Readmission Rates Due To Venous Thromboembolism In Cancer Patients After Abdominopelvic Surgery

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2940-2940
Author(s):  
Christine Klimowicz White ◽  
Jessica Langholtz ◽  
Zackory T. Burns ◽  
Susan Kruse Sullivan ◽  
Kimberly Sallee ◽  
...  

Abstract In current medical practice, duration of hospitalizations and readmission rates have become focal points, often determining hospital reimbursements and acting as a measure of the quality of patient care. Oncology patients and patients undergoing major surgery have an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a serious clinical problem with potentially fatal and costly consequences. It is the most common cause of death in oncology patients within the first 30 days post-operatively, and the second most common cause of death in cancer patients after cancer itself. The national guidelines currently recommend thromboprophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing major surgery for at least 7 to 10 days postoperatively with either unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Cancer patients undergoing major abdominopelvic surgery with high-risk features should have extended prophylaxis for 4 weeks. To study this problem, we examined the incidence of VTE in cancer patients after abdominopelvic surgery. The primary study outcome was to define the most common causes of 30-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes were to determine if VTE prophylaxis was prescribed for this patient population upon discharge, to assess compliance with VTE guidelines, and to agree or disagree with these guidelines. We identified 6949 patients who underwent abdominopelvic surgeries at Pennsylvania Hospital between 2010 and 2012. Patients were excluded if they did not have a proven abdominopelvic malignancy or if the surgery was an outpatient procedure. During hospitalization, 4 patients died and were excluded, resulting in 264 patients for final analysis. Electronic medical records were used to collect patient demographics and disease characteristics. We reviewed inpatient and outpatient records to account for hospital readmissions. The median patient age was 67 years, 48.5% were male, and 42% had metastatic disease. The most common malignancy locations were colorectal (44%) and pancreas (11%). During hospitalization, 99% (262/264) received perioperative anticoagulation for a median of 5.5 days. Upon discharge, 14 patients (5%) received anticoagulation with LMWH or Coumadin, but only 2 received it primarily for VTE prevention. Patients were also discharged on aspirin and/or clopidogrel (Table 1). Within 30 days of discharge, 35 patients (13%) were readmitted to hospital after a median of 7 days. Fourteen patients were lost to follow up. Reasons for readmission were abdominal symptoms (11), post-operative complications or surgical problems (11), infectious causes (8), cardiopulmonary symptoms (6), and electrolyte disturbances (2). Three patients were readmitted with multiple presenting symptoms, and 2 had planned surgeries. Two patients were readmitted with a VTE, but 1 VTE was previously known and excluded. The remaining patient was readmitted 4 days post-discharge for chest pain, later found to be a symptomatic pulmonary embolism. As current guidelines recommend extended 4-week thromboprophylaxis in oncology patients after major abdominopelvic surgery, we anticipated that VTE as cause of 30-day readmission would be much more common. In our study, 95% were not discharged from the hospital on anticoagulation, which shows that the guidelines are not routinely followed in this surgical setting. Only 1 patient, not discharged on anticoagulation, was readmitted within 30 days for symptomatic VTE, indicating that the incidence of symptomatic VTE in post-operative oncology patients may not be as high as previously suggested. Furthermore, these recommendations are primarily based on decreased incidence of asymptomatic VTE, despite a lack of clear evidence proving a benefit to the patient in reducing asymptomatic VTE and limited data assessing this recommendation for those with symptomatic VTE. Extended anticoagulation may also lead to increased costs and potential for bleeding. Due to the low incidence of symptomatic VTE in our findings, we recommend that further multicenter studies will need to be conducted to better quantify the need for extended VTE prophylaxis in post-operative patients with abdominopelvic malignancies. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 170-170
Author(s):  
Jack Toshimine Seki ◽  
Triyu Vather ◽  
Vishal Kukreti ◽  
Monika Karolina Krzyzanowska

170 Background: Thromboprophylaxis continues to be underutilized in hospitalized cancer patients despite the demonstrable risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Our study evaluated institutional VTE prophylaxis rates after devising a series of strategic interventions to longitudinally improve adherence rates over a period of eight years. Methods: Solid tumour patients admitted between 2004 and 2012 were selected as the primary study population for analysis. The bleeding risk associated with thromboprophylaxis was discernibly minimal. Guidelines were developed and formalized into an institutional thromboprophylaxis policy. Educational in-services were provided to physicians, nurses and pharmacists to review the most updated guidelines and tools added to encourage compliance to VTE prophylaxis. Support also arose from clinical members of the Cancer Quality Committee. An amalgamation of manual and electronic audit formats were undertaken to asses VTE prophylaxis rates prior to, and following strategy implementation. These audit formats either comprised of visiting inpatient units and examining anticoagulant orders on a per-patient basis, or viewing patient consensus reports and active anticoagulant orders electronically. Results: At the 2004 outset, 11 (19.3%) patients received appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis, and thus formed the baseline of our analysis. Post-2009 policy implementation and educational sessions, 46.5% of an eligible 185 inpatients were administered thromboprophylaxis. Following a two-year grace period to allow for policy acceptance, a series of three audits were conducted in 2011 for which an average prophylaxis rate of 62.3% resulted. In 2012, following awareness by clinicians of previous rates and rigorous strategy execution, a 96.7% rate was achieved and maintained five weeks thereafter. Conclusions: A reproducible 96.7% prophylaxis rate was the result of our cumulative eight-year efforts. A multidisciplinary approach is critical to improving thromboprophylaxis uptake rates and ensuring long-term sustainability of this outcome.


Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1767-1767
Author(s):  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
Ajay K. Kakkar ◽  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Gordon Fitzgerald ◽  
Frederick A. Anderson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with previous or current cancer have an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little data is available on physician’s practices for providing VTE prophylaxis to these patients. The aim of this analysis of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) was to characterize VTE prophylaxis practices in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients who had previous cancer or currently active cancer. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotic agents or thrombolytics at admission, major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission, and VTE treatment within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries. 578 (13%) patients had currently active cancer (6% as the primary admission diagnosis). Patients with current cancer, previous cancer only, and no cancer were: 40%, 54% and 51% female, median (IQR) ages 72 (60–79), 77 (64–82) and 66 (47–80) years, median length of hospital stay 9 (5–18), 8 (5–12) and 8 (5–14) days, median duration of immobility 8 (5–19), 5 (4–11) and 6 (4–14) days (including immobility immediately prior to hospital admission). The percentages of patients with current or no cancer who received any pharmacologic prophylaxis were similar (see Table 1). However, aspirin was less likely to be prescribed, and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) more likely to be used in patients with current cancer than in those without cancer. Patients with previous cancer were more likely to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis, with increased use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and aspirin, compared with patients without cancer. Conclusions Despite acutely ill medical patients with previous or current cancer having a higher risk for VTE, less than half received VTE prophylaxis, reflecting poor awareness of the benefits of prophylaxis. Physician’s perceptions of bleeding risks in cancer patients may influence prophylaxis practices; patients with current cancer were less likely to receive aspirin, but more likely to receive IPC, than patients without cancer. However, patients with previous cancer were more likely to receive pharmacologic prophylaxis than those without cancer, reflecting recognition by some physicians that these patients have an increased risk for VTE. Table 1. VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with current, previous or no cancer VTE prophylaxis Current cancer (%) n=578 Previous cancer (%) n=266 No cancer (%) n=3471 *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 (compared with patients with no cancer); †Some patients received >1 type of prophylaxis; ‡Without concomitant pharmacologic prophylaxis; ES, elastic stockings LMWH 24 24 23 UFH 10 21*** 13 Aspirin 1** 9** 4 Warfarin 0 1 1 Any pharmacologic prophylaxis† 34 46** 37 IPC‡ 7* 5 4 ES‡ 2 3 2


2011 ◽  
pp. 191-204
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 191
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 993-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Klimowicz White ◽  
Jessica Langholtz ◽  
Zackory T. Burns ◽  
Susan Kruse ◽  
Kimberly Sallee ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 3567-3578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas H. Osborne ◽  
Thomas W. Wakefield ◽  
Peter K. Henke

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1762-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Herve Decousus ◽  
Jean-Fran[ccedi]ois Bergmann ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite consensus group recommendations indicating that medical patients should receive appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, prophylaxis practices remain poorly characterized. This analysis of IMPROVE, a prospective study of acutely ill medical patients, describes in-hospital prophylaxis practices prior to the publication of updated VTE prevention guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old, and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission; major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission; and VTE treatment begun within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients (32% from USA) enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries (76% with 3-month follow-up data). Patients are 50% female, median (IQR) age 69 (50–80) years, median length of hospital stay 8 (5–14) days, median weight 68 (58–80) kg, and 40% were immobile for ≥3 days (median length of immobility 7 [4–14] days, including immobility immediately prior to admission). In-hospital VTE prophylaxis was received by 41% of patients (Table 1). Of patients with no risk factors (44%), one risk factor (40%), or ≥2 risk factors (16%), 25%, 49%, and 67% received prophylaxis, respectively. 12% of IMPROVE patients would have been eligible for inclusion in the MEDENOX study. Of these, only 52% received prophylaxis in hospital. Prophylaxis was provided to 6% of patients during the 3-month follow-up period, and continued in 11% of patients after discharge. Conclusions Only 41% of IMPROVE patients received VTE prophylaxis, with considerable variation in types and regimens of prophylaxis used. While MEDENOX showed the benefits of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin 40 mg) in acutely ill medical patients, only half of MEDENOX-eligible patients received prophylaxis. Table 1. Use of in-hospital VTE prophylaxis (N=4315) VTE prophylaxis Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis, % ROW, rest of world; *Excluding elastic stockings and aspirin ≥1 type of VTE prophylaxis* 41 LMWH - USA (Q12h, Qd) 7 (5, 1) LMWH- ROW (Q12h, Qd) 31 (29, 2) UFH - USA (Q12h, Q8h) 28 (15, 11) UFH - ROW (Q12h, Q8h) 6 (5, 0) Intermittent pneumatic compression (USA, ROW) 6 (19, 0) Aspirin (USA, ROW) 4 (7, 3) Elastic stockings (USA, ROW) 6 (3, 8)


