Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Research Articles

Timing of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Initiation and Complications in Polytrauma Patients with High-Risk Bleeding Orthopedic Interventions: A Nationwide Analysis.

There are no clear recommendations for the perioperative timing and initiation of venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis (VTEp) among polytrauma patients undergoing high-risk bleeding orthopedic operative intervention, leading to variations in VTEp administration. Our study examined the association between the timing of VTEp and VTE complications in polytrauma patients undergoing high-risk operative orthopedic interventions nationwide. A retrospective cohort study of trauma patients ≥18 years who underwent high-risk bleeding operative orthopedic interventions for pelvic, hip, and femur fractures within 24 hours of admission at American College of Surgeons (ACS) verified trauma centers using the 2019-2020 ACS-TQIP databank. We excluded patients with a competing risk of non-orthopedic surgical bleeding. We assessed operative orthopedic polytrauma patients who received VTEp within 12 hours of orthopedic surgical intervention compared to VTEp received beyond 12 hours of intervention. The primary outcome assessed was overall VTE events. Secondary outcomes were orthopedic reinterventions within 72 hours after primary orthopedic surgery, DVT, and PE rates. The study included 2,229 patients who underwent high-risk orthopedic operative intervention. The median time to VTEp initiation was 30 hours (IQR 18, 44). After adjustment for baseline patient, injury, and hospital characteristics, VTEp initiated more than 12 hours from primary orthopedic surgery was associated with increased odds of VTE (aOR 2.02; 95% CI 1.08-3.77). Earlier initiation of prophylaxis was not associated with an increased risk for surgical reintervention (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.34). Administering VTEp within 24 hours of admission and within 12 hours of major orthopedic surgery involving the femur, pelvis, or hip demonstrated an associated decreased risk of in-hospital VTE without an accompanying elevated risk of bleeding-related orthopedic re-intervention. Clinicians should reconsider delays in initiating or withholding perioperative VTEp for stable polytrauma patients needing major orthopedic intervention. Level III, Therapeutic.

Is early bilateral compression ultrasonography and D-dimer monitoring appropriately for prophylaxis and diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis after cesarean section women: a single-center observation study of Chinese Han population

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is most prevalent among parturients following a cesarean section (CS). The objective of this study was to assess the practical utility of bilateral compression ultrasonography (CUS) of the lower limbs, coupled with D-dimer monitoring, in the early diagnosis of VTE within the Han Chinese population.MethodsOur prospective observational study included 742 women who underwent CUS and D-dimer testing on the first day post-CS. Subsequently, telephone or outpatient follow-ups were conducted until 42 days postpartum. States of hypercoagulation and thrombosis, as indicated by CUS, were classified as CUS abnormal. A D-dimer level ≥ 3 mg/l was considered the D-dimer warning value. Early ambulation and mechanical prophylaxis were universally recommended for all parturients post-CS. A sequential diagnostic strategy, based on the 2015 RCOG VTE risk-assessment tool, was employed. Therapeutic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were administered for the treatment of thromboembolic disease. Prophylactic doses of LMWH were given for VTE prophylaxis in parturients with hypercoagulative status accompanied by D-dimer levels ≥ 3 mg/l. All high-risk women (RCOG score ≥ 4 points) were additionally treated with preventive LMWH. Statistical analyses were conducted using the R statistical software, with a two-sided P value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.ResultsFifteen cases of VTE and 727 instances without VTE were observed. The overall VTE rate post-CS was 2.02% (15/742), with 66.7% (10/15) being asymptomatic. Eleven patients received a VTE diagnosis on the first postpartum day. Among the 41 parturients exhibiting hypercoagulation ultrasound findings and D-dimer levels ≥ 3 mg/l, despite receiving pharmacological VTE prophylaxis with LMWH, 4.88% (2/41) in the high-risk group were eventually diagnosed with VTE. A total of 30.86% (229/742) exhibited normal ultrasound findings and D-dimer levels < 3 mg/l on the first day post-CS, with no VTE occurrences in the postpartum follow-up. According to RCOG’s recommendation, 78.03% (579/742) of cesarean delivery women should receive prophylactic anticoagulation, while only 20.62% (153/742) met our criterion for prophylactic anticoagulation.ConclusionThe strategy of timely routine bilateral CUS and D-dimer monitoring is conducive to the early diagnosis and treatment of VTE, significantly reducing the use of LMWH in the Chinese Han population.

