No abstract

Plain English summaryWith the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported.AbstractBackgroundPatient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181–94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587–8]. Since POR’s inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials.MethodsThe MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included.ResultsOf the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23)...

Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially fatal cardiovascular disorder that must be promptly diagnosed and treated. The diagnosis, risk assessment, and management of pulmonary embolism have evolved with a better understanding of efficient use of diagnostic and therapeutic options. The use of either clinical probability adjusted or age adjusted D-dimer interpretation has led to a reduction in diagnostic imaging to exclude pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulation therapies are safe, effective, and convenient treatments for most patients with acute venous thromboembolism, with a lower risk of bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. These oral therapeutic options have opened up opportunities for safe outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in selected patients. Recent clinical trials exploring the use of systemic thrombolysis in intermediate to high risk pulmonary embolism suggest that this therapy should be reserved for patients with evidence of hemodynamic compromise. The role of low dose systemic or catheter directed thrombolysis in other patient subgroups is uncertain. After a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, all patients should be assessed for risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism to guide duration of anticoagulation. Patients with a venous thromboembolism associated with a strong, transient, provoking risk factor can safely discontinue anticoagulation after three months of treatment. Patients with an ongoing strong risk factor, such as cancer, or unprovoked events are at increased risk of recurrent events and should be considered for extended treatment. The use of a risk prediction score can help to identify patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can benefit from extended duration therapy. Despite major advances in the management of pulmonary embolism, up to half of patients report chronic functional limitations. Such patients should be screened for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, but only a small proportion will have this as the explanation of their symptoms. In the remaining patients, future studies are needed to understand the pathophysiology and explore interventions to improve quality of life.

To cite this article: Duffett L, Carrier M. Inferior vena cava filters. J Thromb Haemost 2017; 15: 3-12.Summary. Use of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters has increased dramatically in recent decades, despite a lack of evidence that their use has impacted venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality. This increased use appears to be primarily driven by the insertion of retrievable filters for prophylactic indications. A growing body of evidence, however, suggests that IVC filters are frequently associated with clinically important adverse events, prompting a closer look at their role. We sought to narratively review the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of IVC filter placements. Inferior vena cava filters remain the only treatment option for patients with an acute (within 2-4 weeks) proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism and an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation. In such patients, anticoagulation should be resumed and IVC filters removed as soon as the contraindication has passed. For all other indications, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of IVC filters and high-quality trials are required. In patients where an IVC filter remains, regular follow-up to reassess removal and screen for filter-related complications should occur.