Effectiveness of Standardized Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Order Sets in Patients Undergoing Abdominal or Pelvic Surgery for Cancer

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4248-4248
Author(s):  
Molly Weidner Mandernach ◽  
Richard Lottenberg ◽  
Thomas Johns ◽  
Elaine Speed ◽  
Russell L Findlay ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 4248 Background: In our tertiary academic medical center, standardized pre-printed physician order sets were implemented in 2008 for inpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification and prophylaxis on the day of admission. Electronic medical records were not utilized during the study period. Recommendations for pharmacologic prophylaxis were derived from the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. Patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer were specifically identified in the highest risk category with enoxaparin, fondaparinux, or warfarin (goal INR 2–3) provided as options for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Sequential compression devices (SCDs) were also recommended. This retrospective analysis evaluates adherence to risk stratification and recommendations for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer. Methods: Using the hospital administrative database, all patients ≥ 18 years hospitalized between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 were identified by ICD-9 codes for cancer and surgery performed. Patients undergoing an abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer lasting >45 minutes were included. Exclusion criteria were age >90 years, patients requiring therapeutic anticoagulation, length of hospitalization <24 hours or >30 days, transplant recipients, patients requiring multiple visits to the operating room during hospitalization, laparoscopic or transurethral procedures, and esophagectomy. Primary outcomes included adherence to order set risk stratification and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis recommendations, and timing, type, and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis prescribed. Chart review of physician orders for mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis for each day of hospitalization was completed on all patients. Operative reports, medication administration records, and progress notes were reviewed if clarification of physician orders was required. Administration of the prescribed medication during hospitalization was not verified. Results: A total of 773 hospital admissions representing 767 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean length of hospitalization was 7 +/− 5 days during the study period. The mean age was 62 +/− 12 years and 51% were female. Pharmacologic prophylaxis was prescribed 5645 of 6147 patient days (91.8%). Enoxaparin was prescribed 630 (9.8%) patient days, and fondaparinux in 15 patient days (0.002%). Although not indicated as an option for this patient population in our order set, low dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) was prescribed 4991 (81.2%) of the patient days and was to be dosed every 8 hours (80%) or every 12 hours (19.8%). Warfarin was not prescribed. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis with SCDs was ordered 93.7% of the patient encounters on the day of surgery. The standardized pre-printed physician order set was utilized for prescribing prophylaxis at the time of admission for 630 (82.1%) patient encounters. Clinicians risk stratified only 350 (45.3%) of these patient encounters per the order set guidelines. Of those, 131 (37.4%) were appropriately deemed high risk based upon “abdominal/pelvic cancer undergoing operative procedure”. In the high risk group, LDUH was prescribed in 90 (68.7%) patient encounters, and enoxaparin as recommended in 30 (22.9%). Eleven (8.4%) were not prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis on the day of admission. Conclusion: Completion of standardized pre-printed physician order sets with appropriate risk stratification in patients undergoing major, open abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer is underutilized in our institution. Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is prescribed for the majority of inpatient days, LDUH is primarily ordered despite preferred recommendations in favor of enoxaparin or fondaparinux. Thus, an opportunity exists to implement an educational intervention to improve adherence to evidence based order set risk stratification and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis recommendations. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 4859-4859
Author(s):  
Anthony Serritella ◽  
Brandyn Daniel Lau ◽  
Elliott R Haut ◽  
Peggy S Kraus ◽  