Increasing the Rate of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Administration Using the Electronic Medical Record.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a leading cause of preventable harm among hospitalized patients. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis reduces the rate of in-hospital VTE by 60%, but medication administration is often missed for various reasons. Electronic medical record (EMR) prompts may be a useful tool to decrease withholding of critical VTE chemoprophylaxis medications. Methods: In August 2021, an EMR prompt was implemented at a tertiary referral academic medical center mandating nursing staff to contact a provider for approval before withholding VTE chemoprophylaxis. A pre-intervention group from August 2020 to August 2021 was compared to a post-intervention group from August 2021 to August 2022. Rates of VTE chemoprophylaxis withholding were compared between the groups with a P < .01 considered significant. Results: A total of 16,395 patients prescribed VTE chemoprophylaxis were reviewed, with 13,395 (81.7%) receiving low molecular weight heparin. Of the 16,395 patients included, 10,701 (65.3%) were medical and 5694 (34.7%) were surgical. Patients in the pre-intervention cohort (n = 8803) and post-intervention cohort (n = 7592) were similar in hospital length of stay and duration of DVT prophylaxis. In the post-intervention group, the frequency of surgical patients with at least one missed dose had increased by 4.2% (P = .002), with the trauma and acute care surgery (TACS) show an increase of 6.6% (P < .001). However, the frequency of medical patients and non-TACS patients with missed doses decreased by 3.1% (P = .002) and 1.0% (<.001), respectively. Conclusions: EMR prompts appear to be a low-cost intervention that increases the rate of VTE prophylaxis administration among medical and elective surgery patients.

Postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and complications in a US cohort.

Venous thromboembolism accounts for approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths in the United States. National guidelines recommend postpartum risk stratification and pharmacologic prophylaxis in at-risk individuals. Knowledge on modern rates of postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and its associated risks is limited. This study aimed to describe the rate of, and factors associated with, initiation of postpartum pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, and to assess associated adverse outcomes. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort of individuals delivering on randomly selected days at 17 US hospitals (2019-2020). Medical records were reviewed by trained and certified personnel. Those with an antepartum diagnosis of venous thromboembolism, receiving antepartum anticoagulation, or known SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. The primary outcome was use of postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, surgical site infection, hospital readmission, and venous thromboembolism through 6 weeks postpartum. The rate of thromboprophylaxis administration was assessed by mode of delivery, institution, and continuance to the outpatient setting. Multivariable regression models were developed using k-fold cross-validation with stepwise backward elimination to evaluate factors associated with thromboprophylaxis administration. Univariable and multivariable logistic models with propensity score covariate adjustment were performed to assess the association between thromboprophylaxis administration and adverse outcomes. Of 21,114 individuals in the analytical cohort, 11.9% (95% confidence interval, 11.4%-12.3%) received postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis; the frequency of receipt was 29.8% (95% confidence interval, 28.7%-30.9%) following cesarean and 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 3.2%-3.8%) following vaginal delivery. Institutional rates of prophylaxis varied from 0.21% to 34.8%. Most individuals (83.3%) received thromboprophylaxis only as inpatients. In adjusted analysis, cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 19.17; 95% confidence interval, 16.70-22.00), hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 15.70; 95% confidence interval, 4.35-56.65), and obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 3.45; 95% confidence interval, 3.02-3.95) were the strongest factors associated with thromboprophylaxis administration. Thromboprophylaxis administration was not associated with surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.6%; odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.74), bleeding complications (0.2% vs 0.1%; odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-6.80), or postpartum readmission (0.9% vs 0.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-2.81). The overall rate of venous thromboembolism was 0.06% (95% confidence interval, 0.03%-0.10%) and was higher in those receiving prophylaxis (0.2%) compared with those not receiving prophylaxis (0.04%). Approximately 1 in 10 patients received postpartum pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in this US cohort. Rates of prophylaxis varied widely by institution. Cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, and obesity were predominant factors associated with postpartum thromboprophylaxis administration.

