Literature DB >> 17663733

Thromboprophylaxis rates in US medical centers: success or failure?

A Amin1, S Stemkowski, J Lin, G Yang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As hospitalized medical patients may be at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), evidence-based guidelines are available to help physicians assess patients' risk for VTE, and to recommend prophylaxis options. The rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use in at-risk medical inpatients was assessed in accordance with the 6th American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines.
METHODS: Hospital discharge information from the Premier Perspective(trade mark) inpatient data base from January 2002 to September 2005 was used. Included patients were 40 years old or more, with a length of hospital stay of 6 days or more, and had no contraindications for anticoagulation. The appropriateness of VTE thromboprophylaxis was determined in seven groups with acute medical conditions by comparing the daily thromboprophylaxis usage, including type of thromboprophylaxis, dosage of anticoagulant and duration of thromboprophylaxis, with the ACCP recommendations.
RESULTS: A total of 196 104 discharges from 227 hospitals met the inclusion criteria. The overall VTE thromboprophylaxis rate was 61.8%, although the appropriate thromboprophylaxis rate was only 33.9%. Of the 66.1% discharged patients who did not receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis, 38.4% received no prophylaxis, 4.7% received mechanical prophylaxis only, 6.3% received an inappropriate dosage, and 16.7% received an inappropriate prophylaxis duration based on ACCP recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the low rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in US acute-care hospitals, with two-thirds of discharged patients not receiving prophylaxis in accordance with the 6th ACCP guidelines. More effort is required to improve the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in accordance with the ACCP recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17663733     DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02650.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 1538-7836            Impact factor:   5.824


  39 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

2.  Variation in physician deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis attitudes and practices at an academic tertiary care center.

Authors:  Erin M Galbraith; Bonnie M Vautaw; Mary Grzybowski; Peter K Henke; Tomas W Wakefield; James B Froehlich
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  Venous thromboembolism in COPD hospitalized patients.

Authors:  Raquel Barba; Antonio Zapatero; Javier Marco; Juan E Losa; Susana Plaza; Jose Manuel Casas; Jesús Canora
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 4.  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

5.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a prospective survey.

Authors:  Petra Jancar; Tina Morgan; Ales Mrhar; Mitja Kosnik; Mitja Lainscak
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.704

Review 6.  Rationale supporting an "opt-out" policy for pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Authors:  Samuel Z Goldhaber
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 7.  Prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation for thrombosis: major issues in oncology.

Authors:  Marc Carrier; Agnes Y Y Lee
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2008-10-28

8.  Computerized decision support for the cardiovascular clinician: applications for venous thromboembolism prevention and beyond.

Authors:  Gregory Piazza; Samuel Z Goldhaber
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the United States: still room for improvement.

Authors:  Diane Sliwka; Margaret C Fang
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  The potential benefits of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer patients.

Authors:  Francisco Robert
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 17.388

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.