Deborah Hobson ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in oncology patients. Prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE by 60% but many patients are not prescribed risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. We developed mandatory computerized clinical decision support-enabled, service-specific (CCDS) order sets to improve our institution’s VTE prophylaxis performance. The order sets require providers to complete short check lists to assess VTE risk factors and contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Based upon the answers to these questions, the order sets display the risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis regimen for each individual patient. The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate VTE prophylaxis and events rates in hospitalized cancer patients admitted using a CCDS medical oncology VTE order set. Methods: Using electronic administrative records, we retrospectively collected prescription and clinical data on patients admitted to the solid tumor and hematologic malignancy services at the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (JHSKCCC) from October 17, 2010 (date of order set implementation) through June 30, 2014. A two-sided student’s t test or chi-square test were used for statistical analyses, as appropriate. Results: 7920 patients were admitted from 10/17/2010 to 6/30/14. The mean age was 57 years and 46% were female. The median length of stay was 4 days. Solid tumor service providers were more likely to prescribe risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis (Table 1) and patients on the solid tumor service were more likely to be assessed as being at high risk for VTE (Table 2). Pharmacologic prophylaxis was more common on the solid tumor service while ambulation was the most common form of prophylaxis on the hematologic malignancy service. (Table 3) Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis was high on both services (Figure 1). Data on objectively-confirmed hospital-acquired VTE will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: We report the largest analysis to date of VTE prophylaxis practices in hospitalized cancer patients. Significant differences in perceived VTE risk and prescribed prophylaxis were noted between services. Use of a computerized decision support-enabled VTE prophylaxis order set was associated with high rates of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. Table 1: Patient Population Characteristics Solid Tumor Heme Malignancy P-Value Total – no. 4995 2925 Mean Age – no. (SD) 58.0 (13.2) 56.1 (14.7) <0.001 Female – no. 2290 (46%) 1303 (45%) Median length of stay (IQR) 4 (3-6) 5 (3-10.5) Risk Appropriate Prophylaxis 4410 (88%) 2474 (85%) <0.001 Table 2: VTE Risk Assessment of Patient Population VTE Risk Category Solid Tumor Heme Malignancy P-value High Risk – no. (%) 4782 (96%) 2338 (80%) <0.001 High Risk w/ CI –no. (%) 1222 (25%) 1789 (61%) <0.001 High Risk w/o CI - no. (%) 3560 (71%) 549 (19%) <0.001 Moderate Risk – no. (%) 213 (4%) 587 (20%) <0.001 Mod. Risk w/ CI – no. (%) 41 (1%) 506 (17%) <0.001 Mod. Risk w/o CI – no. (%) 172 (3%) 81 (3%) <0.001 CI= Contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis Table 3: VTE Prophylaxis Orders Medical Oncology Heme Malignancy P-value Pharm Only – no. (%) 2992 (69%) 412 (15%) <0.001 Mech Only – no. (%) 700 (16%) 563 (20%) Pharm + Mech – no. (%) 388 (9%) 87 (3%) Ambulation Only – no. (%) 230 (5%) 1699 (61%) <0.001 Pharm= pharmacologic prophylaxis (i.e. unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux), Mech= graduate compression stockings or sequential compression devices or both Figure 1: Figure 1:. Adherence to risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis Disclosures Streiff: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen Healthcare: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Ashlie Nadler ◽  
Mary Ellen Morba ◽  
Jesse Pezzella ◽  
Jeffrey M. Farma

79 Background: A number of guidelines have been proposed for prolonged venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following hospital discharge for cancer patients undergoing major abdominal or pelvic surgery. However, there is disparity in how closely these guidelines are followed. The purpose of this study was to examine the administration and complications of post-discharge chemical VTE prophylaxis (pdVTE) at an institutional level among surgical oncology patients to help inform policy creation. Methods: A retrospective study at a tertiary referral cancer center was performed. Data was analyzed for patients undergoing surgery in 2015. Chi-square tests were performed. Results: Of 566 colorectal, urologic, and gynecologic surgical oncology procedures performed in 2015, 24% (137) were discharged with a prescription for enoxaparin for pdVTE. An additional 24 patients were already on another form of anticoagulation at the time of discharge. Of the patients discharged on pdVTE, 77% (105) had the prescriptions filled. The compliance