Pesquisar no blog...

terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016

Qual anticoagulante preferir na TVP (Trombose Venosa Profunda)? Anticoagulantes novos ou Varfarina?


A warfarina (veja posts prévios: Dicas para manejo de anticoagulação com warfarina e CME - Varfarina) tradicionalmente consagrada como principal anticoagulante oral no nosso meio,  compartilha agora espaço com novos anticoagulantes orais anti trombínicos e anti fator Xa (Anticoagulantes direstos).  

O UpToDate em um Practice Changing Uptade dá preferência a eles no tratamento de TVP, exceto em gestantes, pacientes com câncer ativo e insuficiência renal grave. Claro, como sempre, temos que contextualizar para nossa realidade a disponibilidade, custo, preferência do paciente, necessidade de monitorização laboratorial etc.


Agent selection for anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism
Practice Changing UpDate: For long-term anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in most nonpregnant patients who do not have severe renal insufficiency or active cancer, we suggest a direct oral anticoagulant (ie, apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) rather than other agents (Grade 2B).
Guidelines for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) were issued by The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) [1]. Compared with earlier versions of the guidelines, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran are now the preferred agents for long-term anticoagulation in patients who are not pregnant and do not have active cancer or severe renal insufficiency. This preference was based upon randomized trials that consistently reported similar efficacy, a lower bleeding risk, and improved convenience when compared with warfarin. We agree with this preference for DOACs in patients with acute VTE, understanding that choosing among anticoagulants frequently depends upon availability and cost as well as patient comorbidities and preferences.
See 'Venous thromboembolism: Long-term anticoagulation, section on 'Selection of agent'.
1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Comerota AJ, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e419S.


For most non-pregnant patients who do not have severe renal insufficiency (eg, creatinine clearance <30 mL/minute) or active cancer, we suggest a direct oral anticoagulant (ie, apixabanedoxabanrivaroxaban, or dabigatran) rather than other agents (Grade 2B). In general, these agents have similar efficacy to warfarin and a lower risk of bleeding; however, access to a reversal agent may be limited. Direct oral anticoagulants are NOT suitable for the treatment of hemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism (PE), massive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT), those who are pregnant, or those with severe renal insufficiency. Dosing of these agents is individualized. (See 'Selection of agent' above and 'Direct thrombin and factor Xa inhibitors' above.)




segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2016

domingo, 1 de maio de 2016

CFM esclarece uso de mídias sociais

CFM publica esclarecimento que se relaciona a publicidade médica em mídias sociais:



Art. 1° O texto do Anexo I – Critérios para a relação dos médicos com a imprensa (programas de TV e rádio, jornais, revistas), no uso das redes sociais e na participação em eventos (congressos, conferências, fóruns, seminários etc.) – na frase: “É vedado ao médico, na relação com a imprensa, na participação em eventos e no uso das redes sociais:” passa a vigorar com a seguinte redação:
“É vedado ao médico, na relação com a imprensa, na participação em eventos e em matéria jornalística nas redes sociais:”. 

Leia a íntegra em http://portal.cfm.org.br/images/PDF/resolucaocfmpublicidade.pdf




sexta-feira, 15 de abril de 2016

Diabetes como equivalente de doença coronariana: Quais evidências?

Diabetes é um fator de risco conhecido de doenças cardiovasculares. Foi por muito tempo utilizado, inclusive em guidelines de dislipidemia, como equivalente de doença coronariana e automaticamente classificando seu portador como tendo alto risco cadiovascular (RCV), independentemente da idade do doente ou tempo da doença.

Guidelines mais recentes recomendam avaliação individualizada do RCV (apesar de haver controvérsia da melhor forma de se calcular esse risco - Framingham? ASCVD - Pooled Cohort Equation?).

De forma geral, após 10 anos de diabetes, esse estudo demonstrou que o RCV torna-se similar.




Diabetes as a coronary risk equivalent
Diabetes mellitus (DM) is frequently referred to as a "coronary risk equivalent," meaning that the risk of a coronary heart disease (CHD) event is similar between individuals with DM and individuals with known CHD. However, this “equivalency” averages together patients with widely varying CHD risks, and many patients with DM have much lower risks. This was examined in a prospective cohort study that followed more than 1.5 million adults (ages 30 to 90) for a median of 9.9 years [3]. The rate of new CHD events was lower in patients with DM than in those with a prior CHD event (12.2 versus 22.5 events per 1000 person-years); the risk of events was similar only in patients who had DM for more than 10 years.
Rana JS, Liu JY, Moffet HH, et al. Diabetes and Prior Coronary Heart Disease are Not Necessarily Risk Equivalent for Future Coronary Heart Disease Events. J Gen Intern Med 2016; 31:387.