Literature DB >> 17032931

Thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.

Edward Burleigh1, Cheng Wang, David Foster, Sivana Heller, Dennis Dunn, Kaveh Safavi, Brian Griffin, Jeff Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: According to guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) should be prescribed to medical (nonsurgical) patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis and mortality rates were determined in medical inpatients with indications for thromboprophylaxis. Cost differences between patient groups were investigated and are discussed.
SUMMARY: Using Solucient's ACTracker Inpatient Database, medical discharges between January 2001 and December 2004 were extracted and patients who had indications for thromboprophylaxis (acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cancer, heart failure, or severe lung disease) were identified. Patients < 40 years or with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, active peptic ulcer, malignant hypertension, blood disease, HIV infection, or intubation of gastrointestinal or respiratory tract were excluded. Rates of thromboprophylaxis and mortality were compared between groups. Mean total drug costs and hospital costs per patient discharge were compared between patient groups. Of 12,887,080 medical discharges extracted from 330 hospitals, there were 2,367,362 patients with indications for thromboprophylaxis. Patients were subdivided on the basis of whether they received thromboprophylaxis (n = 717,850) or not (n = 1,649,512). The thromboprophylaxis rate was low, despite increasing from 26% to 33% over the study period. Patients receiving thromboprophylaxis had significantly lower risk-adjusted mortality rates than those who did not (p < 0.001), except those with ischemic stroke. The mean total drug cost per patient receiving LMWH and UFH ($791 and $569, respectively) was higher than for patients not receiving thromboprophylaxis ($372) (p < 0.001). The mean total hospital cost per patient receiving UFH ($7615) was higher than for LMWH ($6866, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The thromboprophylaxis rate among medical patients was low, with no significant improvement between 2001 and 2004. Thromboprophylaxis can impact patient mortality rates. Economic evaluation revealed that the use of LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in at-risk medical patients was associated with higher total drug costs but lower total hospital costs than UFH. Efforts should be made to increase clinicians' awareness of clinical guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17032931     DOI: 10.2146/ajhp060390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm        ISSN: 1079-2082            Impact factor:   2.637


  19 in total

1.  Preventing venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: can we do better?

Authors:  Gary H Lyman
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.840

Review 2.  Cancer, clots and consensus: new understanding of an old problem.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman; Alok A Khorana
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-09-14       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Unfractionated Heparin versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Hospitalized Patients with Stroke Due to Atrial Fibrillation in Shiraz, South of Iran.

Authors:  Nahid Hatam; Jamshid Bahmei; Khosro Keshavarz; Farnia Feiz; Reihaneh Sedghi; Afshin Borhani-Haghighi
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Neurol       Date:  2017-06

4.  The eighth American college of chest physicians guidelines on venous thromboembolism prevention: implications for hospital prophylaxis strategies.

Authors:  Michael H Huo; Alex C Spyropoulos
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.300

5.  Predicting risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cancer patients: Utility of a risk assessment tool.

Authors:  Rushad Patell; Lisa Rybicki; Keith R McCrae; Alok A Khorana
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 10.047

6.  Pattern of frequent but nontargeted pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with cancer at academic medical centers: a prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study.

Authors:  Jeffrey I Zwicker; Adam Rojan; Federico Campigotto; Nadia Rehman; Renee Funches; Gregory Connolly; Jonathan Webster; Anita Aggarwal; Dalia Mobarek; Charles Faselis; Donna Neuberg; Frederick R Rickles; Ted Wun; Michael B Streiff; Alok A Khorana
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Thrombosis, cancer and renal insufficiency: low molecular weight heparin at the crossroads.

Authors:  F Scotté; J B Rey; V Launay-Vacher
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-09-09       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Bridging the gap between evidence and practice in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: the quality improvement process.

Authors:  Franklin A Michota
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-09-22       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Hospital-based costs associated with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimens.

Authors:  Geno Merli; Cheryl P Ferrufino; Jay Lin; Mohammed Hussein; David Battleman
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 10.  Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin in medical patients with cancer.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.