scholarly journals Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practice and its association with outcomes in Australia and New Zealand burns patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln M Tracy ◽  
Peter A Cameron ◽  
Yvonne Singer ◽  
Arul Earnest ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Patients with burn injuries are considered to have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). While untreated VTEs can be fatal, no studies have examined chemoprophylaxis effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the variation in prevalence of VTE prophylaxis use in patients in Australian and New Zealand burns units and whether prophylaxis use is associated with in-hospital outcomes following burn injury. Methods Admission data for adult burns patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted between 1 July 2016 and 31 December 2018 were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand. Mixed effects logistic regression modelling investigated whether VTE prophylaxis use was associated with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Results There were 5066 admissions over the study period. Of these patients, 81% (n = 3799) with a valid response to the VTE prophylaxis data field received some form of VTE prophylaxis. Use of VTE prophylaxis ranged from 48.6% to 94.8% of patients between units. In-hospital death was recorded in <1% of patients (n = 33). After adjusting for confounders, receiving VTE prophylaxis was associated with a decrease in the adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07–0.63; p = 0.006). Conclusions Variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis was observed between the units, and prophylaxis use was associated with a decrease in the odds of mortality. These findings provide an opportunity to engage with units to further explore differences in prophylaxis use and develop future best practice guidelines.

Effectiveness and Safety of Twice Daily Versus Thrice Daily Subcutaneous Unfractionated Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis at a Tertiary Medical Center

2020 ◽  
pp. 089719002096121
Author(s):  
Meghan W. Sorgi ◽  
Erin Roach ◽  
Seth R. Bauer ◽  
Stephanie Bass ◽  
Michael Militello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Unfractionated Heparin ◽  
Propensity Scores ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Matched Cohort ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Full Cohort ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Major Bleed ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: The direct comparison of twice daily (BID) and thrice daily (TID) dosing of subcutaneous low dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in a mixed inpatient population is not well-studied. Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of BID compared to TID dosing of LDUH for prevention of VTE. Methods: Retrospective, single-center analysis of patients who received LDUH for VTE prophylaxis between July and September 2015. Outcomes were identified by ICD-9 codes. A matched cohort was created using propensity scores and multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for VTE. The primary outcome was incidence of symptomatic VTE. Results: In the full cohort, VTE occurred in 0.71% of patients who received LDUH BID compared to 0.77% of patients who received LDUH TID ( p = 0.85). There was no difference in major ( p = 0.85) and minor ( p = 0.52) bleeding between the BID and TID groups. For the matched cohort, VTE occurred in 1.4% of BID patients and 2.1% of TID patients ( p = 0.32). Major bleed occurred in 0.36% of BID patients and 0.52% of TID patients ( p = 0.7), while a minor bleed was seen in 3.4% of BID patients and 2.1% of TID patients ( p = 0.13). Personal history of VTE ( p = 0.002) and weight ( p = 0.035) were independently associated with increased risk of VTE. Conclusion: This study did not demonstrate a difference in effectiveness or safety between BID and TID dosing of LDUH for VTE prevention.

628 Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Burn Patients: Analyzing the Effectiveness of a Standardized Protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S169-S170
Author(s):  
Sarah A Folliard ◽  
Jared L Gabbert ◽  
Kelli Rumbaugh ◽  
Callie M Thompson ◽  
Cathy Oleis
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Total Body Surface Area ◽  
Burn Patients ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Improve Compliance

Abstract Introduction Burn patients have a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to extensive immobilization, surgical interventions, endothelial injury, and the presence of polytrauma. Studies have shown VTE rates ranging from 0.25% to 23.3% in this patient population. Although burn patients have a greater risk for VTE compared to other hospitalized patients, there are no standardized guidelines on how to approach VTE prophylaxis in the burn population. In March 2018, the Burn Intensive Care Unit (BICU) implemented a new VTE prophylaxis protocol that stratified patients based on risk factors for VTE. Patients were started on enoxaparin 30mg every 12 hours or 40mg every 12 hours depending on body mass index (BMI). The purpose of this study was to examine compliance with the new protocol and overall rates of VTE in the burn population. Methods A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted from March 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018. Patients included were admitted to the BICU with a documented burn injury for at least 48 hours and were ≥ 18 years of age. The primary outcome was compliance with the VTE prophylaxis protocol. Secondary outcomes included reasons for non-compliance and incidence of VTE events. Results Out of 105 patients that met inclusion criteria (median age, 53 years [36 to 63]; BMI 27.1 kg/m2 [25.7 to 33.2]; total body surface area 6% [3% to 18%]), the protocol was correctly utilized in 81 patients (77%). The most common reason for non-compliance to the protocol was incorrect dosing (60.9% [14/105]). Of 105 patients, 1 (0.9%) developed a VTE. Conclusions Overall, the compliance to the Burn Intensive Care Unit VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis protocol has room for improvement. Despite following the protocol, one VTE event occurred during the five-month study period. To improve compliance, additional education and training regarding the dosing of and monitoring anti-coagulants was provided to nursing and medical staff.