A Three-year Retrospective Study Looking at Preventing Hospital Acquired Thrombosis.

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) is defined as cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that occur in a hospital and within ninety days of a hospital admission. Deep vein thromboses (DVTs) most commonly occur within the deep veins of the pelvis and legs. If the thrombus dislodges and travels to the lungs, it can result in a pulmonary embolus (PE). VTE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, accounting for almost 10% of all hospital deaths. If risk factors are correctly identified and VTE prophylaxis is prescribed, VTE can be a preventable condition. In 2010, NHS England launched The National Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Programme. This included NICE guidance, and a VTE risk assessment tool, which must be completed for at least 95% of patients on admission. The National Thrombosis Survey, published by Thrombosis UK, studied how this program was implemented locally, and audited HA-VTE prevention strategies nationally. Using the Thrombosis Survey and NICE guidance as an aide, this study collects data about hospital-acquired DVT (HA-DVT) at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead (QEH) and aims to: 1. Identify cases of HA-DVT and understand the clinical circumstances surrounding these cases 2. Assess the quality of VTE preventative measures at QEH 3. Outline potential improvement in reducing the incidence of HA-VTE at this hospital Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic records to identify all cases of DVT between April 2019 and April 2022 at QEH. Cases of HA-DVT were defined as: a positive ultrasound doppler report and either the case occurring in the 90 days following an inpatient stay, or beyond two days into an admission. For these cases of HA-DVT, we recorded the: reason for admission; admitting specialty; presence of an underlying active cancer and deaths occurring within 90 days of diagnosis. We assessed the quality of VTE preventative measures, by recording the: completion of VTE risk assessments; prescription of weight-adjusted pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and provision of VTE prophylaxis on discharge. For HA-DVT cases occurring within 90 days of an inpatient stay, the preventative measures were assessed on the original admission. Electronic records were used to record the completion rate of the National VTE risk assessment tool for all inpatients during this time frame. The VTE risk assessment tool was completed for 98.5% of all admissions. One hundred and thirty-five cases of HA-DVT were identified between April 2019 and April 2022. Sixteen patients with HA-DVT did not have VTE prophylaxis prescribed on admission. Eleven of these patients had a clearly documented reason why anticoagulation was avoided. In HA-DVT cases where pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was prescribed, 23% were prescribed an inappropriate dose for their weight. If anticoagulation was required on discharge, this was prescribed appropriately in 94% of cases. About 31% of the patients with HA-DVT had an underlying active malignancy. Thirty-nine patients died within 90 days of the DVT being diagnosed; in only 1 case was VTE thought to be a contributing factor to death. The hospital exceeded the national standard of VTE risk assessment completion on admission (greater than 95%). For almost a quarter of patients with HA-DVT, the dose of thromboprophylaxis prescribed was not appropriate for weight. In five cases of HA-DVT, thromboprophylaxis was omitted with no clear justification. HA-DVT often affects the most clinically vulnerable patients and is associated with a high mortality.

