlled trial(s); Nonrandomized data deemed important on the basis of results affecting current safety and efficacy assumptions, including observational studies and meta-analyses; Strength/weakness of research methodology and findings; Likelihoodofadditionalstudiesinfluencingcurrentfindings; Impact on current performance measures and/or likeli- hood of need to develop new performance measure(s); Request(s) and requirement(s) for review and update from the practice community, key stakeholders, and other sources free of industry relationships or other potential bias; Number of previous trials showing consistent results; and Need for consistency with a new guideline or guideline updates or revisions.

Specific criteria or consider- ations for inclusion of new data include the following: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal; Large, randomized, placebo-controlled trial(s); Nonrandomized data deemed important on the basis of results affecting current safety and efficacy assumptions, including observational studies and meta-analyses; Strength/weakness of research methodology and findings; Likelihoodofadditionalstudiesinfluencingcurrentfindings; Impact on current performance measures and/or likeli- hood of need to develop new performance measure(s); Request(s) and requirement(s) for review and update from the practice community, key stakeholders, and other sources free of industry relationships or other potential bias; Number of previous trials showing consistent results; and Need for consistency with a new guideline or guideline updates or revisions. In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, a writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force.1 The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of the size of the treat- ment effect, with consideration given to risks versus benefits as well as evidence and/or agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective and in some situations may cause harm. The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recom- mendation, with the weight of evidence ranked as LOE A, B, or C, according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as observational, retrospective, prospec- tive, or randomized as appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available.

For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues about which sparse data are available, a survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C recommenda- tions, and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE is summarized in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this methodology is separation of the Class III recommenda- tions to delineate whether the recommendation is determined to be of no benefit or is associated with harm to the patient. In addition, in view of the increasing number of comparative- effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only. In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spec- trum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has desig- nated the term guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent medical therapy that is strongly recommended by (primarily Class I and IIa) ACC/AHA guidelines. The term, GDMT, will be used herein. It is anticipated that what Fihn et al 2014 Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Focused Update 1751 currently constitutes GDMT will evolve over time as new therapies and evidence emerge. Because the ACC/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and healthcare providers) residing in North America, drugs that are currently unavailable in NorthAmerica are discussed in the text without a specific COR.

Because the ACC/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and healthcare providers) residing in North America, drugs that are currently unavailable in NorthAmerica are discussed in the text without a specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside NorthAmerica, a writing committee reviews the potential impact of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the ACC/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a specific recommendation. The ACC/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. Theguidelinesareintendedtodefinepracticesthatmeettheneeds of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment about care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise in which deviations from these guidelines are appropriate. In clinical decision mak- ing, consideration should be given to the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided.When these guide- lines are used as the basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these rec- ommendations are effective only if they are followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.

Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective. *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. For comparative-effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated. affect outcomes, physicians and other healthcare providers should engage the patient s active participation in prescribed medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks and benefits of and alternatives to a particular treatment and should be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, for which the benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower. The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of industry relationships, professional biases, or personal interests among the members of the writing group. All writing committee members and peer reviewers of the guideline are required to disclose all current healthcare-related relationships, including those existing 12 months before initiation of the writing effort. In December 2009, the ACC and AHA implemented a new policy for relation- ships with industry and other entities (RWI) that requires the writing committee chair plus a minimum of 50% of the writing committee to have no relevant RWI (Appendix 1 for the ACC/ AHA definition of relevance).