rate of those patients was 96% (101). The rate of VTE was 3.5% for all patients. There was a significantly greater rate of VTE amongst patients that received pdVTE (10.4%) compared to those who did not (1.6%) (OR 7.20, CI 2.80-18.46, p < 0.001). For each subspecialty, there was also a significantly greater rate of VTE amongst patients that received pdVTE (p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is a very low rate of pdVTE administration despite current guidelines. Identifying patients who received pdVTE appears to identify patients at high risk for VTE rather than the benefits of pdVTE. Institutional policies regarding prolonged VTE prophylaxis should be implemented to target high-risk patients and to ensure appropriate prescribing practices. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3678-3678
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Genady Drozdinsky ◽  
Oren Zusman ◽  
Shiri Kushnir ◽  
Leonard Leibovici

Background and Aims Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered as a preventable cause of death for hospitalized patients. Current guidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for medical patients considered high risk for VTE, despite failure of studies to show reduction in mortality. We aimed to assess the benefit and safety of VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards. Methods Retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to the internal medicine and acute geriatric departments, with an admission lasting more than 48 hours, during 2012-2018. Patients who received pharmacologic prophylaxis were compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were the 90 day incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and major bleeding. Propensity-weighted logistic multivariable analysis was performed. Results A total of 18890 patient-unique episodes were included in the analysis. Of them 3206 (17%) received prophylaxis. A total of 1309 (6.9%) died. 540/1309 (41.3%) of those who received VTE prophylaxis died and 769/1309 (58.7%) of those who did not receive prophylaxis died. VTE Prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in mortality, multivariate-adjusted OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.84-1.14). One hundred and forty two patients (0.7%) developed VTE. The frequency of VTE among patients who received VTE prophylaxis was 31% (44/142) compared with 69% (98/142) in patients who did not receive prophylaxis. The frequency of VTE in patients who had a Padua score ≥4 and received VTE prophylaxis, was 1.9% (30/1573) compared with 1.6% (44/2797) in those with a Padua score ≥4 who did not receive prophylaxis. 74/142 (52.1%) of patients with VTE had a Padua score ≥4, 44/1309 (1.4%) of those who received VTE prophylaxis and 98/15864 (0.6%) of those who did not. VTE Prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in VTE in the whole cohort, multivariable-adjusted OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.52-2.29). VTE prophylaxis was associated with an increase in major bleeding (multivariable-adjusted OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.48) Conclusion The current practice of routinely administering VTE prophylaxis to medically ill patients considered at high risk for VTE, resulted in a high risk for bleeding a without clear clinical benefit, and should be reassessed. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4182-4182
Author(s):  
Russell D Hull ◽  
Tazmin Merali ◽  
Allan Mills ◽  
Jane Liang ◽  
Nelly Komari

Abstract Abstract 4182 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has been identified in clinical guidelines as an appropriate strategy for high-risk medical inpatients as it results in reduced VTE events and reduced mortality. However, real life data regarding the timing of VTE events and the relationship between risk factors and VTE in this population is lacking. Further knowledge of the time course of recurrence and influence of risk factors in actual practice may help clinicians determine strategies regarding the frequency of clinical surveillance and the appropriate duration of treatment. Objective: To document the time course of symptomatic VTE events in high-risk medical patients in every day clinical practice and to relate the frequency of risk factors to the likelihood of VTE development. Methods: Charts from 1134 consecutive high-risk medical patients who were hospitalized in the Calgary region and discharged between January and February 2008 were abstracted using standardized case record forms. All hospitals in the region use a common unique patient identifier number, thus enabling the tracking of subsequent patient visits to the emergency room, inpatient admissions or outpatient visits occurring anywhere in the region's acute care system. Any identified patient was followed for a subsequent visit related to VTE. High-risk medical