The incidence and risk factors of proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis without pharmacologic prophylaxis in critically ill surgical Taiwanese patients: A prospective study

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients has been well-studied in Western countries. Many studies have developed risk assessments and established pharmacological protocols to prevent deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the DVT rate and need for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in critically ill Taiwanese patients are limited. This study aimed to prospectively determine the DVT incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in critically ill Taiwanese patients who do not receive pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of a tertiary academic medical center in Taiwan. Adult patients admitted to SICU from March 2021 to June 2022 received proximal lower extremities DVT surveillance with venous duplex ultrasound. No patient received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. The outcomes were the incidence and risk factors of DVT. Results: Among 501 enrolled SICU patients, 21 patients (4.2%) were diagnosed with proximal lower extremities DVT. In a multivariate regression analysis, hypoalbuminemia (odd ratio (OR) = 6.061, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.067–34.421), femoral central venous catheter (OR = 4.515, 95% CI: 1.547–13.174), ICU stays more than 10 days (OR = 4.017, 95% CI: 1.270–12.707), and swollen leg (OR = 3.427, 95% CI: 1.075–10.930) were independent risk factors for DVT. In addition, patients with proximal lower extremities DVT have more extended ventilator days ( p = 0.045) and ICU stays ( p = 0.044). Conclusion: Our findings indicate critically ill Taiwanese patients have a higher incidence of DVT than results from prior retrospective studies in the Asian population. Physicians who care for this population should consider the specific risk factors for DVT and prescribe pharmacologic prophylaxis in high-risk groups.

Contemporary Use of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients With Severe Traumatic Injuries and High Thromboembolic Event Risk

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between prophylactic inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) implantation and in-hospital deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality among adults with intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries. MethodsPatients 18 years and older with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, or spinal cord injuries captured by the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2019) were identified. IVCFs implanted ≤72 hours after hospital presentation and before performance of lower extremity ultrasonography were defined as prophylactic. Patients were stratified by pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis status. Logistic regression models estimated prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filtration’s effect on selected outcomes and identified attributes associated with prophylactic IVCF implantation. ResultsOf 544,739 included patients, 1.3% (n = 7,247) underwent prophylactic IVCF implantation. Among patients who received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration compared with expectant management was positively associated with DVT (odds ratio [OR], 4.30; P < .001) and PE (OR, 4.30; P < .001) but not associated with mortality (OR, 0.92; P = .43). Among patients who received no pharmacologic prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was positively associated with DVT (OR, 4.63; P < .001) and PE (OR, 5.02; P < .001) but negatively associated with mortality (OR, 0.43; P < .001). ConclusionsProphylactic IVC filtration was associated with increased likelihood of VTE among all adults with severe intracranial, pelvic or lower extremity, and spinal cord injuries. In patients who received no pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, prophylactic IVC filtration was associated with decreased likelihood of in-hospital mortality.

Guidelines in Practice: Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a condition involving deep vein thrombosis and embolism, can cause death when left untreated. Hospitalized patients and those who have recently undergone surgery or have a cancer diagnosis are at increased risk for VTE development. The updated AORN "Guideline for prevention of venous thromboembolism" provides perioperative nurses with a variety of evidence-based recommendations associated with the topic. This article provides an overview of the guideline and discusses recommendations for a VTE protocol, VTE and bleeding risk assessments, pharmacologic and mechanical VTE prophylaxis, postoperative ambulation, and patient and family education. It also includes a scenario that illustrates the importance of the VTE assessment and the use of mechanical prophylaxis for high-risk patients undergoing operative or other invasive procedures. Perioperative nurses should review the guideline in its entirety and implement recommendations in operative and procedural settings.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in acute spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: A survey of opinion

