Clarification of once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin dosing in pulmonary embolism.

Andrew R. Miesner,Coralynn B Trewet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-1234

IF: 9.6

2012-10-01

Chest

Abstract:We appreciate the interest demonstrated by Dr Girard and his colleagues in our work. 1 We agree that we cannot completely rule out a selection bias as a mechanism of our fi ndings and have acknowledged this in the “Limitations” section of our article. Despite robustly adjusting for severity of illness in our multivariable regression model, we cannot exclude residual confounding. The “Monday Effect,” or deferred care for relatively minor pulmonary embolism (PE), as suggested by Dr Girard and colleagues, is an interesting concept and deserves further study. Unfortunately, our data sources do not allow us to make such a determination. The National Inpatient Sample has a variable that indicates whether the admission was on a weekday or weekend but not for specifi c days of the week. However, it is unlikely that this phenomenon is solely responsible for our fi ndings. Delaying care for a potential life-threatening dis ease, by up to . 2 days in some cases, would lead to an increase in severity of illness and by extension mortality on weekdays in at least some such people. This would bias our results toward fi nd ing no differences in mortality between weekends and weekdays. In our article, we did not mean to suggest that delays in inferior vena cava fi lter placement might be the direct cause of observed differences in mortality; indeed, we agree with Dr Girard and colleagues that they are unlikely to be a reliable marker of quality of care in acute PE. Rather, we suggest that differences in timeliness of placement may be a surrogate for delays in other processes of care that possibly affect mortality, for example, delays in achievement of anticoagulation targets or impediments in diagnosis via belated performance of CT scan angiography. The proportion of people receiving inferior vena cava fi lters in our study is consistent with other investigations in the United States. 2 We cannot, however, determine the appropriateness of the indication for such placement. Differences in fi ndings of the Computerized Registry of Patients With VTE (RIETE) and our study may partly arise from the fact that RIETE includes patients with VTE, whereas we restricted our attention to people with PE only.