Perioperative Antithrombotic Therapy Management and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Chen ◽  
Irene Lou
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Therapy Management ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Perioperative Anticoagulation

The management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is essentially a balancing act between patient risk factors for thrombosis and surgical risk factors for bleeding. The purpose of this review is to assist surgeons with the identification of patients at increased risk for thromboembolism when antithrombotic therapy is interrupted, patients for whom bridging anticoagulation should be considered, patients who require perioperative VTE prophylaxis, and patients at increased risk for bleeding complications and to briefly review the literature and major guidelines regarding perioperative antithrombotic therapy management and perioperative VTE prophylaxis. Figures show approaches to the management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and VTE prophylaxis.  This review contains 2 figures, 7 tables, and 61 references. Keywords: Venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation, surgery, perioperative period, prophylaxis  

scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 496-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel S. Key ◽  
Alok A. Khorana ◽  
Nicole M. Kuderer ◽  
Kari Bohlke ◽  
Agnes Y.Y. Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk

PURPOSE To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE. RECOMMENDATIONS Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

scholarly journals Minor Hematochezia Decreases Use of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1394-1400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam S Faye ◽  
Kenneth W Hung ◽  
Kimberly Cheng ◽  
John W Blackett ◽  
Anna Sophia Mckenney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Despite increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), pharmacologic prophylaxis rates remain low. We sought to understand the reasons for this by assessing factors associated with VTE prophylaxis in patients with IBD and the safety of its use. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study conducted among patients hospitalized between January 2013 and August 2018. The primary outcome was VTE prophylaxis, and exposures of interest included acute and chronic bleeding. Medical records were parsed electronically for covariables, and logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with VTE prophylaxis. Results There were 22,499 patients studied, including 474 (2%) with IBD. Patients with IBD were less likely to be placed on VTE prophylaxis (79% with IBD, 87% without IBD), particularly if hematochezia was present (57% with hematochezia, 86% without hematochezia). Among patients with IBD, admission to a medical service and hematochezia (adjusted odds ratio 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.46) were among the strongest independent predictors of decreased VTE prophylaxis use. Neither hematochezia nor VTE prophylaxis was associated with increased blood transfusion rates or with a clinically significant decline in hemoglobin level during hospitalization. Conclusion Hospitalized patients are less likely to be placed on VTE prophylaxis if they have IBD, and hematochezia may drive this. Hematochezia appeared to be minor and was unaffected by VTE prophylaxis. Education related to the safety of VTE prophylaxis in the setting of minor hematochezia may be a high-yield way to increase VTE prophylaxis rates in patients with IBD.

Perioperative Antithrombotic Therapy Management and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Chen ◽  
Irene Lou
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Therapy Management ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Perioperative Anticoagulation

The management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is essentially a balancing act between patient risk factors for thrombosis and surgical risk factors for bleeding. The purpose of this review is to assist surgeons with the identification of patients at increased risk for thromboembolism when antithrombotic therapy is interrupted, patients for whom bridging anticoagulation should be considered, patients who require perioperative VTE prophylaxis, and patients at increased risk for bleeding complications and to briefly review the literature and major guidelines regarding perioperative antithrombotic therapy management and perioperative VTE prophylaxis. Figures show approaches to the management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and VTE prophylaxis.  This review contains 2 figures, 7 tables, and 61 references. Keywords: Venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation, surgery, perioperative period, prophylaxis  