IntroductionPeople immobilized following acute spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) but the role of short-term prophylactic anticoagulation remains uncertain. We surveyed UK clinical practice and opinion regarding preventing VTE after ICH. Patients and methodsAn online survey was sent to stroke healthcare professionals within the United Kingdom and Ireland via a professional society (British and Irish Association of Stroke Physicians (BIASP)). ResultsOne hundred and twenty-three staff members responded to the survey, of whom 80% were consultant stroke physicians. All responders except one considered the issue to be important or extremely important, but only 5 (4%) were “extremely certain” and 51 (41%) “fairly certain” regarding the optimal treatment approach. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices alone were the most used method (in 60%) followed by IPC devices and switching to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (in 30%). We identified high levels of uncertainty regarding the role of anticoagulation, and its optimal timing; uncertainty was greater in lobar compared to deep ICH. Most respondents (93%) consider a randomised controlled trial investigating the role of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis after acute ICH as important and would consider participation. Discussion and conclusionThe optimal method for the prevention of VTE in non-traumatic ICH patients remains an area of clinical uncertainty. Clinical trials assessing short-term anticoagulation in patients after acute ICH would be beneficial in providing evidence to resolve this clinical dilemma.

An Electronic Medical Record Intervention to Increase Pharmacologic Prophylaxis for Venous Thromboembolism in Emergency Department Observation Patients

The role of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among patients receiving emergency department (ED) observation unit care is unclear. We investigated an electronic health record-based clinical decision support tool aimed at increasing pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis use among at-risk patients placed in ED observation units. We conducted an interrupted time-series study of an Epic-based best practice advisory implemented in May 2019 at a health care system comprising 2 academic medical centers and 4 community hospitals with dedicated ED observation units. The best practice advisory alerted staff at 24 hours to conduct a risk assessment and linked to a VTE prophylaxis order set. We used an interrupted time series, Bayesian structured time series, and a multivariable mixed-effect regression model to estimate the intervention effect. Prior to the best practice advisory implementation, there were 8,895 ED observation unit patients with a length of stay more than or equal to 24 hours, and 0.9% received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Afterward, there were 12,664 ED observation unit patients with a length of stay more than or equal to 24 hours, and 4.8% received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. The interrupted time series and causal impact analysis showed a statistically significant increase in VTE prophylaxis (eg, absolute percent difference 3.8%, 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 4.1). In a multivariable model, only the intervention was significantly associated with receiving VTE prophylaxis (odds ratio 4.56, 95% confidence interval 2.22 to 9.37). An electronic health record-based alert helped to prompt staff caring for ED observation unit patients at risk for VTE with prolonged visits to order recommended pharmacologic prophylaxis. The best risk assessment model to use and the true incidence of VTE events in this population are unclear.

463 Adherence to Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis for Post Operative Resection of Colorectal Malignancies

Abstract Aim Patients undergoing cancer resection abdominal surgery are at high risk of developing venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in the post-operative period. To reduce this risk, these patients should be considered for extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis for 28 days post-surgery as per NICE guidelines (NICE NG89). In our surgical department, we give all colorectal cancer resection patients 5000 units of Deltaparin for 28 days post resection unless it is contraindicated. We aimed to evaluate adherence to this guideline. Method This is a single-centre retrospective audit study. We included 100 colorectal cancer resection cases between 1st October 2021 and 28th February 2022 (n = 100). Retrospective data was collected including the type of procedure, histology and whether post-operative Deltaparin was prescribed for 28 days. All consecutive colorectal cancer resections were included in the study. The data was collected from the patient electronic records, electronic prescribing system and the electronic discharge summaries. Results The most common operation was anterior resection of the rectum (42%) followed by right hemicolectomy (40%). The Adherence to the NICE guidelines for extended VTE prophylaxis was 87%. Conclusions The adherence to the NICE guidelines in our department falls below the national target of 90% adherence. To improve the compliance, we will carry out staff education on appropriate anticoagulation prescribing and also display informative posters in the surgical wards to increase the awareness. We will aim to re-audit the adherence to the guidelines after implementing these measures.