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1161-1161
Author(s):  
Farge Dominique ◽  
Debourdeau Philippe ◽  
Beckers Marielle ◽  
Caroline Baglin ◽  
Rupert Bauersachs ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1161 Background Heterogeneity in clinical practices worldwide for Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is a major challengs. This concern led us to establish international good clinical practices guidelines (GCPG) for the management VTE in cancer patients (pts). Methods Twenty-four international experts (WG) worked with the methodological support of the French Cancer institute (INCa). All studies on cancer, venous thromboembolism (VTE, pulmonary embolism PE), and anticoagulant drugs (AC) published from 1996 to 2011 were searched using MEDLINE®database. Studies quality was evaluated double-blind manner by the methodologists using the GRADE appraisal grids. Main study outcomes were rates of VTE, major and minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and death. Extracted data were entered in evidence tables and validated by the WG. High A, Moderate B, Low C, Very low D levels of evidence depended on study design, limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Guidelines were classified as Strong (Grade 1) or Weak (Grade 2) based on GRADE. If absence of scientific evidence, the WG consensus judgement was defined as Best Clinical Practice (BCP). The GCP were then evaluated by 45 independent experts worldwide and 3 pt representatives using a specific grid. Results in cancer pts A) For initial treatment of established VTE: low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended [1B], Fondaparinux and unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be also used [2D]. Thrombolysis may be considered on a case-by-case basis, with attention to contraindication (bleeding risk) [BCP], Vena Cava Filters (VCF) may be considered if contraindication to AC of PE recurrence under optimal AC with periodic reassessment of contraindications to AC.VCF are not recommended for primary VTE prophylaxis [BCP]. For early maintenance (10 days-3 mths) and long-term treatment (>3 mths) of established VTE: LMWH are preferred over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [1A]; LMWH should be used at least 3 mths After 3–6 mths, continuation of LMWH or VKA should be based on individual benefit-risk ratio [BCP]. If VTE recurrence, 3 options: switch from VKA to LMWH; increase in LMWH dose in pts treated with LMWH; VCF insertion [BCP]. B) To prevent postoperative VTE: LMWH once a day or low dose UFH 3 times a day are recommended; AC prophylaxis should start 12 to 2 hrs preoperatively and continued at least 7 to 10 days [ 1A]. No evidence support fondaparinux as an alternative to LMWH [2C]. The highest prophylactic dose of LMWH is recommended [ 1A]. Extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) after major laparotomy may be indicated if high VTE and low bleeding risks [2B]. For laparoscopic surgery, LMWH may be recommended as for laparotomy [BCP]. External compressions devices (ECD) are not recommended as monotherapy except if AC is contraindicated [ 2C]. C) In hospitalized medical cancer pts with reduced mobility, prophylaxis with LMWH UFH or fondaparinux [1B] is recommended. For ALL children and adults treated with L-asparaginase, depending on local policy and each pt prophylaxis may be considered [BCP]. In pts receiving chemotherapy, prophylaxis is not recommended routinely [1B]. Primary VTE prophylaxis VTE may be indicated for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic [1B] or lung [2B] cancer pts treated with chemotherapy and having low bleeding risk. In pts treated by IMiDs with steroids and/or anthracycline, VTE prophylaxis is recommended: low or therapeutic VKA doses, LMWH at prophylactic doses and low-dose aspirin have shown similar effects [2C]. D) A brain tumor per se is not a contraindication to AC for established VTE [2C], for which we prefer LMWH [BCP]. LMWH or UFH are recommended postoperatively to prevent VTE in neurosurgery cancer pts [1A]. If creatinine clearance <30 mL/min, we suggest UFH followed by VKA (from day 1) or LMWH adjusted to anti-Xa level to treat established VTE [BCP]; ECD may be applied and UFH used on a case-by-case basis [BCP]. If platelets >50 G/L and no bleeding, full doses AC can be used for established VTE; if platelet < 50 G/L, treatment and dose depend on a case-by-case basis [BCP ]; if platelet >80 G/L, AC prophylaxis may be used and if < 80 G/L, only on a case-by-case basis [BCP]. In pregnant cancer pts, standard treatment for established VTE and prophylaxis should be implemented [BCP]. Conclusion Dissemination and implementation of international GCPG for the management of VTE, the second cause of death in cancer pts, is a major public health priority. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


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]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document