patients were defined as age > 60 years and having at least one of the following risk factors: malignancy, respiratory illness, neurological illness, inflammatory bowel disease, previous VTE, acute infection or heart failure. Records were excluded if the patient was admitted for VTE or to rule out VTE, receiving chronic anticoagulation, experiencing acute coronary syndromes, had a hospital stay ≤ 3 days, was a surgical or orthopedic patient, or pregnant. Data was collected on the timing of VTE related events for up to 100 days post discharge. Results: A total of 989 patients met criteria over the review period. Seventy-four percent (732/989) of all patients received mechanical or pharmacological prophylaxis in hospital. Only 2% (95% CI, 1.6% to 3.6%) of all patients received anticoagulation prophylaxis at discharge. Twenty-one percent of patients in the population studied were identified as requiring medical care for symptoms associated with VTE. Confirmation of VTE by diagnostic testing occurred in 4% (95% CI, 2.7% to 5.2%) while the other 17% (95% CI, 15.0% to 19.8%) had diagnostic tests that were negative or inconclusive. The mean length of time to confirmed first VTE event was 33.5 days. Eighty percent of first events occurred by day 57 and 90% of first VTE events occurred by day 69 post hospital admission. Patients with more than 2 risk factors had a rate of confirmed symptomatic VTE events of 6.1%, increasing to 8.7% for those with more than 3 risk factors while only 2.9% of patients with 2 or less risk factors developed a confirmed VTE. (p=0.015) Conclusion: This study demonstrates that in a real life setting, 6% of those hospitalized medical patients with more than 2 risk factors would develop symptomatic VTE event confirmed by diagnostic testing, increasing to 8.7% for those with more than 3 pre-specified risk factors. The mean time to first VTE event of 33.5 days along with 80% of VTE events occurring by day 57 suggest that more consideration needs to be given to prolonged VTE prophylaxis in this high risk population. The frequency and timing of the VTE events coupled with the results of the EXCLAIM study suggest that this high risk population may benefit from prolonged thromboprophylaxis. Disclosures: Hull: LEO Pharma: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Merali:LEO Pharma: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Abbott: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy; Nycomed: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy. Mills:Pfizer: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Research Funding. Komari:sanofi-aventis: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2348-2348
Author(s):  
Juliana Perez Botero ◽  
Daniel B Spoon ◽  
Mrinal M Patnaik ◽  
Robert T Trousdale ◽  
Rajiv K Pruthi

Abstract Background Hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), in general, pose a high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is often strongly recommended. In patients (pt) with hemophilia undergoing THA/TKA, given the underlying bleeding diathesis, the routine use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is controversial. In this study, we report THA/TKA outcomes in pt with hemophilia in our institution. Methods Retrospective chart review of Mayo Comprehensive hemophilia center pt undergoing THA and TKA. Medical records were reviewed for objectively documented VTE for up to 3 months after surgery. Results 42 consecutive pt with hemophilia A (n=38) or B (n=4) underwent 71 operations: THA (n=32) and TKA (n=39) over a period of 39 years. All pt received compression stockings up to 6 weeks after surgery; 6/71 (8.4%) received sequential intermittent compression and 2/71 (2.8%) received postoperative low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Symptomatic femoral vein DVT occurred in 1/42 pt (2%); (1/71, 1.4% of operations (1.4%)), 10 days after THA for traumatic hip fracture and after the LMWH was discontinued. The patient was subsequently found to be heterozygous for the factor V Leiden gene mutation. For up to 3 months after surgery, there were no additional cases of symptomatic DVT. There was no unexpected bleeding in the 2 patients receiving LMWH. Conclusion In this this study, routine use of compression stockings without the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis resulted in a low rate of symptomatic VTE in patients with hemophilia. This may be similar to the incidence in the general population receiving LMWH (Heit, JA et al Annals of Internal Medicine 2000) A limited sample size precludes definitive recommendations for practice. For appropriate high risk patients, limited use of pharmacologic prophylaxis may still be important. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24049-e24049
Author(s):  
Ahmed Khalil ◽  
Daniel Ortolano ◽  
Thomas Simunich ◽  
Mohamed Saad Eldin ◽  
Munawwar Hussain ◽  
...  

