Fan Ye1, Lauren N Bell1, Joseph Mazza2, Arthur Lee3, Steven H Yale1. 1. 1 North Florida Regional Medical Center, UCF COM/HCA GME Consortium Internal Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. 2. 2 Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI, USA. 3. 3 North Florida Regional Medical Center, The Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although immobility is a common risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients, lack of a consistent definition of this term may limit accurate assessment of VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To examine various definitions of immobility used in recent pharmacological thromboprophylaxis clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and relevant references from articles/reviews from 2008 to 2016 were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other clinical studies involving adult hospitalized medical patients in acute care hospital settings that used the term immobility were selected. Two investigators independently abstracted data in duplicate, and accuracy was checked by a third investigator. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical studies were included. There was heterogeneity among individual VTE risk factors, with respect to the definition of immobility in medical inpatients in these trials. Thirteen studies utilized objective criteria to define "immobility" including duration (12 studies) and distance or time walked (6 studies). In contrast, 7 studies focused principally on subjective definitions (ie, describing the nature of immobility rather than specifying its quantitative measurement). Three RCTs vaguely defined the level of patient's immobility after hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Despite the well-known effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, there is no current consensus on how to define immobility. The heterogeneous nature of definitions of immobility has led to uncertainty about the importance of immobility in VTE risk assessment models. Although clinical studies have incorporated varying definitions of immobility into their inclusion criteria, immobility as a specific VTE risk factor has not been clearly defined.
BACKGROUND: Although immobility is a common risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients, lack of a consistent definition of this term may limit accurate assessment of VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To examine various definitions of immobility used in recent pharmacological thromboprophylaxis clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and relevant references from articles/reviews from 2008 to 2016 were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other clinical studies involving adult hospitalized medical patients in acute care hospital settings that used the term immobility were selected. Two investigators independently abstracted data in duplicate, and accuracy was checked by a third investigator. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical studies were included. There was heterogeneity among individual VTE risk factors, with respect to the definition of immobility in medical inpatients in these trials. Thirteen studies utilized objective criteria to define "immobility" including duration (12 studies) and distance or time walked (6 studies). In contrast, 7 studies focused principally on subjective definitions (ie, describing the nature of immobility rather than specifying its quantitative measurement). Three RCTs vaguely defined the level of patient's immobility after hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Despite the well-known effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, there is no current consensus on how to define immobility. The heterogeneous nature of definitions of immobility has led to uncertainty about the importance of immobility in VTE risk assessment models. Although clinical studies have incorporated varying definitions of immobility into their inclusion criteria, immobility as a specific VTE risk factor has not been clearly defined.
Authors: M R Nendaz; P Chopard; C Lovis; N Kucher; L M Asmis; J Dörffler; D Spirk; H Bounameaux Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Russell D Hull; Sebastian M Schellong; Victor F Tapson; Manuel Monreal; Meyer-Michel Samama; Philippe Nicol; Eric Vicaut; Alexander G G Turpie; Roger D Yusen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: H Riess; S Haas; U Tebbe; H-E Gerlach; C Abletshauser; C Sieder; S Rossol; B Pfeiffer; S M Schellong Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Alexander T Cohen; Victor F Tapson; Jean-Francois Bergmann; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Ajay K Kakkar; Bruno Deslandes; Wei Huang; Maksim Zayaruzny; Leigh Emery; Frederick A Anderson Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-02-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea J Darzi; Allen B Repp; Frederick A Spencer; Rami Z Morsi; Rana Charide; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Kenneth A Bauer; Allison E Burnett; Mary Cushman; Francesco Dentali; Susan R Kahn; Suely M Rezende; Neil A Zakai; Arnav Agarwal; Samer G Karam; Tamara Lotfi; Wojtek Wiercioch; Reem Waziry; Alfonso Iorio; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Andrea J Darzi; Samer G Karam; Frederick A Spencer; Alex C Spyropoulos; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Scott C Woller; Neil A Zakai; Michael B Streiff; Michael K Gould; Mary Cushman; Rana Charide; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Federico Germini; Marta Rigoni; Arnav Agarwal; Rami Z Morsi; Elie A Akl; Alfonso Iorio; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-06-23