Improving the Quality of Inpatient Ulcerative Colitis Management: Promoting Evidence-Based Practice and Reducing Care Variation With an Inpatient Protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 1822-1827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M Lewin ◽  
Ryan A McConnell ◽  
Roshan Patel ◽  
Suzanne R Sharpton ◽  
Fernando Velayos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Quality Improvement Intervention ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Disease Extent ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Evidence Based Care

Abstarct Background Hospitalization for ulcerative colitis is a high-risk period associated with increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection, thromboembolism, and opiate use. The study aim was to develop and implement a quality-improvement intervention for inpatient ulcerative colitis management that standardizes gastroenterology consultant recommendations and improves delivery of evidence-based care. Methods All adult patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, who received intravenous corticosteroids were included. On July 1, 2016, the UCSF Inpatient Ulcerative Colitis Protocol was implemented, featuring standardized core recommendations and a daily checklist for gastroenterology consultant notes, a bundled IBD electronic order set, and an opiate awareness campaign. The composite primary outcome was adherence to all 3 evidence-based care metrics: C. difficile testing performed, pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis ordered, and opiates avoided. Results Ninety-three ulcerative colitis hospitalizations occurred, including 36 preintervention and 57 postintervention. Age, gender, disease duration, disease extent, and medication use were similar preintervention and postintervention. C. difficile testing was performed in 100% of hospitalizations. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was ordered on 84% of hospital days before intervention compared with 100% after intervention (P ≤ 0.001). Opiates were administered in 67% of preintervention hospitalizations, compared with 53% of postintervention hospitalizations (P = 0.18). The median daily dose of oral morphine equivalents decreased from 12.1 mg before intervention to 0.5 mg after intervention (P = 0.02). The composite outcome of adherence to all 3 metrics was higher after intervention (25% vs. 47%, P = 0.03). Conclusions Evidence-based inpatient ulcerative colitis management may be optimized with standardized algorithms that reinforce core principles, reduce care variation, and do not require IBD specialists to implement.

Perioperative Antithrombotic Therapy Management and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert Chen ◽  
Irene Lou
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽  
Therapy Management ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Perioperative Anticoagulation

The management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is essentially a balancing act between patient risk factors for thrombosis and surgical risk factors for bleeding. The purpose of this review is to assist surgeons with the identification of patients at increased risk for thromboembolism when antithrombotic therapy is interrupted, patients for whom bridging anticoagulation should be considered, patients who require perioperative VTE prophylaxis, and patients at increased risk for bleeding complications and to briefly review the literature and major guidelines regarding perioperative antithrombotic therapy management and perioperative VTE prophylaxis. Figures show approaches to the management of perioperative anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, and VTE prophylaxis.  This review contains 2 figures, 7 tables, and 61 references. Keywords: Venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation, surgery, perioperative period, prophylaxis  

Descriptive Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism in Georgia Trauma Centers Compared with National Trauma Centers Participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (11) ◽  
pp. 1283-1288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi L. Lassiter ◽  
Dennis W. Ashley ◽  
Regina S. Medeiros ◽  
Bao-ling Adam ◽  
Elizabeth G. Nesmith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Quality Improvement Program ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
National Trauma

This study was designed to compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Georgia trauma centers with other national trauma centers participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). The use of chemoprophylaxis and characteristics of patients who developed VTE were also examined. We conducted a retrospective observational study of 325,703 trauma admissions to 245 trauma centers from 2013 to 2014. Patient demographics, rate of VTE, as well as the use, type, and timing of chemoprophylaxis were compared between patients admitted to Georgia and non-Georgia trauma centers. The rate of VTE in Georgia trauma centers was 1.9 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent in other national trauma centers. Overall, 49.6 per cent of Georgia patients and 45.5 per cent of patients in other trauma centers had documented chemoprophylaxis. Low molecular weight heparin was the most commonly used medication. Most patients who developed VTE did so despite receiving prophylaxis. The rate of VTE despite prophylaxis was 3.2 per cent in Georgia and 3.1 per cent in non-Georgia trauma centers. Mortality associated with VTE was higher in Georgia trauma centers compared with national TQIP benchmarks. The incidence of VTE and use of chemoprophylaxis within Georgia trauma centers were similar to national TQIP data. Interestingly, most patients who developed VTE in both populations received VTE prophylaxis. Further research is needed to develop best-practice guidelines for prevention, early detection, and treatment in high-risk populations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document