ThTP4.9 Adherence to extended venous thrombo-embolism prophylaxis for post operative resection of colorectal malignancies

Abstract Aim Patients undergoing cancer resection abdominal surgery are at high risk of developing venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in the post-operative period. To reduce this risk, these patients should be considered for extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis for 28 days post-surgery as per NICE guidelines (NICE NG89). In our surgical department, we give all colorectal cancer resection patients 5000 units of Deltaparin for 28 days post resection unless it is contraindicated. We aimed to evaluate adherence to this guideline. Method This is a single-centre retrospective audit study. We included 100 colorectal cancer resection cases between 1st October 2021 and 28th February 2022 (n=100). Retrospective data was collected including the type of procedure, histology and whether post-operative Deltaparin was prescribed for 28 days. All consecutive colorectal cancer resections were included in the study. The data was collected from the patient electronic records, electronic prescribing system and the electronic discharge summaries. Results The most common operation was anterior resection of the rectum (42%) followed by right hemicolectomy (40%). The Adherence to the NICE guidelines for extended VTE prophylaxis was 87%. Conclusion The adherence to the NICE guidelines in our department falls below the national target of 90% adherence. To improve the compliance, we will carry out staff education on appropriate anticoagulation prescribing and also display informative posters in the surgical wards to increase the awareness. We will aim to re-audit the adherence to the guidelines after implementing these measures.

Body Mass Index and Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Traumatic Brain Injury

IntroductionPatients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at risk for developing venous thromboembolic complications. Previous work suggests venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is protective compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of body mass index (BMI) and type of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in patients who develop VTE with severe TBI. MethodsPatients with a severe TBI who received VTE prophylaxis were queried from the 2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. Demographics, injury characteristics, timing of VTE prophylaxis, and BMI were collected. Outcome measures include VTE, mortality, and neurosurgical interventions. ResultsOf the 39,520 patients with severe TBI included in the study, 25,671 received LMWH and 13,849 received UH. Multivariable logistic regression found patients with a BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.375; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.180-1.603; P < 0.0001) and a BMI>30 kg/m2 (OR 1.831; 95% CI 1.570-2.137; P < 0.0001) were independent predictors of VTE. Patients with BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2 (OR 1.145; 95% CI 1.016-1.289; P = 0.0265) have a higher risk of mortality. For every hour delay in initiation to VTE prophylaxis, patients were 0.2% more likely to develop VTE (OR 1.002; 95% CI 1.002-1.003; P < 0.0001). Patients treated with UH were more likely to develop VTE complications (OR 1.085; 95% CI 1.058-1.112; P < 0.0001) and have increased mortality (OR 1.116; 95% CI 1.094-1.139; P < 0.0001), regardless of BMI and time to initiation of prophylaxis, compared to patients treated with LMWH. ConclusionsIn patients with severe TBI, higher BMI was associated with an increased risk of VTE and death. Delay in VTE prophylaxis initiation was associated with an increased risk of VTE. LMWH had a protective association with VTE.

The Association Between the Timing of Initiation of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis with Outcomes in Burns Patients.

Hospitalized burn patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Guidelines regarding thromboprophylaxis in burn patients are unclear. This study aims to compare the outcomes of early versus late thromboprophylaxis initiation in burn patients. In this 3-year analysis of 2017-2019 ACS-TQIP, adult(18-64years) burn patients were identified after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria and stratified based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis: Early(<24 hours of admission); Late(>24 hours). Outcomes were deep venous thrombosis(DVT), pulmonary embolism(PE), unplanned return to operating room (OR), unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, post-prophylaxis packed red blood cells (PRBC) transfusion, and mortality. Nine thousand two hundred and seventy-two patients were identified. Overall, median age was 41years, 71.5% were male, and median[IQR] injury severity score was 3[1-8]. 53% had second-degree burns, and 80% had less than 40% of total body surface area affected. Median time to thromboprophylaxis initiation was 11[6-20.6]hours. Overall VTE rate was 0.9% (DVT-0.7%, PE-0.2%). On univariable analysis, early prophylaxis group had lower rates of DVT(0.6% vs 1.1%, P = .025), and PE(0.1% vs 0.6%, P < .001). On multivariable regression, late prophylaxis was associated with 1.8 times higher odds of DVT (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.04-3.11, P = .03), 4.8 times higher odds of PE(aOR = 4.8, 95% CI = 1.9-11.9, P < .001), and 2 times higher odds of unplanned ICU admission(aOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4-3.1, P < .001). Furthermore, early thromboprophylaxis was not associated with increased odds of post-prophylaxis PRBC transfusion(aOR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8-1.4, P = .4), and mortality(aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.4-1.1, P = .13). Early VTE prophylaxis in burn patients is associated with decreased rates of DVT and PE, without increasing the risk of bleeding and mortality. VTE prophylaxis may be initiated within 24 hours of admission to reduce VTE in this high-risk patient population.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with ovarian cancer.

