scholarly journals Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medical Intensive Care Unit: An Audit

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basant Kumar Pathak ◽  
P Harikrishnan ◽  
Manish Manrai
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
P Value ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to healthcare facilities. This can be prevented by giving thromboprophylaxis to patients after assessing the risk for VTE. This however is not being routinely done leading to underuse of thromboprophylaxis due to inadequate practice of risk assessment. Aim: To conduct an audit of VTE prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) based on Padua score and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Risk Assessment Model (VTE RAM). Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study and the data was collected from medical records of patients retrospectively who were admitted to medical ICU between October 2019 and December 2019. Based on medical records risk assessment was done using the Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM. The prophylaxis given to patients was scrutinised for appropriateness based on American Society of Haematology (ASH) guidelines. The two validated scores Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM were compared with each other for any significant difference in the risk assessment made using Chi-square test and p-value <0.05 were considered significant. Results: Out of the 176 patients risk assessment was not done in any patient. On calculating the Padua score, 149 patients (84.66%) were in high risk for VTE (Padua Score ≥4) and amongst them only 76 (51%) patients received thromboprophylaxis. On calculating the IMPROVE VTE RAM score, 137 patients (77.84%) were in moderate or high risk for VTE requiring prophylaxis and amongst them only 76 (55.47%) patients received thromboprophylaxis. The accuracy of clinician’s judgement without risk assessment was 58.52% (95% CI: 65.80%-51.24%) and 64.20% (95% CI: 71.28%-57.12%) as compared to risk assessment by Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM, respectively. There was no significant difference between IMPROVE VTE RAM and Padua score with respect to risk assessment for VTE (p-value of 0.10). Conclusion: The practice of VTE prophylaxis is grossly inadequate and there is a requirement to sensitise the healthcare providers about the importance of risk assessment for VTE.

scholarly journals Evaluating post-operative venous thromboembolism risk in urology patients using a validated risk assessment model

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Winston Paul René Padayachee ◽  
Mohamed Haffejee ◽  
Marietha Nel
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Surgical Morbidity ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of post-surgical morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to apply a validated risk assessment model to evaluate the risk of post-operative VTE in urology patients. Methods This prospective descriptive observational study used the Caprini risk assessment model to evaluate VTE risk in patients planned for elective urology surgery at a tertiary Johannesburg hospital from January to June 2020. Results Two hundred and twenty-six patients with a mean age of 52 years were evaluated for post-operative VTE risk. The population was generally overweight, with a mean BMI of 26.3 kg/m2. The mean Caprini score was 4.42, reflecting a population at high risk for post-operative VTE. There was no statistically significant difference between males and females in this regard. On average, participants had three risk factors for post-operative VTE. Fifteen per cent of all patients were at low risk for VTE, while 40.3% of participants were categorised as moderate risk. The category with the highest percentage of participants (44.7%) was the high-risk category (Caprini score ≥ 5). High-risk patients undergoing oncology surgery comprised 16.8% of the population, and these patients may require extended duration pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE. The most clinically significant risk factors for post-operative VTE included age, obesity, malignancy and HIV infection. Conclusion Venous thromboembolism may be difficult to diagnose, and clinicians may underestimate the risk for it to develop. Risk assessment models, such as the Caprini score, are objective and a practical tool to guide the application of thromboprophylaxis. The application of the Caprini RAM in the elective urological surgery population at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital yields similar results to studies performed elsewhere on similar surgical populations. Further research is required to evaluate whether the actual incidence of VTE correlates with the risk assessment in this population. Clinician compliance with the use of RAMs as well as the corresponding recommendations for prophylaxis may need to be evaluated. A validated risk assessment model which accounts for procedure-specific risks in urology may be useful.

scholarly journals Ontology-based venous thromboembolism risk assessment model developing from medical records

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuqing Yang ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Yu Huang ◽  
Ning Chen ◽  
Juhong Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Assessment Model

scholarly journals Successful Model for Guideline Implementation to Prevent Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e868-e874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris E. Holmes ◽  
Steven Ades ◽  
Susan Gilchrist ◽  
Daniel Douce ◽  
Karen Libby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Guideline Implementation ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Successful Model ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism Prevention ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

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.

scholarly journals TARGET, PRESCRIPTION AND INFUSION OF ENTERAL NUTRITIONAL THERAPY OF CRITICAL PATIENTS IN INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabela Bernasconi JOSÉ ◽  
Vânia Aparecida LEANDRO-MERHI ◽  
José Luis Braga de AQUINO
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Nutritional Therapy ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Albumin Ratio ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Enteral nutritional therapy (ENT) is the best route for the nutrition of critically ill patients with improved impact on the clinical treatment of such patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the energy and protein supply of ENT in critically ill in-patients of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). METHODS: Prospective longitudinal study conducted with 82 critically ill in-patients of an ICU, receiving ENT. Anthropometric variables, laboratory tests (albumin, CRP, CRP/albumin ratio), NUTRIC-score and Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), energy and protein goals, and the inadequacies and complications of ENT were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square or Fischer tests and the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A total of 48.78% patients were at high nutritional risk based on NUTRIC score. In the CRP/albumin ratio, 85.37% patients presented with a high risk of complications. There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.0001) for all comparisons made between the target, prescription and ENT infusion, and 72% of the quantities prescribed for both calories and proteins was infused. It was observed that the difference between the prescription and the infusion was 14.63% (±10.81) for calories and 14.21% (±10.5) for proteins, with statistically significant difference (P<0.0001). In the relationship between prescription and infusion of calories and proteins, the only significant association was that of patients at high risk of CRP/albumin ratio, of which almost 94% received less than 80% of the energy and protein volume prescribed (P=0.0111). CONCLUSION: The administration of ENT in severely ill patients does not meet their actual energy and protein needs. The high occurrence of infusion inadequacies, compared to prescription and to the goals set can generate a negative nutritional balance.

