Thromboprophylaxis In Medical Inpatients Research Articles

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a >6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P <.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P <.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, $1280; HF, $2677) and readmission (COPD, $379; HF, $1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a >6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P <.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P <.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, 2677) and readmission (COPD, 1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Switzerland: a bi-centric prospective cohort.

Venous thromboembolism is a dreaded complication of hospitalised patients, with associated morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Previous studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, though effective, is inadequately administered in a large proportion of medical inpatients. Our primary aim was to evaluate the contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients admitted to two Swiss hospitals (a university hospital and a regional hospital). The secondary aim was to estimate the 90-day incidence of relevant thrombotic and bleeding events. In this prospective cohort, patients were recruited at the University Hospital of Geneva and the Regional Hospital of Lugano between September 2020 and February 2021 and followed for 90 days for venous thromboembolism and bleeding events. The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) at 24h after hospital admission was evaluated according to the simplified Geneva risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism. Among 200 participants (100 at each site, mean age of 65 years), 57.5% were deemed at high risk of venous thromboembolism at admission. Thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 59.5% (95% CI 52.3-66.4%). Among high-risk and low-risk inpatients, thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 71.3% and 43.5%, respectively, with differences between sites. At 90 days, risks of adjudicated venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality were 1.5%, 1.5% and 6.0%, respectively. Despite the extensive literature on thromboprophylaxis, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis has not improved and remains insufficient among medical inpatients. Implementation and evaluation of clinical decision support systems are critically needed in this field. gov number: NCT05306821.

Overuse and underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients

BackgroundThromboprophylaxis (TPX) prescription is recommended in medical inpatients categorized as high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by validated risk assessment models (RAMs), but how various RAMs differ in categorizing patients in risk groups, and whether the choice of RAM influences estimates of appropriate TPX use is unknown. ObjectivesTo determine the proportion of medical inpatients categorized as high or low risk according to validated RAMs, and to investigate the appropriateness of TPX prescription. MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study of acutely ill medical inpatients from 3 Swiss university hospitals. Participants were categorized as high or low risk of VTE by validated RAMs (ie, the Padua, the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism, simplified, and original Geneva scores). We assessed prescription of any TPX at baseline. We considered TPX prescription in high-risk and no TPX prescription in low-risk patients as appropriate. ResultsAmong 1352 medical inpatients, the proportion categorized as high risk ranged from 29.8% with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score to 66.1% with the original Geneva score. Overall, 24.6% were consistently categorized as high risk, and 26.3% as low risk by all 4 RAMs. Depending on the RAM used, TPX prescription was appropriate in 58.7% to 63.3% of high-risk (ie, 36.7%-41.3% underuse) and 52.4% to 62.8% of low-risk patients (ie, 37.2%-47.6% overuse). ConclusionThe proportion of medical inpatients considered as high or low VTE risk varied widely according to different RAMs. Only half of patients were consistently categorized in the same risk group by all RAMs. While TPX remains underused in high-risk patients, overuse in low-risk patients is even more pronounced.

Improving thromboprophylaxis in the medical inpatients: The role of the resident in an academic hospital.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the main causes of preventable in-hospital death. It is recommended for hospitals to have an appropriate thromboprophylaxis (TP) protocol to avoid VTE complications. To determine the effect of the resident physician feedback to the staff physician in TP appropriateness after the Caprini RAM score implementation. Caprini RAM was implemented by the residents in medical patients. Patients were divided in low, moderate, high, and highest-risk groups, with TP recommendation accordingly. In cases with inadequate TP, the resident provided feedback to the staff physician for adjustment. Change to appropriate TP was assessed retrospectively. A total of 265 records were included. Before intervention, 193 (72.8%) patients had appropriate TP and post-intervention, 207 (78.1%) patients received adequate TP (p < .001). Feedback from the internal medicine resident to staff physician improves appropriate TP in medical inpatients as a quality of care strategy.

