Evaluation of Interventions for Implementation of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Medical and Surgical Patients At Risk for Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 676-676
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M. Cohen ◽  
David Morrison ◽  
Ian Shrier ◽  
Vicky Tagalakis ◽  
Jessica D. Emed ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 676 Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) show that the use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors. Objectives: In this review, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of various system-wide interventions designed to increase the use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases to identify studies that assessed an intervention designed to increase use of prophylaxis and/or decrease incidence of VTE. Extracted data included study design, setting, intervention, and outcomes including proportions receiving prophylaxis (RP) and receiving appropriate prophylaxis (RAP). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines. We performed meta-analysis for RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) separately. We categorized the interventions into three groups: education (e.g. grand rounds, self-administered course), alerts (e.g. electronic, human), and multifaceted interventions (e.g. combination of education, audit and feedback and alert). We performed a random effects meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Results were pooled if three or more studies were available for a particular intervention group. Results: Out of 1802 records included in our primary screen of titles and abstracts, 79 studies were assessed for eligibility. Fifty-six studies were included in our systematic review, including eight RCTs (N=17,601) and 48 NRS (N=62,770). Among the RCTS, 4 studies included medical patients, 2 included medical and surgical patients, 1 included post-acute care patients and 1 did not report the types of patients included. The NRS were primarily before-and-after design. Fourteen included surgical patients, 10 included medical patients, 10 included medical and surgical patients, 8 included patients from other departments and 6 did not report the types of patients included. Our primary outcomes included received prophylaxis (RP) and received appropriate prophylaxis (RAP). Among the RCTs, there was sufficient data to pool one outcome (RP) for one intervention type (alert). Among the NRS, there was sufficient data to pool two outcomes (RP, RAP) for each intervention type (education, alert, multifaceted). I2 results showed substantial statistical heterogeneity among studies. A sensitivity analysis showed that multifaceted interventions which included an alert were more effective at improving rates of RP and RAP than those without an alert. Conclusions: We reviewed a large number of studies which implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed to improve thromboprophylaxis rates in many settings and patient populations. We found statistically significant improvements in prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and improvements in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis with the use of education, alerts or multifaceted interventions. Multifaceted interventions with an alert component seem to be the most effective. We chose to pool effect estimates despite significant heterogeneity because the results were generally in the same direction but of different magnitudes. We are continuing to investigate sources of heterogeneity including patient population, setting, baseline prophylaxis rates, and intervention characteristics. The results of our review will help physicians, hospital administrators and policy makers make practical decisions about adoption of specific system-wide measures to improve prevention of VTE. Funded by Canadian Institutes for Health Research Disclosures: Kahn: sanofi aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Leo Pharma: Honoraria.

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e024444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan R Kahn ◽  
Gisele Diendéré ◽  
David R Morrison ◽  
Alexandre Piché ◽  
Kristian B Filion ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalised medical and surgical patients at risk of VTE.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, DARE, EED, LILACS and clinicaltrials.gov without language restrictions from inception to 7 January 2017, as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of system-wide interventions such as alerts, multifaceted, education, and preprinted orders when compared with no intervention, existing policy or another intervention.ResultsWe included 13 RCTs involving 35 997 participants. Eleven RCTs had data available for meta-analysis. Compared with control, we found absolute increase in the prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (21% increase, 95% CI [15% to 275%]) and multifaceted interventions (4% increase, 95% CI [3% to 11%]), absolute increase in the prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts (16% increase, 95% CI [12% to 20%]) and relative risk reductions (risk ratio 64%, 95% CI [47% to 86%]) in the incidence of symptomatic VTE associated with alerts. Computer alerts were found to be more effective than human alerts, and multifaceted interventions with an alert component appeared to be more effective than multifaceted interventions without, although comparative pooled analyses were not feasible. The quality of evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be low to moderate certainty.ConclusionsAlerts increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis, and decreased the incidence of symptomatic VTE. Multifaceted interventions increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis but were found to be less effective than alerts interventions.Trial registration numberCD008201.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 736-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. P. Wisman ◽  
M. Roest ◽  
F. W. Asselbergs ◽  
P. G. de Groot ◽  
F. L. Moll ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (22) ◽  
pp. 2667-2674 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. G.L. Biondi-Zoccai ◽  
M. Lotrionte ◽  
P. Agostoni ◽  
A. Abbate ◽  
M. Fusaro ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1285-1285
Author(s):  
Alpesh Amin ◽  
Jay Lin ◽  
Greg Lenhart ◽  
Kathy Schulman