e24049 Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60,000 to 100,000 Americans die from venous thromboembolism (VTE) annually, costing the U.S. healthcare system $7–10 billion each year. VTE is a leading cause of mortality in cancer patients, and risk is particularly elevated in rural areas, where cancer death rates are higher than in metropolitan areas. The Khorana score has been shown to predict VTE incidence before starting treatment and as such identify those patients that would benefit most from VTE prophylaxis. We aimed to replicate the utility of the Khorana score on a rural population of cancer patients to help address VTE in advance. Methods: From our electronic health records system, we extracted data from cancer patients (age ≥ 18 years) who had begun chemotherapy from 2017-January through 2019-August. Patients who were pregnant, had undergone hormonal therapy or major surgeries within three months prior to VTE diagnosis, or had a history of coagulation disorders or VTE prior to starting chemotherapy were excluded. A Khorana score (0—6, interval = 1) was calculated for each prior to their starting chemotherapy and was used for VTE risk stratification, 0 – low; 1,2 – intermediate; ≥3 – high. We hypothesized that VTE occurrence during the first 6 months following the start of treatment would be positively associated with risk category. Results: The 144, mostly female (64%), cancer patients meeting inclusion had a mean age of 75 years (range 48—95) and VTE risk stratification: 10% (15) high, 67% (96) intermediate, and 23% (33) low. In the first 6 months of starting treatment, 6% (9/144) developed VTE, with a prevalence of 20% (3/15) amongst patients stratified as high risk, 5% (5/96) of intermediate, and 3% (1/33) of the low risk group. A linear-by-linear association of the observed Khorana scores with VTE occurrence implies a meaningful positive association between VTE risk stratification by Khorana score and VTE, chi-square (1,144) = 4.018, p = .045. Conclusions: The trend of higher VTE prevalence in intermediate and high risk patients supports the observed positive association between Khorana score VTE risk category and a greater percentage of patients experiencing VTEs with increasing risk. This trend may likely be amplified with application to a larger number of patients. The study limitations include the lack of diversity of organ affection and sample size, specifically upon risk stratification. However, initiating a discussion about the risks and benefits of VTE prophylaxis prior to starting treatment is of outmost importance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Heijkoop ◽  
Natalie Parker ◽  
George Kiroff ◽  
Daniel Spernat

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic heparin postoperatively reduces this risk, and the use of extended duration prophylaxis is becoming increasingly common. Malignancy and pelvic surgery both independently further increase the risk of postoperative VTE and patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at particularly high risk of VTE. However, the optimum duration of prophylaxis specifically in this population currently remains unclear. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of literature in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.,2011) to evaluate current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended VTE prophylaxis with heparin (all forms) following major pelvic surgery for malignancy. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Regarding safety, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) websites will be searched, including all levels of evidence. Results will be the postoperative timeframe in which a VTE event can be considered to have been provoked by the surgery, and the number of patients needed to treat with both inpatient and extended prophylaxis to prevent a VTE event in this timeframe, comparing these to determine if there is a significant benefit from extended prophylaxis. Discussion This systematic review will aim to identify the postoperative period in which patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at further increased risk of VTE as a result of their surgery and the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis with heparin to reduce this risk. Determining this will allow evidence-based recommendations to be made for the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis post major pelvic surgery for malignancy, leading to improved standards of care that are consistent between different providers and institutions. Systematic review registration In accordance with guidelines, our systematic review was submitted to PROSPERO for consideration of registration on 16/12/17 and was registered on 12/1/18 with the registration number CRD42018068961, and it was last updated on December 1, 2018.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e868-e874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris E. Holmes ◽  
Steven Ades ◽  
Susan Gilchrist ◽  
Daniel Douce ◽  
Karen Libby ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment in outpatients with cancer and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in selected patients at high risk for VTE. Although validated risk stratification tools are available, < 10% of oncologists use a risk assessment tool, and rates of VTE prophylaxis in high-risk patients are low in practice. We hypothesized that implementation of a systems-based program that uses the electronic health record (EHR) and offers personalized VTE prophylaxis recommendations would increase VTE risk assessment rates in patients initiating outpatient chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) was a multidisciplinary program implemented by nurses, oncologists, pharmacists, hematologists, advanced practice providers, and quality partners. We prospectively identified high-risk patients using the Khorana and Protecht scores (≥ 3 points) via an EHR-based risk assessment tool. Patients with a predicted high risk of VTE during treatment were offered a hematology consultation to consider VTE prophylaxis. Results of the consultation were communicated to the treating oncologist, and clinical outcomes were tracked. RESULTS: A total of 918 outpatients with cancer initiating cancer-directed therapy were evaluated. VTE monthly education rates increased from < 5% before VTEPACC to 81.6% (standard deviation [SD], 11.9; range, 63.6%-97.7%) during the implementation phase and 94.7% (SD, 4.9; range, 82.1%-100%) for the full 2-year postimplementation phase. In the postimplementation phase, 213 patients (23.2%) were identified as being at high risk for developing a VTE. Referrals to hematology were offered to 151 patients (71%), with 141 patients (93%) being assessed and 93.8% receiving VTE prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: VTEPACC is a successful model for guideline implementation to provide VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis to prevent cancer-associated thrombosis in outpatients. Methods applied can readily translate into practice and overcome the current implementation gaps between guidelines and clinical practice.


