4.6 Review

Venous thromboembolism in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A narrative review

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 226, Issue -, Pages 141-149

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2023.04.019

Keywords

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Venous thromboembolism; Thrombosis; Hematologic neoplasms; Anticoagulants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and treatment decisions become challenging due to the complex risk balance between thrombosis and bleeding. Currently, there is a lack of validated risk assessment models and guidelines for thromboprophylaxis and VTE treatment in HSCT patients. This review summarizes the various risk factors for VTE in HSCT patients and discusses current strategies for thromboprophylaxis and VTE management, as well as the development of risk assessment models for targeted intervention in high-risk subgroups.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and its treatment has significant effects on morbidity and non-relapse mortality. There is a complex interplay on balancing the risk for thrombosis and bleeding in these patients, making treatment decisions particularly chal-lenging. Despite this, there are currently no validated risk assessment models or guidelines to aid clinical decision making on thromboprophylaxis and VTE treatment in this population of patients. Herein, we review the many risk factors for VTE in HSCT patients, categorized into patient, disease, catheter, treatment, laboratory, and transplant-related variables. This review also discusses current thromboprophylaxis and VTE management strategies in HSCT patients, with scope into the development of risk assessment models that allow for identifi-cation of high-risk subgroups who may benefit from targeted intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available