scholarly journals The conundrum of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in burns in India and review of literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (03) ◽  
pp. 288-294
Author(s):  
S. S. Shirol ◽  
Srinivas Kodaganur ◽  
M. Raghavendra Rao ◽  
Vinaykumar Tiwari

ABSTRACTObjective: The aim is to assess the practice of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis among the plastic surgeons attending National Academy of Burns India Conference 2012 (NABICON 2012). Background: DVT prophylaxis in burns is a controversial issue as there is no consensus among the community of burn surgeons about the prevalence of DVT, the incidence of pulmonary embolism, the indications for DVT prophylaxis, dosage and duration of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and the complications related to DVT and LMWH. Methodology: A survey was conducted among plastic surgeons attending the NABICON 2012 held at New Delhi, by circulating a questionnaire. The respondents were divided into two groups based on whether burns constituted more than or less than 50% of their practice. The data thus collected were tabulated and analysed. Results: Almost 70% of all the respondents practice some form of DVT prophylaxis. There was significantly higher incidence of complications related to the use of LMWH among the surgeons whose practice of burns was >50%. There was no significant difference between the two groups in relation to the incidence and complication of DVT or recommendation of DVT prophylaxis. Conclusion: Majority of plastic surgeons practice DVT prophylaxis routinely and consider multiple criteria such as percentage of burns, age, lower limb involvement, the degree of burns and associated co-morbidities for starting the LMWH.

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Agu ◽  
A. Handa ◽  
G Hamilton ◽  
D. M. Baker

Objective: To audit the prescription and implementation of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in general surgical patients in a teaching hospital. Methods: All inpatients on three general surgical wards were audited for adequacy of prescription and implementation prophylaxis (audit A). A repeat audit 3 months later (audit B) closed the loop. The groups were compared using the chi-square test. Results: In audit A 50 patients participated. Prophylaxis was correctly prescribed in 36 (72%) and implemented in 30 (60%) patients. Eighteen patients at moderate or high risk (45%) received inadequate prophylaxis. Emergency admission, pre-operative stay and inadequate risk assignment were associated with poor implementation of protocol. In audit B 51 patients participated. Prescription was appropriate in 45 (88%) and implementation in 40 (78%) patients (p< 0.05). Eleven patients at moderate or high risk received inadequate prophylaxis. Seven of 11 high-risk patients in audit A (64%) received adequate prophylaxis, in contrast to all high-risk patients in audit B. The decision not to administer prophylaxis was deemed appropriate in 5 of 15 (30%) in audit A compared with 6 of 10 (60%) in audit B. Conclusion: Increased awareness, adequate risk assessment, updating of protocols and consistent reminders to staff and patients may improve implementation of DVT prophylaxis.


AORN Journal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 266
Author(s):  
Sharon A. Van Wicklin ◽  
Karen S. Ward ◽  
Shirley W. Cantrell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document