Literature DB >> 25133488

Hospital performance for pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and rate of venous thromboembolism : a cohort study.

Scott A Flanders1, M Todd Greene1, Paul Grant1, Scott Kaatz2, David Paje3, Bobby Lee4, James Barron5, Vineet Chopra6, David Share7, Steven J Bernstein6.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Hospitalization for acute medical illness is associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although efforts designed to increase use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis are intended to reduce hospital-associated VTE, whether higher rates of prophylaxis reduce VTE in medical patients is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates and hospital-associated VTE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective, multicenter cohort study conducted at 35 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide quality collaborative from January 1, 2011, through September 13, 2012. Trained medical record abstractors at each hospital collected data from 31 260 general medical patients. Use of VTE prophylaxis on admission, VTE risk factors, and VTE events 90 days after hospital admission were recorded using a combination of medical record review and telephone follow-up. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles of performance based on rate of pharmacologic prophylaxis use on admission for at-risk patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Association between hospital performance and time to development of VTE within 90 days of hospital admission.
RESULTS: A total of 14 563 of 20 794 patients (70.0%) eligible for pharmacologic prophylaxis received prophylaxis on admission. The rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis use at hospitals in the high-, moderate-, and low-performance tertiles were 85.8%, 72.6%, and 55.5%, respectively. A total of 226 VTE events occurred during 1 765 449 days of patient follow-up. Compared with patients at hospitals in the highest-performance tertile, the hazard of VTE in patients at hospitals in moderate-performance (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.62) and low-performance (hazard ratio, 0.96, 95% CI, 0.63-1.45) tertiles did not differ after adjusting for potential confounders. Results remained robust when examining mechanical prophylaxis, prophylaxis use throughout the hospitalization, and subsequent inpatient stays after discharge from the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The occurrence of 90-day VTE in medical patients after hospitalization is low. Patients who receive care at hospitals that have lower rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis do not have higher adjusted hazards of VTE, even after accounting for individual receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Efforts to increase rates of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients may not substantively reduce this adverse outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25133488     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  21 in total

1.  Use of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients.

Authors:  Paul J Grant; Anna Conlon; Vineet Chopra; Scott A Flanders
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in Internal Medicine Units: the RAMs issue.

Authors:  Antonella Tufano; Giovanni Di Minno
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Effect of a near-universal hospitalization-based prophylaxis regimen on annual number of venous thromboembolism events in the US.

Authors:  John A Heit; Daniel J Crusan; Aneel A Ashrani; Tanya M Petterson; Kent R Bailey
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 22.113

4.  Improvement of appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients with a multiscreen e-alert system: a single-centre experience.

Authors:  R Figueroa; A Alfonso; J López-Picazo; I Gil-Bazo; A García-Mouriz; J Hermida; J A Páramo; R Lecumberri
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Authors:  P Le; K A Martinez; M A Pappas; M B Rothberg
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 5.824

6.  Use of provider-level dashboards and pay-for-performance in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Authors:  Henry J Michtalik; Howard T Carolan; Elliott R Haut; Brandyn D Lau; Michael B Streiff; Joseph Finkelstein; Peter J Pronovost; Nowella Durkin; Daniel J Brotman
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 2.960

7.  Extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients with cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Soravis Osataphan; Rushad Patell; Thita Chiasakul; Alok A Khorana; Jeffrey I Zwicker
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2021-04-27

8.  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

9.  Patterns and Predictors of Short-Term Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Use: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  David Paje; Anna Conlon; Scott Kaatz; Lakshmi Swaminathan; Tanya Boldenow; Steven J Bernstein; Scott A Flanders; Vineet Chopra
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.960

10.  Assessing the Caprini Score for Risk Assessment of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medical Patients.

Authors:  Paul J Grant; M Todd Greene; Vineet Chopra; Steven J Bernstein; Timothy P Hofer; Scott A Flanders
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 4.965

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.