Skip to main content
ISTH 2024 Main banner
Back

Poster Networking

Venous Thromboembolism

PB1454 - Outpatient antithrombotic prophylaxis during chemotherapy treatment. Experience in clinical practice at Lucus Augusti University Hospital (Lugo, Spain).

Tuesday, June 25, 2024
13:45 – 14:45 ICT
Room: Exhibition Hall
Background: International guidelines recommend antithrombotic prophylaxis (APr) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with cancer and outpatient chemotherapy treatment (ChT) with a Khorana score (KS) ≥ 2.

Aims: Analyze the rate of thromboembolic events (TE) in the first 6 months of APr.

Methods: This retrospective observational study was carried out at Lucus Augusti University Hospital in outpatients treated with ChT and referred for evaluation of APr.

Results: - 64 patients were previously anticoagulated. 4.7% presented ET in the first 6 months of ChT of whom 7.4% were not anticoagulated. Bleeding occurred in 9.5% of anticoagulated patients compared to 4.7% of those not anticoagulated.
- 107 patients (41.6%) received APr compared to 150 (58.4%) who were not under prophylaxis (due to they were not offered or to patient refusal). The overall TE rate in those who received prophylaxis was 1.8% compared to 11.3% in the group that did not receive APr (p=0.005).
- The KS and Protech (PrS) score did not show differences in thrombosis rate, but 68.1% of patients with KS ≥2 presented TE.

Conclusion(s): - Prophylaxis significantly reduces the rate of ET in these patients.
- Nowadays, DOACs are not financed in Spain and patients are also reluctant to receive parenteral antithrombotics, leading many patients to reject prophylaxis. We assume that access to these drugs can improve treatment adherence, with the consequent lowering of the rate of ET.
- There is a trend to present more ET with KS ≥2, although we have noted that 31.8% with KS ≤ 1 also suffered them. We will have to pay attention to other circumstances that may need thromboprophylaxis (comorbidities, drugs, performance status...).
- We did not find a proper discrimination with PrS in our patients, but a larger number of patients may be needed to draw more accurate conclusions.