Validation of risk assessment models predicting venous thromboembolism in inpatients with AECOPD: a multicenter cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Zhou ◽  
Qun Yi ◽  
Huiqing Ge ◽  
Hailong Wei ◽  
Huiguo Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Multicenter Cohort Study ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Study Population

Background: As inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), identifying high-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis is critical to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with VTE. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the validities of the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD. Methods: The inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers of China between September 2017 and January 2020. Caprini and Padua scores were calculated on admission, and the incidence of 3-month VTE was investigated. Results: Among the 3277 eligible patients with AECOPD, 128 patients (3.9%) developed VTE within 3 months after admission. The distribution of the study population by the Caprini risk level was as follows: high, 53.6%; moderate, 43.0%; and low, 3.5%. The incidence of VTE increased by risk level as high, 6.1%; moderate, 1.5%; and low, 0%. According to the Padua RAM, only 10.9% of the study population was classified as high risk and 89.1% as low risk, with the corresponding incidence of VTE 7.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The Caprini RAM had higher area under curve (AUC) compared with the Padua RAM (0.713  0.021 vs 0.644 ± 0.023, P = 0.029). Conclusion: The Caprini RAM was superior to the Padua RAM in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD and might better guide thromboprophylaxis in these patients.

scholarly journals Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 and correlation with D-dimers: a single-centre experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000779
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ziaullah Khan ◽  
Yousaf Jamal ◽  
Benjamin Sutton ◽  
Farrukh Rauf
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Admission ◽  
Queen Elizabeth Hospital ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
Single Centre Experience

ObjectiveTo study the frequency of venous thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and correlation with the D-dimers and thromboprophylaxis.DesignCross-sectional descriptive study.Place and duration of studyQueen Elizabeth Hospital, 20 April 2020–13 May 2020.Patients and methodsOne hundred and seven (n=107) patients of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, between 20 April 2020 and 13 May 2020 were included in the study using consecutive sampling. Data were collected using the Excel audit tool and included age, gender, weight, estimated eGFR, D-dimer values on admission, intensive care unit admission, presence of respiratory failure, imaging results for evaluation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and anticoagulation received on admission. The data were entered in the SPSS (V.17) and were analysed. Data were summarised as means±SD, number or percentage as appropriate. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe frequency of VTE was found to be 11.2% in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia. The mean D-dimers were 3322.24 ng/mL±9603 ng/mL with the values significantly higher for patients with VTE and those requiring intensive care unit admission. All of the seven patients (100%) with D-dimers value above 2000 ng/mL who underwent imaging were found to have VTE.ConclusionVTE is frequent in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia despite anticoagulation. A higher D-dimers value correlates well with the risk of VTE in these patients and further evaluation of such patients for VTE is necessary especially with D-dimers values above 2000 ng/mL.

scholarly journals Does Obesity Predispose Medical Intensive Care Unit Patients to Venous Thromboembolism despite Prophylaxis? A Retrospective Chart Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Bradley J. Peters ◽  
Ross A. Dierkhising ◽  
Kristin C. Mara
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Risk Model ◽  
Medical Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
The Body ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Medical Intensive Care

Background. Obesity is a significant issue in the critically ill population. There is little evidence directing the dosing of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis within this population. We aimed to determine whether obesity predisposes medical intensive care unit patients to venous thromboembolism despite standard chemoprophylaxis with 5000 international units of subcutaneous heparin three times daily. Results. We found a 60% increased risk of venous thromboembolism in the body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 group compared to the BMI < 30 kg/m2 group; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. After further utilizing our risk model, neither obesity nor mechanical ventilation reached statistical significance; however, vasopressor administration was associated with a threefold risk. Conclusions. We can conclude that obesity did increase the rate of VTE, but not to a statistically significant level in this single center medical intensive care unit population.

scholarly journals Clinical Course of Cancer Patients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Alpert ◽  
Joseph L Rapp ◽  
Bridget Marcellino ◽  
Wil Lieberman-Cribbin ◽  
Raja Flores ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Cancer Treatments ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Complications in cancer patients with COVID-19 have not been examined. This analysis aimed to compare characteristics of COVID-19 patients with and without cancer, and assess whether cancer is associated with COVID-19 morbidity or mortality. Methods COVID-19 positive patients with an inpatient or emergency encounter at the Mount Sinai Health System between March 1, 2020 and May 27, 2020 were included, and compared across cancer status on demographics and clinical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to model the associations of cancer with sepsis, venous thromboembolism, acute kidney injury, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause mortality. Results There were 5,556 COVID-19 positive patients included; 421 (7.6%) with cancer (325 solid, 96 non-solid). Those with cancer were statistically significantly older, more likely to be non-Hispanic Black and to be admitted to the hospital during their encounter, and had more comorbidities than non-cancer COVID-19 patients. Cancer patients were statistically significantly more likely to develop sepsis (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]=1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06-1.61) and venous thromboembolism (ORadj=1.77, 95% CI = 1.01-3.09); there was no statistically significant difference in acute kidney injury (ORadj=1.10, 95% CI = 0.87-1.39), intensive care unit admissions (ORadj=1.04, 95% CI = 0.80-1.34), or mortality (ORadj=1.02, 95% CI = 0.81-1.29). Conclusions COVID-19 patients with cancer may have a higher risk for adverse outcomes. Although there was no statistically significant difference in mortality, COVID-19 patients with cancer have significantly higher risk of thromboembolism and sepsis. Further research is warranted into the potential effects of cancer treatments on inflammatory and immune responses to COVID-19, and on the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in these patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document