scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Patients: Are We Doing Enough for Prevention?◊

2014 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 812-813
Author(s):  
Adam C. Ring ◽  
Faisal Aziz ◽  
Michael J. Beck ◽  
Amy B. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Risk factors for symptomatic venous thromboembolism in Thai hospitalised medical patients

2011 ◽  
Vol 106 (12) ◽  
pp. 1103-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noppacharn Uaprasert ◽  
Laddawan Vajragupta ◽  
Numphung Numkarunarunrote ◽  
Nathaporn Tanpowpong ◽  
Pranee Sutcharitchan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Autoimmune Disease ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

SummaryThromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) failed to reduce overall mortality in hospitalised medical patients. As a VTE prediction model for Asians is still lacking, this study aimed to identify very high risk patients who would be the main target for prevention. In 2009, medical patients admitted to King Chulalongkorn Memorial hospital, a tertiary care centre, were prospectively evaluated for risk factors. The high-risk cohort was monitored for symptomatic VTE until six weeks after discharge. No heparin prophylaxis was given. Of 1,290 high-risk patients, 27 (2.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–2.9) developed proven VTE, 25.9% of which were diagnosed after discharge. Cases with VTE stayed longer in the hospital (median 18 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). The significant risk factors in a multivariate analysis were autoimmune disease, solid tumours, family history of VTE, varicose vein and oestrogen with the relative risks of 11.8, 4.7, 120.3, 40.1 and 17.1 (p < 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.002 and 0.038), respectively. Either autoimmune disease or solid tumours were found in 63% of VTE with the relative risk of 4.5 (95% CI 2.1–9.7, p < 0.001). In contrast, previously reported VTE scores in western patients could not stratify the VTE risks, but all the scores predicted higher mortality. In conclusion, VTE is common in Asian hospitalised medical patients. Patients with autoimmune disease and those with solid tumours are highly susceptible to VTE. A prophylactic strategy in these groups is required.

Venous thromboembolism prevention in medical patients: a framework for improving practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
P G Vaughan-Shaw ◽  
C Cannon
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism Prevention ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis

Objective Medical inpatients have been shown to be at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) including fatal pulmonary emboli. Several studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis significantly reduces the rates of VTE, yet studies published to date have shown a considerable underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. This study assesses the current use of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients at our institution and aims to identify simple strategies to improve practice. Design A prospective study of thromboprophylaxis prescription was undertaken on three occasions over a 12-month period. Patients were stratified according to the number of risk factors and standards of thromboprophylaxis assessed according to risk. After the first round of data collection, results were presented, a local guideline was developed and a risk assessment was added to the clerking pro forma. Results There were 122 patients in the first round, 101 in the second and 163 in the third. Eligible moderate and high-risk patients receiving a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) increased from 31% to 63% ( P < 0.005) over the study period. Prescription of thromboembolic deterrent (TED) stockings in those contraindicated to LMWH increased from 23% to 35% although this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.08), and the percentage of high-risk patients correctly receiving LMWH, TED stockings or both increased from 22% to 62% ( P < 0.0005). Documentation of contraindications to thromboprophylaxis increased from 0% to 59% ( P < 0.0005). Conclusion This paper demonstrates an initial rate of thromboprophylaxis use considerably less than the ENDORSE trial. However the strategies employed following initial audit resulted in a significant increase in the prescription of both mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This example demonstrates the role of audit education and a risk assessment in stimulating change. Such strategies could be used to ensure compliance to recently published National Institute of Clinical Excellence VTE guidelines. Furthermore this example could be generalized to improve other aspects of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document