| Literature DB >> 34030656 |
Zhekun Zhao1, Qiongjie Zhou2,3, Xiaotian Li4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has become one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of this condition; however, its use appears to be insufficient. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to identify the missed opportunities for VTE prophylaxis in hospitals that provide maternal healthcare in mainland China.Entities:
Keywords: China; Pregnancy; Prophylaxis; Puerperium; Venous thromboembolism
Year: 2021 PMID: 34030656 PMCID: PMC8142288 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03863-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Demographic and clinical characteristics of pregnant and puerperal women with venous thromboembolism by hospital type
| Total | General hospital | Specialized hospital | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ 35 | 74 (74.0) | 38 (74.5) | 36 (73.5) | 1.000 | |
| > 35 | 26 (26.0) | 13 (25.5) | 13 (26.5) | ||
| < 30 | 76 (76.0) | 39 (76.5) | 37 (75.5) | 1.000 | |
| ≥ 30 | 24 (24.0) | 12 (23.5) | 12 (24.5) | ||
| Eastern region | 68 (68.0) | 43 (84.3) | 25 (51.0) | 0.001 | |
| Central region | 21 (21.0) | 4 (7.8) | 17 (34.7) | ||
| Western region | 11 (11.0) | 4 (7.8) | 7 (14.3) | ||
| High school or lower | 24 (24.0) | 14 (27.5) | 10 (20.4) | 0.133 | |
| Undergraduate or higher | 47 (47.0) | 19 (37.5) | 28 (57.1) | ||
| Missed | 29 (29.0) | 18 (35.3) | 11 (22.5) | ||
| Vaginal delivery | 20 (20.0) | 12 (23.5) | 8 (16.3) | 0.646 | |
| Cesarean section | 80 (80.0) | 39 (76.5) | 41 (83.7) | ||
| Low risk | 25 (25.0) | 15 (29.4) | 10 (20.4) | 0.359 | |
| High risk | 75 (75.0) | 36 (70.6) | 39 (79.6) | ||
| Antepartum | 20 (20.0) | 17 (33.3) | 3 (6.1) | 0.002 | |
| Postpartum | 80 (80.0) | 34 (66.7) | 46 (93.9) | ||
| DVT | 76 (76.0) | 38 (74.5) | 38 (77.6) | 0.899 | |
| PTE | 24 (24.0) | 13 (25.4) | 11 (22.4) | ||
Data are presented as number (percentage)
VTE Venous thromboembolism, BMI Body mass index, DVT Deep venous thrombosis, PTE Pulmonary thromboembolism
aRegion of residence. Eastern region: Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Liaoning, Shandong, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Zhejiang. Central region: Anhui, Hainan, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangxi, Jilin, and Shanxi. Western region: Chongqing, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Tibet, Yunnan, and Xinjiang
Main risk factors in pregnant and puerperal patients with antenatal and postpartum venous thromboembolism
| Antenatal VTE ( | Postpartum VTE ( |
|---|---|
| Previous VTE history:5 (25.0) | Elective CS: 33 (41.8) |
| BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2: 5 (25.0) | Emergency CS: 30 (38.0) |
| Age > 35 years old: 4 (20.0) | Age > 35 years old: 21 (26.6) |
| Maternal comorbiditiesa: 3 (15.0) | BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2: 19 (24.1) |
| ART: 3 (15.0) | Maternal comorbiditiesa: 14 (17.7) |
| Parity > 2: 3 (15.0) | Parity > 2: 14 (17.7) |
| Multiple pregnancy: 3 (15.0) | Preterm birth: 12 (15.2) |
| Immobility (≥ 7 days bed rest): 3 (15.0) | Preeclampsia: 11 (13.9) |
| Previous thrombophilia: 2 (10.0) | PPH (≥ 1000 ml or blood transfusion): 11 (13.9) |
| Infection: 7 (8.9) |
Data are presented as number (percentage)
VTE Venous thromboembolism, BMI Body mass index, CS Cesarean section, PPH Postpartum hemorrhage, ART Assisted reproductive technology
aMaternal comorbidities include cancer, heart disease, pulmonary disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, inflammatory bowel disease, gross varicose veins, diabetes mellitus, and sickle cell anemia
Missed prophylactic opportunities among pregnant and puerperal women with venous thromboembolism
| Prophylaxis | Hospital type | Risk assessment | Onset timing | Disease type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General | Specialized | Low risk | High risk | Antenatal | Postpartum | DVT | PTE | |
| No early mobilization | 10 (19.6) | 7 (14.3) | 5 (20.0) | 12 (16.0) | – | 11 (13.9) | 8 (10.5) | 9 (37.5) |
| No use of mechanical methods | 31 (60.8) | 12 (24.5) | 14 (56.0) | 29 (38.7) | 14 (70.0) | 29 (36.7) | 29 (38.2) | 14 (58.3) |
| No use of anticoagulants | 22/36 (61.1) | 19/39 (48.7) | – | 41 (54.7) | 9/9 (100) | 32/66 (48.5) | 35/56 (62.5) | 6/19 (31.6) |
| No opportunity missed | 11 (21.6) | 14 (28.6) | 4 (16.0) | 21 (28.0) | 0 (0.0) | 24 (30.4) | 6 (7.9) | 6 (25.0) |
| 1 opportunity missed | 12 (23.5) | 29 (59.2) | 8 (32.0) | 33 (44.0) | 6 (30.0) | 35 (44.3) | 19 (25.0) | 3 (12.5) |
| 2 opportunities missed | 20 (39.2) | 2 (4.1) | 13 (52.0) | 14 (18.7) | 14 (70.0) | 14 (17.7) | 32 (42.1) | 9 (37.5) |
| 3 opportunities missed | 8 (15.7) | 4 (8.2) | – | 7 (9.3) | – | 6 (7.6) | 19 (25.0) | 6 (25.0) |
Data are presented as number (percentage)
aPatients with a total score ≥ 3 before delivery or ≥ 2 after delivery were considered as high-risk patients, and the others, as low-risk patients
bMissed prophylaxis opportunities for postnatal patients include no early mobilization, no use of any mechanical methods, and no use of anticoagulants, while for antenatal patients they include no use of any mechanical methods and no use of anticoagulants since antenatal patients always practiced mobilization
cEarly mobilization refers to mobilization after delivery
dThe percentage of “no use of anticoagulants” refers to women who did not take anticoagulants and were stratified as high risk