Provide explicit expert-based consensus recommendations for the management of adults with primary and secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces in an emergency department and inpatient hospital setting. The use of opinion was made explicit by employing a structured questionnaire, appropriateness scores, and consensus scores with a Delphi technique. The guideline was designed to be relevant to physicians who make management decisions for the care of patients with pneumothorax.

To assess, by systematic review, the efficacy and safety of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) in the treatment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT). A secondary objective is to assess the optimal dose and route of administration of rt-PA.

We conducted a systematic overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify the contribution of nutritional supplementation for patients with stable COPD.

1. Permanent therapy with oral anticoagulants offers the most consistent protection in patients with mechanical heart valves. 2. Antiplatelet agents alone do not consistently protect patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, including patients in sinus rhythm with St. Jude Medical valves in the aortic position. 3. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.0 to 3.0 appear satisfactory for patients with St. Jude Medical bileaflet and Medtronic-Hall tilting disk mechanical valves in the aortic position, provided they are in sinus rhythm and the left atrium is not enlarged. Presumably, this is also true for the CarboMedics bileaflet valve, based on the observation of no clinically important difference in the rate of systemic embolism with this valve and the St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve. 4. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.5 to 3.5 are satisfactory for tilting disk valves and bileaflet prosthetic valves in the mitral position. 5. Experience in patients with caged ball valves who had prothrombin time ratios reported in terms of the INR is sparse, because few such valves have been inserted in recent years. The number of surviving patients with caged ball valves continues to decrease. It has been suggested that the most advantageous level of the INR in patients with caged ball or caged disk valves should be as high as 4.0 to 4.9. However, others have shown a high rate of major hemorrhage with an INR that is even somewhat lower, 3.0-4.5. The problem is self-limited, however, because few such valves are being inserted. 6. In patients with mechanical heart valves, aspirin, in addition to oral anticoagulants, has been shown to diminish the frequency of thromboemboli. The risk of bleeding is somewhat increased if the INR is 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.5 to 3.5. However, if the INR is 3.0 to 4.5, the risk of bleeding becomes excessive with aspirin. There are no investigations in which aspirin 80 mg/d in combination with oral anticoagulants was evaluated. 7. Data are insufficient to recommend dipyridamole over low doses of aspirin in combination with warfarin. Whether dipyridamole plus aspirin is more effective than aspirin alone when used with warfarin is undetermined. 8. Patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position as well as patients with bioprosthetic valves in the aortic position may be at risk for thromboemboli during the first 3 months after operation. 9. Among patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position, oral anticoagulants at an INR of 2.0 to 2.3 were as effective as an INR of 2.5 to 4.0 and were associated with fewer bleeding complications during the first 3 months after operation.10. Aspirin may reduce the long-term frequency of thromboembolism in patients with bioprosthetic valves.

Anticoagulant therapy is indicated during pregnancy for the prevention and treatment of VTE; for the prevention and treatment of systemic embolism in patients with mechanical heart valves; and, often in combination with aspirin, for the prevention of pregnancy loss in women with APLAs or thrombophilia and previous pregnancy losses. Several questions concerning anticoagulant therapy remain unanswered. It appears that LMWH will largely replace UFH. Oral anticoagulants are fetopathic, but the true risks of the warfarin embryopathy and CNS abnormalities remain unknown. There is considerable evidence that warfarin embryopathy occurs only when oral anticoagulants are administered between the sixth week and the 12th week of gestation and that oral anticoagulants may not be fetopathic when administered in the first 6 weeks of gestation. Oral anticoagulant therapy should be avoided in the weeks before delivery because of the risk of serious perinatal bleeding caused by the trauma of delivery to the anticoagulated fetus. The safety of aspirin during the first trimester of pregnancy is still a subject of debate. There is a concern about the efficacy of UFH in the prevention of arterial embolism in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves. Finally, the optimum management of pregnant women with thrombophilia (and prior pregnancy loss and/or prior VTE) is unknown, but trials of anticoagulant therapy are ongoing. Because it is safe for the fetus, LMWH (or UFH) is the anticoagulant of choice during pregnancy for situations in which its efficacy is established. There is some doubt that heparin is effective for the prevention of systemic embolism in patients with mechanical heart valves. Low doses of heparin or poorly controlled heparin therapy are not effective in preventing systemic embolism in patients with mechanical heart valves.

Bleeding is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The criteria for defining the severity of bleeding varied considerably between studies, accounting in part for the variation in the rates of bleeding reported. Since the last review, there have been several meta-analyses published on the rates of major bleeding in trials of anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease. The major determinants of oral anticoagulant-induced bleeding are the intensity of the anticoagulant effect, underlying patient characteristics, and the length of therapy. There is good evidence that low-intensity oral anticoagulant therapy (targeted INR of 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) is associated with a lower risk of bleeding than therapy targeted at a higher intensity. Lower-intensity regimens (INR < 2.0) are associated with an even smaller increase in major bleeding. In terms of treatment decision making for anticoagulant therapy, bleeding risk cannot be considered alone, ie, the potential decrease in thromboembolism must be balanced against the potential increased bleeding risk. The risk of bleeding associated with IV heparin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism is < 3% in recent trials. There is some evidence to suggest that this bleeding risk increases with the heparin dosage and age (> 70 years). LMW heparin is not associated with increased major bleeding compared with standard heparin in acute venous thromboembolism. Standard heparin and LMW heparin are not associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic coronary syndromes, but are associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic stroke.