5552 Background: The primary objective was to assess the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with ovarian cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) following a quality improvement (QI) intervention of routine pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis compared to patients that did not receive prophylaxis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with pathologically confirmed ovarian cancer that received NACT between January 2009 to December 2021 from a single institution. Patients were excluded if VTE was diagnosed prior to initiating NACT. Routine pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during NACT started in January 2017 following a QI initiative. VTE events were diagnosed by doppler scan of extremities or computed tomography of the chest ordered for symptomatic patients or diagnosed incidentally on routine treatment imaging. Patient factors and perioperative variates of interest were investigated for their association with VTE events through univariate and multivariate models. Results: A total of 290 patients with ovarian cancer received NACT and were included, with 106 of 290 patients (36.5%) receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis during NACT. Rate of VTE prophylaxis prior to the QI intervention was 3.68% (n=5) compared to 65.58% (n=101) after. The rate of VTE during NACT was 11.41% (n=21) without prophylaxis and 2.83% (n=3) with prophylaxis (p=0.013) (Table). The rate of any VTE event from the start of NACT through adjuvant chemotherapy was 20.11% (n=37) without prophylaxis and 4.72% (n=5) with prophylaxis (p&lt;0.01). There was no difference in adverse bleeding events in those that received prophylaxis to those that did not (0% vs 1.32%, p=0.239). On univariate analysis, VTE prophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of VTE during NACT (OR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.78) and any VTE during primary treatment (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.52). On multivariate analysis, VTE prophylaxis remained significantly associated with reduced VTE rates during NACT and during primary treatment (p=0.02 and p=0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Routine administration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during NACT for patients with ovarian cancer is associated with reduced risk of VTE during NACT and throughout primary treatment and is not associated with adverse bleeding events. [Table: see text]

Outcomes in patients discharged with extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in patients requiring hospitalization and intensive care. We examined the association between extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with an index positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test at the time of, or during hospitalization. Patients who were prescribed extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis were compared against patients who were not. Multivariable logistic regression was used to produce odds ratio (OR) estimates and Cox proportional hazard models for hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI to examine the association between pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day VTE events. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality, 30-day superficial venous thrombosis (SVT), acute myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, critical limb ischemia, clinically significant bleeding, and inpatient readmissions. A total of 1936 patients were included in the study. Among them, 731 (38%) were discharged on extended pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. No significant difference was found in 30- and 90-day VTE events among groups. Patients discharged on extended VTE prophylaxis showed improved survival at 30 (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.21-0.59) and 90 days (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23-0.55) and reduced inpatient readmission at 30 days (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.04-0.33) when compared to those without. Patients discharged on extended VTE prophylaxis after hospitalization due to COVID-19 had similar thrombotic events on follow-up. However, use of extended VTE prophylaxis was associated with improved 30- and 90-day survival and reduced risk of 30-day inpatient readmission.

