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
- Alessandro Di Minno (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-9976)
- Elena Tremoli (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0929-6106)
- Ilenia Calcaterra (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8077-2809)
- Alessandro Monaco (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9941-7003)
- Domenico Prisco (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-9610)
- Antonella Tufano (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2398-6135)
- Gaia Spadarella
- Franco Maria Pio Mondello Malvestiti
Institutions
- 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)
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