Literature DB >> 18242412

Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study.

Alexander T Cohen1, Victor F Tapson, Jean-Francois Bergmann, Samuel Z Goldhaber, Ajay K Kakkar, Bruno Deslandes, Wei Huang, Maksim Zayaruzny, Leigh Emery, Frederick A Anderson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information about the variation in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and in prophylaxis practices around the world is scarce. The ENDORSE (Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting) study is a multinational cross-sectional survey designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, and to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who receive effective prophylaxis.
METHODS: All hospital inpatients aged 40 years or over admitted to a medical ward, or those aged 18 years or over admitted to a surgical ward, in 358 hospitals across 32 countries were assessed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines were used to assess VTE risk and to determine whether patients were receiving recommended prophylaxis.
FINDINGS: 68 183 patients were enrolled; 30 827 (45%) were categorised as surgical, and 37 356 (55%) as medical. On the basis of ACCP criteria, 35 329 (51.8%; 95% CI 51.4-52.2; between-country range 35.6-72.6) patients were judged to be at risk for VTE, including 19 842 (64.4%; 63.8-64.9; 44.1-80.2) surgical patients and 15 487 (41.5%; 41.0-42.0; 21.1-71.2) medical patients. Of the surgical patients at risk, 11 613 (58.5%; 57.8-59.2; 0.2-92.1) received ACCP-recommended VTE prophylaxis, compared with 6119 (39.5%; 38.7-40.3; 3.1-70.4) at-risk medical patients.
INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of hospitalised patients are at risk for VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. Our data reinforce the rationale for the use of hospital-wide strategies to assess patients' VTE risk and to implement measures that ensure that at-risk patients receive appropriate prophylaxis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18242412     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60202-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  299 in total

1.  Value-of-information analysis to reduce decision uncertainty associated with the choice of thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement in the Irish healthcare setting.

Authors:  Laura McCullagh; Cathal Walsh; Michael Barry
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Improved compliance with venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis for patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications did not reduce venous thromboembolism incidence.

Authors:  Lauren S Prescott; Lisa M Kidin; Rebecca L Downs; David J Cleveland; Ginger L Wilson; Mark F Munsell; Alma Y DeJesus; Katherine E Cain; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael H Kroll; Charles F Levenback; Kathleen M Schmeler
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 3.  Recent pharmacological advances for treating venous thromboembolism: are we witnessing the demise of warfarin?

Authors:  Shankar Kumar; John Howell; Christopher Mattock
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Evidence behind quality of care measures for venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  G Eymin; A K Jaffer
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 5.  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

6.  Adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines in elderly patients with hospital acquired venous thromboembolism: a case control study.

Authors:  Jason Suh; Amishi Desai; Anish Desai; Josephine Dela Cruz; Anusiyanthan Mariampillai; Alexander Hindenburg
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.300

7.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Mary Cushman; Allison E Burnett; Susan R Kahn; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Frederick A Spencer; Suely M Rezende; Neil A Zakai; Kenneth A Bauer; Francesco Dentali; Jill Lansing; Sara Balduzzi; Andrea Darzi; Gian Paolo Morgano; Ignacio Neumann; Robby Nieuwlaat; Juan J Yepes-Nuñez; Yuan Zhang; Wojtek Wiercioch
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

8.  Postoperative venous thromboembolism rates vary significantly after different types of major abdominal operations.

Authors:  Debraj Mukherjee; Anne O Lidor; Kathryn M Chu; Susan L Gearhart; Elliott R Haut; David C Chang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  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

Review 10.  Impact on patient care: patient case through the continuum of care.

Authors:  Scott Kaatz
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.