Safety and efficacy of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with cirrhosis are considered in a haemostatic balance, though weaker than in normal subjects. In these patients, however, the use of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the occurrence of bleeding and VTE events in patients with cirrhosis, and controls, undergoing VTE prophylaxis. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to further explore the determinants of heterogeneity in the study of the occurrence of either bleeding or VTE events. In a total of 10 studies, including 5712 patients, of which 2330 undergoing VTE prophylaxis, bleeding (n = 5513) and VTE events occurred in 8.2% and 2.8% patients respectively. A total of 2963 and 3162 patients were included from low-risk of bias studies in bleeding and VTE analysis respectively: while administration of VTE prophylaxis did not seem to reduce VTE (OR = 1.07, CI 0.39-2.96, p = .89), importantly prophylaxis was not associated with increased bleeding risk (OR = 0.56, CI 0.20-1.59, p = .27). Meta-regression analysis showed that no parameter significantly influenced the heterogeneity of data regarding bleeding or VTE events. In patients with cirrhosis, current evidence is insufficient to advise for or against the use of VTE prophylaxis, mainly due to lack of quality and homogeneity of available data. However, its use does not appear to be associated with a significant bleeding risk. Adequately designed studies are required to provide a measure of its overall utility.

Things We Do for No Reason™: Withholding pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

289 The Timing of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Initiation for Burn Patients with Concomitant Trauma

Abstract Introduction Hospitalized burn patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Clinical guidelines regarding thromboprophylaxis in burn patients with concomitant trauma are unclear. We aimed to compare the outcomes of early versus late thromboprophylaxis initiation for burn patients with concomitant trauma. Methods A 3-year analysis of 2017-2019 TQIP. We identified all adult burn patients with concomitant trauma who received thromboprophylaxis. We excluded patients that had severe TBI (Head AIS &amp;gt; 2), were transferred, those that died &amp;lt; 24 hours of admission and those that underwent hemorrhage control surgery. Patients were stratified based on the timing of initiation of postoperative thromboprophylaxis: Early (&amp;lt; 24 hours of admission) versus Late ( &amp;gt;24 hours). Multivariate regression analyses were performed. Outcome measures were odds of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), unplanned return to OR, unplanned ICU admission, post-prophylaxis PRBC transfusion and in-hospital mortality. Results 9,272 trauma patients with concomitant burns who received thromboprophylaxis were identified. Overall, mean age was 41.3 ± 13.4 years, 71.5% were male, and median ISS was 3 [1-8]. 53% had second degree burns, and 39% had more than 10% of total body surface area affected. Median time to thromboprophylaxis initiation was 11 [6-20.6] hours. On multivariate regression, patients who received thromboprophylaxis after 24 hours of admission had 1.8 times higher odds of developing DVT (aOR=1.8, 95% CI=1.04-3.11, p=0.03), 4.8 times higher odds of developing PE (aOR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9-11.9, p&amp;lt;.001), 2 times higher odds of unplanned ICU admission (aOR=2.1, 95% CI=1.4-3.1, p&amp;lt;0.001), and nonsignificant increase in the odds of unplanned return to OR (aOR=2, 95% CI=0.96-4.31, p=0.06). Further, early thromboprophylaxis was not associated with increased odds of post-prophylaxis PRBC transfusion (aOR=1.1, 95% CI=0.8-1.4, p=0.4), and in-hospital mortality (aOR=0.68, 95%CI=0.4-1.1, p=0.13) compared to patients who received late thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions Early VTE prophylaxis in burn patients is associated with decreased rates of DVT and PE, without increasing the risk of bleeding and mortality. VTE prophylaxis may be initiated within 24 hours of admission to reduce VTE in this high-risk patient population. Applicability of Research to Practice This work will guide the timing of initiation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in burn patients with concomitant trauma

The Risk of Blood Transfusion With the Use of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis During Hospitalization for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Exacerbation: A Time to Event Analysis.

Khuwaja, Samreen MD1; Kohn, Nina MS, MBA2; Sanghani, Shreya S. MSc3; Khan, Sundas MD4; Swaminath, Arun MD5; Sultan, Keith MD6 Author Information