A Retrospective Analysis of Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hospitalization for acute medical illness; hospitalized patients with cancer represent a particularly high thrombotic risk population. However, there is significant underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with cancer. The objective of this study is to characterize the use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer at Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH), a large, community-based hospital in Ontario, Canada. Specifically, we investigated use of both pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis, along with clinical determinants underlying lack of VTE prophylaxis to better understand our local practice patterns. This study is a retrospective, single center cohort study of 120 adult patients admitted to WRH with a primary solid tumor diagnosis (n=57) and hematologic cancer diagnosis (n=63) over a 3-month period. Chart review was performed for the first ten days of admission or until discharge. Multi-variate analyses were employed to determine clinical predictors of thromboprophylaxis use. Sixty-one (51%) medical inpatients with cancer received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis during their hospitalization. The majority of patients (n=39; 68.4%) with a solid tumor malignancy received prophylaxis, while only twenty-two (34.9%) patients with a hematologic malignancy were provided pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. In the subgroup of patients without contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% of patients with a primary hematologic diagnosis and 75% of patients with a primary solid tumor diagnosis received pharmacologic prophylaxis (Figure 1). 4 of 58 patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis received mechanical prophylaxis during admission (6.9%). Risk of VTE stratified by Khorana score >2 or ≤2 was not associated with use of pharmacologic prophylaxis (p=0.255). Platelet nadir <25x109/L (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.0256-0.4087), active hormonal therapy (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.0055-0.6707) and pulmonary disease at baseline (OR=4, 95% CI 1.0031-22.9064) were the only patient variables significantly related to the odds of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Given the limited number of patients in the study with pulmonary disease and maintained on hormonal therapy at baseline, the statistical significance may not correlate to clinical significance. In conclusion, thromboprophylaxis is an integral adjunct to the management of medical inpatients with active cancer yet is often neglected in clinical practice. In our population, nearly half of patients were not provided VTE prophylaxis. Severe thrombocytopenia and active hormonal therapy were negative predictors of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis use while the presence of pulmonary disease favored prescription of prophylaxis on admission. Further studies are needed to better understand the rationale underlying omission of VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients with cancer, and raise awareness of measures to prevent VTE in this patient population. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical Inpatients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the primary cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients in the United States. This is a cross-sectional study with a brief cost analysis of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin in acutely ill medical inpatients.Methods: The study included a total of 122 patients admitted to a public teaching hospital from December 2019 to January 2021. The sample was equally divided into two groups according to the thromboprophylactic agent prescribed: rivaroxaban or enoxaparin. The primary outcomes included bleeding and symptomatic, ultrasonography-confirmed arterial or venous thrombotic events during or within 90 days after hospitalization. Our secondary outcome was the direct costs of each anticoagulant in US dollars over the 14 months.Results: During hospitalization, two events were detected in the enoxaparin group: minor bleeding with minimum intervention required (1.6%) and a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) case (1.6%) confirmed by ultrasonography. Within 90 days after discharge, two patients, one of each sample (1.6% vs. 1.6%), were readmitted due to confirmed acute arterial occlusion. Concerning financial assessment, the mean unit cost of enoxaparin during the 14 months assessed was 102.14% more expensive than rivaroxaban.Conclusions: Both rivaroxaban and enoxaparin showed equivalence in effectiveness and safety in thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients, aside from possible financial benefit with the first-mentioned drug.

Overuse of Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Medical Inpatients at Low Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.

Overuse of Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Medical Inpatients at Low Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.

Potential Overuse of Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Medical Inpatients at Low Risk of Venous Thromboembolism

