Preferences Among Expert Physicians in Areas of Uncertainty in Venous Thromboembolism Management: Results from a Multiple-Choice Questionnaire

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major clinical issue in hospitalized patients. Some aspects of VTE management lack clarity due to differing physicians' opinions and behaviors. <b>Methods</b>: A multidisciplinary steering committee identified two main areas of uncertainty: VTE prophylaxis and PE management in special settings. A multiple-choice questionnaire including 10 statements was circulated to 183 doctors trained in VTE management. The expected benefit-to-harm ratio was represented on a nine-point Likert scale, with consensus (≥75% agreement) on scores of 1-3 indicating inappropriate and 7-9 indicating appropriate care measures. <b>Results</b>: In online voting, a consensus was reached for 9/10 statements. Respondents considered the following to be appropriate: risk assessment of VTE (93.44%) and bleeding (91.6%) in hospitalized medical patients; low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis for inpatients with pneumonia and malignancy (82.78%); therapeutic doses of LMWH/fondaparinux in patients with intermediate/high risk of PE with (80.9%) or without (77.97%) instability criteria; and echocardiography to manage patients with a post-PE syndrome (93.99%). Respondents considered the following to be inappropriate: use of 4000 IU LMWH in chronic renal failure (80.46%); use of 2000 IU LMWH in persons on dual antiplatelet therapy (77.01%); and use of low-dose apixaban (2.5 mg) in pregnancy (88.57%) or in subsegmental PE with hypoxemia (82.46%). No consensus was reached on the identification of PE cases eligible for outpatient treatment. <b>Conclusions</b>: Our findings show persistent gaps between guideline recommendations and clinical implementation despite improved awareness among physicians. Uncertainty persists regarding criteria for outpatient PE eligibility and/or for validation of bleeding-risk models.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14238531
Primary Topic
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Preferences Among Expert Physicians in Areas of Uncertainty in Venous Thromboembolism Management: Results from a Multiple-Choice Questionnaire

Alessandro Di Minno, Elena Tremoli, Ilenia Calcaterra, Alessandro Monaco et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
article

Preferences Among Expert Physicians in Areas of Uncertainty in Venous Thromboembolism Management: Results from a Multiple-Choice Questionnaire

Alessandro Di Minno, Elena Tremoli, Ilenia Calcaterra, Alessandro Monaco, Domenico Prisco, Antonella Tufano, Gaia Spadarella, Franco Maria Pio Mondello Malvestiti
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major clinical issue in hospitalized patients. Some aspects of VTE management lack clarity due to differing physicians' opinions and behaviors. <b>Methods</b>: A multidisciplinary steering committee identified two main areas of uncertainty: VTE prophylaxis and PE management in special settings. A multiple-choice questionnaire including 10 statements was circulated to 183 doctors trained in VTE management. The expected benefit-to-harm ratio was represented on a nine-point Likert scale, with consensus (≥75% agreement) on scores of 1-3 indicating inappropriate and 7-9 indicating appropriate care measures. <b>Results</b>: In online voting, a consensus was reached for 9/10 statements. Respondents considered the following to be appropriate: risk assessment of VTE (93.44%) and bleeding (91.6%) in hospitalized medical patients; low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis for inpatients with pneumonia and malignancy (82.78%); therapeutic doses of LMWH/fondaparinux in patients with intermediate/high risk of PE with (80.9%) or without (77.97%) instability criteria; and echocardiography to manage patients with a post-PE syndrome (93.99%). Respondents considered the following to be inappropriate: use of 4000 IU LMWH in chronic renal failure (80.46%); use of 2000 IU LMWH in persons on dual antiplatelet therapy (77.01%); and use of low-dose apixaban (2.5 mg) in pregnancy (88.57%) or in subsegmental PE with hypoxemia (82.46%). No consensus was reached on the identification of PE cases eligible for outpatient treatment. <b>Conclusions</b>: Our findings show persistent gaps between guideline recommendations and clinical implementation despite improved awareness among physicians. Uncertainty persists regarding criteria for outpatient PE eligibility and/or for validation of bleeding-risk models.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(23)
Toshiba (Japan) (JP), Rome International School (IT), Maria Cecilia Hospital (IT), Federico II University Hospital (IT), CEINGE Biotecnologie Avanzate Franco Salvatore (Italy) (IT), Tris Pharma (United States) (US), University of Florence (IT), University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 39%
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.