2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 370-374
Author(s):  
D Veeramootoo ◽  
L Harrower ◽  
R Saunders ◽  
D Robinson ◽  
WB Campbell

INTRODUCTION Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has become a major issue for surgeons both in the UK and worldwide. Sev-eral different sources of guidance on VTE prophylaxis are available but these differ in design and detail. METHODS Two similar audits were performed, one year apart, on the VTE prophylaxis prescribed for all general surgical inpatients during a single week (90 patients and 101 patients). Classification of patients into different risk groups and compliance in prescribing prophylaxis were examined using different international, national and local guidelines. RESULTS There were significant differences between the numbers of patients in high, moderate and low-risk groups according to the different guidelines. When groups were combined to indicate simply ‘at risk’ or ‘not at risk’ (in the manner of one of the guidelines), then differences were not significant. Our compliance improved from the first audit to the second. Patients at high risk received VTE prophylaxis according to guidance more consistently than those at low risk. CONCLUSIONS Differences in guidance on VTE prophylaxis can affect compliance significantly when auditing practice, depending on the choice of ‘gold standard’. National guidance does not remove the need for clear and detailed local policies. Making decisions about policies for lower-risk patients can be more difficult than for those at high risk.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 450-459
Author(s):  
Darae Ko ◽  
Alok Kapoor ◽  
Adam J Rose ◽  
Amresh D Hanchate ◽  
Donald Miller ◽  
...  

Trends in prescription for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR) since the approval of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and the 2012 guideline endorsement of aspirin are unknown, as are the risks of adverse events. We examined practice patterns in the prescription of prophylaxis agents and the risk of adverse events during the in-hospital period (the ‘in-hospital sample’) and 90 days following discharge (the ‘discharge sample’) among adults aged ⩾ 65 undergoing THR and TKR in community hospitals in the Institute for Health Metrics database over a 30-month period during 2011 to 2013. Eligible medications included fondaparinux, DOACs, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), other heparin products, warfarin, and aspirin. Outcomes were validated by physician review of source documents: VTE, major hemorrhage, cardiovascular events, and death. The in-hospital and the discharge samples included 10,503 and 5722 adults from 65 hospitals nationwide, respectively (mean age 73, 74 years; 61%, 63% women). Pharmacologic prophylaxis was near universal during the in-hospital period (93%) and at discharge (99%). DOAC use increased substantially and was the prophylaxis of choice for nearly a quarter (in-hospital) and a third (discharge) of the patients. Aspirin was the sole discharge prophylactic agent for 17% and 19% of patients undergoing THR and TKR, respectively. Warfarin remained the prophylaxis agent of choice for patients aged 80 years and older. The overall risk of adverse events was low, at less than 1% for both the in-hospital and discharge outcomes. The low number of adverse events precluded statistical comparison of prophylaxis regimens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document