BACKGROUND: The identification of trauma patients at risk for the development of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) at the time of admission remains difficult. The purpose of this study is to validate the risk assessment profile (RAP) score to stratify patients for DVT prophylaxis. METHODS: All patients admitted from November 1998 thru May 1999 were evaluated for enrollment. We prospectively assigned patients as low risk or high risk for DVT using the RAP score. High-risk patients received both pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis. Low-risk patients received none. Surveillance duplex Doppler scans were performed each week of hospitalization or if symptoms developed. Hospital charges for prophylaxis were used to determine the savings in the low-risk group. Statistical differences between the risk groups for each factor of the RAP and development of DVT were determined by the chi-squared test, with significance at a probability value of less than .05. RESULTS: There were 102 high-risk (64%) and 58 low-risk (36%) individuals studied. Eleven of the high-risk group (10.8%) experienced the development of DVT (asymptomatic, 64%). None of the low-risk group was diagnosed with DVT. Five of the 16 RAP factors were statistically significant for DVT. Eliminating prophylaxis and Doppler scans in low-risk patients resulted in a total savings of $18,908 in hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: The RAP score correctly identified trauma patients at increased risk for the development of DVT. Despite prophylaxis, the high-risk group warrants surveillance scans. Withholding prophylaxis in low-risk patients can reduce hospital charges without risk.
BACKGROUND: The identification of traumapatients at risk for the development of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) at the time of admission remains difficult. The purpose of this study is to validate the risk assessment profile (RAP) score to stratify patients for DVT prophylaxis. METHODS: All patients admitted from November 1998 thru May 1999 were evaluated for enrollment. We prospectively assigned patients as low risk or high risk for DVT using the RAP score. High-risk patients received both pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis. Low-risk patients received none. Surveillance duplex Doppler scans were performed each week of hospitalization or if symptoms developed. Hospital charges for prophylaxis were used to determine the savings in the low-risk group. Statistical differences between the risk groups for each factor of the RAP and development of DVT were determined by the chi-squared test, with significance at a probability value of less than .05. RESULTS: There were 102 high-risk (64%) and 58 low-risk (36%) individuals studied. Eleven of the high-risk group (10.8%) experienced the development of DVT (asymptomatic, 64%). None of the low-risk group was diagnosed with DVT. Five of the 16 RAP factors were statistically significant for DVT. Eliminating prophylaxis and Doppler scans in low-risk patients resulted in a total savings of $18,908 in hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: The RAP score correctly identified traumapatients at increased risk for the development of DVT. Despite prophylaxis, the high-risk group warrants surveillance scans. Withholding prophylaxis in low-risk patients can reduce hospital charges without risk.
Authors: Carrie A Sims; Daniel Holena; Patrick Kim; Jose Pascual; Brian Smith; Neils Martin; Mark Seamon; Adam Shiroff; Shariq Raza; Lewis Kaplan; Elena Grill; Nicole Zimmerman; Christopher Mason; Benjamin Abella; Patrick Reilly Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Mary A M Rogers; Deborah A Levine; Neil Blumberg; Scott A Flanders; Vineet Chopra; Kenneth M Langa Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alexandra M Roch; Thomas K Maatman; Rose A Carr; Cameron L Colgate; Eugene P Ceppa; Michael G House; James Lopes; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Nicholas J Zyromski Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jeffrey N Harr; Ernest E Moore; Theresa L Chin; Arsen Ghasabyan; Eduardo Gonzalez; Max V Wohlauer; Angela Sauaia; Anirban Banerjee; Christopher C Silliman Journal: Shock Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Abdullah Pandor; Daniel Horner; Sarah Davis; Steve Goodacre; John W Stevens; Mark Clowes; Beverley J Hunt; Tim Nokes; Jonathan Keenan; Kerstin de Wit Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Myung S Park; Grant M Spears; Kent R Bailey; Ailing Xue; Michael J Ferrara; Amy Headlee; Sabtir K Dhillon; Donald H Jenkins; Scott P Zietlow; William S Harmsen; Aneel A Ashrani; John A Heit Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Aniek Ag Zee; Kelly van Lieshout; Maaike van der Heide; Loes Janssen; Heinrich Mj Janzing Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-08-06
Authors: K M Sauro; A Soo; A Kramer; P Couillard; J Kromm; D Zygun; D J Niven; S M Bagshaw; H T Stelfox Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.210