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a frequent in-hospital complication in the United States (US) despite being largely preventable via the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis. This study compared the economic outcomes of two frequently used thromboprophylaxis options (enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin [UFH]) in a large, real-world population of US medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE and receiving appropriate prophylaxis. Methods: Discharges from the MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database from Thomson Reuters (Jan 04 – Mar 07) that were at risk of VTE (according to the 7th American College of Chest Physicians [ACCP] guidelines), spent ≥6 days in hospital (to indicate a high VTE-risk population), and received appropriate (for dose and duration per the specific ACCP recommendation for the discharge’s primary medical diagnosis or surgical procedure) enoxaparin or UFH thromboprophylaxis, were included in the study. At least one day of enoxaparin ≥40 mg per day or UFH ≥10,000 units per day represented appropriate dose of prophylaxis. Prophylaxis duration was considered appropriate if it was received each day of the admission except two days for patients at medical risk (to allow for partial days of stay at admission and discharge), and each day of the admission after surgery except for two days in patients with surgical risk. Discharges that received other anticoagulants, inappropriate enoxaparin or UFH prophylaxis, or had contraindications to anticoagulation were excluded. Hospital costs were tallied for the duration of patient hospitalization and compared between enoxaparin and UFH groups (by intention to treat). Data are presented in US $ as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Multivariate analysis was performed to predict differences in hospital costs, using generalized linear models with patient and hospital characteristics as the explanatory variables. The costs of in-hospital clinical outcomes, such as VTE or bleeding, are reported within the overall costs. Results: A total of 5,136 patients were included in the study, with 4,014 (78.2%) receiving appropriate enoxaparin prophylaxis and 1,122 (21.8%) receiving appropriate UFH prophylaxis. Total in-hospital length of stay was similar between patients receiving enoxaparin and UFH for both the qualifying admission (9.2±4.6 vs 9.6±5.2 days) and for total stay including readmissions (10.2 ± 5.9 vs 10.6 ± 6.5 days). The total mean hospital costs per discharge were $16,865 ± $10,979 in the enoxaparin group and $19,252 ± $14,970 in the UFH group. Room and board, operating room, and medical supply costs were lower with enoxaparin than with UFH, where as total pharmacy costs were higher with enoxaparin than with UFH (Table 1). In the univariate analysis, a mean saving of $2,388 was observed with enoxaparin (95% CI $1,596 to 3,180, p<0.001) and this translated to a non-significant adjusted mean difference of $439 (p=0.0716) in favor of enoxaparin following multivariate analysis. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the appropriate use of enoxaparin prophylaxis for the prevention of VTE in at-risk hospitalized medical and surgical patients is associated with a non-significant reduction in total hospital costs compared with the appropriate use of UFH prophylaxis. Table 1. Hospital costs for appropriate enoxaparin and UFH prophylaxis. Hospital costs (mean $ ± SD) Enoxaparin group N=4,014 UFH group N=1,122 All room and board 1,370 ± 2,696 2,150 ± 3,158 Operating and recovery room 928 ± 1,448 1,660 ± 1,817 Radiology 501 ± 1,100 494 ± 921 Laboratory tests 579 ± 565 699 ± 746 Medical supplies 1,369 ± 2,696 2,149 ± 3,159 Respiratory therapy 647 ± 1,026 597 ± 1,340 Mechanical prophylaxis 3 ± 16 6 ± 33 Pharmacy 1,997 ± 1,762 1,721 ± 2,093 Total hospital costs 16,865 ± 10,979 19,252 ± 14,970


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045978
Author(s):  
Jordi Martínez-Soldevila ◽  
Roland Pastells-Peiró ◽  
Carolina Climent-Sanz ◽  
Gerard Piñol-Ripoll ◽  
Mariona Rocaspana-García ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe gradual changes over the decades in the longevity and ageing of European society as a whole can be directly related to the prolonged decline in the birth rate and increase in the life expectancy. According to the WHO, there is an increased risk of dementia or other cognitive disorders as the population ages, which have a major impact on public health. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is described as a greater than expected cognitive decline for an individual’s age and level of education, but that does not significantly interfere with activities of daily living. Patients with MCI exhibit a higher risk of dementia compared with others in the same age group, but without a cognitive decline, have impaired walking and a 50% greater risk of falling.The urban lifestyle and advent of smartphones, mobility and immediate access to all information via the internet, including health information, has led to a totally disruptive change in most general aspects.This systematic review protocol is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in the detection, prevention, monitoring and treatment of patients at risk or diagnosed with MCI.Methods and analysisThis review protocol follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols reporting guidelines. The search will be performed on MEDLINE (PubMed), CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2020. Studies of interventions either randomised clinical trials or pre–post non-randomised quasi-experimental designs, published in English and Spanish will be included. Articles that provide relevant information on the use of technology and its effectiveness in interventions that assess improvements in early detection, prevention, follow-up and treatment of the patients at risk or diagnosed with MCI will be included.Ethics and disseminationEthics committee approval not required. The results will be disseminated in publications and congresses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document