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Annually, up to 1 in 120 people develop VTE, approximating the incidence of stroke. Given that hospitalization and acute medical illness increase the risk of VTE, hospital-associated VTE represents a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, accreditation and regulatory agencies endorse inpatient pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (PPX) as a quality measure. In order to raise rates of PPX prescribing, many health systems have adopted a default approach to electronic ordering, in which clinicians must "opt-out" of PPX prescription. However, this strategy may cause medical overuse and avoidable harms, which has prompted the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to recommend a risk-adapted approach to PPX. One risk model endorsed by ASH is the IMPROVE-VTE risk assessment model, which can identify patients who are at low risk for VTE and therefore may not warrant pharmacologic PPX. We therefore sought to compare the actual practice of PPX prescribing to the guideline-recommended strategy according the IMPROVE-VTE model in a large, contemporary population of medical inpatients. Methods: In this observational study, we used electronic health record data to identify adult, medical inpatients hospitalized on general medical and subspecialty services at Yale-New Haven Hospital from 1/1/14-12/31/18. We excluded patients who were pregnant, admitted for VTE, taking full dose anticoagulation on admission, admitted for bleeding, or had a platelet count of &lt; 50,000/µL. For each patient, we calculated the IMPROVE-VTE score using the previously validated model weights: 3 points for a prior history of VTE; 2 points for known thrombophilia, lower limb paralysis, or active cancer; 1 point for immobilization, admission to the intensive care unit, or age ≥ 60 years. For each component other than age, we used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes that were billed either prior to or upon admission to determine the presence of these risk factors. In order to simulate the decision to initiate PPX on hospital admission, we calculated each patient's IMPROVE-VTE score at the time of admission. In accordance with the ASH guidelines, we used an IMPROVE-VTE score of &lt;2 to differentiate patients at low-risk of hospital-associated VTE from those at high-risk. We used inpatient medication order history data to determine receipt of pharmacologic PPX. We used χ2 testing to compare the relative frequency of PPX prescribing on admission between patients at low-risk and high-risk for VTE. Results: We identified 135,288 medical inpatients during the study period, of whom 99,380 met inclusion criteria. The average age was 63.5 years-old (standard deviation 18 years); 51% of patients were female; 68% of patients were white. Of all the included patients, 81% received pharmacologic prophylaxis; of these patients, 78% received unfractionated heparin subcutaneously and 22% received low molecular weight heparin subcutaneously. Among all hospitalized patients, 78% had an IMPROVE-VTE score of &lt;2 (32% had a score of 0 and 46% had a score of 1). Among these patients at low risk of hospital-associated VTE, 81% received pharmacologic PPX. Differences in prophylaxis rates between patients at low vs high risk of VTE were statistically significant (p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: In this contemporary cohort of adult, medical inpatients, &gt;80% of patients who were at low risk of hospital-associated VTE received pharmacologic PPX, representing a group in whom PPX may be unnecessary. Using a risk-adapted approach such as the IMPROVE-VTE risk assessment model, rather than default PPX ordering, may reduce medical overuse and avoidable harms. Disclosures Chaudhry: CVS State of CT Clinical Pharmacy Program: Other: Paid Reviewer for CVS State of CT Clinical Pharmacy Program.

Effect of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant drugs on the incidence of arterial thrombotic events in medical inpatients: a systematic review.

Pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is recommended for medical inpatients. Since arterial thrombosis (AT) shares some risk factors with VTE, it would be reasonable to assess the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis by considering both VTE and AT as outcome events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III RCTs on thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients, to evaluate the quality of reporting and the incidence of AT, and the effect of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants on AT incidence. Studies were identified by a combined search strategy until May 2015. Differences in outcomes among groups were expressed as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by I (2) statistic. Twenty phase III RCTs, encompassing 54,742 patients, were included; of these, 3 (15 %) reported on AT as a pre-defined secondary outcome and 8 (40 %) on at least one AT outcome. Raw-unweighed incidence of fatal MI in the three RCTs is 0.37 % in patients receiving unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin, and 0.38 % in controls (OR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.62-1.52; I (2) = 0 %). A non-statistically significant increase in AT is reported in patients on enoxaparin compared to control (OR 1.95, 95 % CI 0.89-4.27; I (2) = 13 %). AT is underreported in RCTs on VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Published data suggest that incidence of fatal MI in these patients may be clinically relevant. Insufficient data are available to draw firm conclusions on the effects of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants on AT incidence in this setting.

Thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients reduces pulmonary embolism, increases the risk of major haemorrhage and does not reduce total mortality, producing questionable net clinical benefit

Commentary on: Lederle FA, Zylla D, MacDonald R, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients and those with stroke: a background review for an American College of Physicians...

Definition of immobility in studies of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: A systematic review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, serious and preventable complication in hospitalized patients. Thromboprophylaxis in medical patients is safe, effective, and cost saving, but remains underutilized. Although immobility plays an important role in determining VTE risk in medical patients, no clear criteria exist to guide clinicians in assessing immobility when making decisions about thromboprophylaxis. A systematic review was conducted to determine how immobility is defined and operationalized in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients. PubMed database was searched until September 2008 for RCTs of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. Articles retrieved were further hand-searched to identify additional RCTs. Definitions of "immobility" were assessed. Twenty-one RCTs were retrieved, 18 were retained and 17 of these defined, to varying degrees, "immobility." Studies used several definition criteria, including the patient's degree of activity (14 studies), time spent immobile or mobile (13 studies), distance walked (4 studies) and underlying reason for immobility (4 studies); 14 studies used a combination of criteria. Definitions were clearly operationalized in 15 studies. The concept of "immobility" was utilized in study introductions (4 studies), inclusion/exclusion criteria (16 studies), as a stratification variable before randomization (1 study), in ongoing patient assessment (1 study), in treatment decisions (5 studies), as part of the study intervention (2 studies), as standard of care (2 studies), and in the results, discussion or conclusions (12 studies). There is a marked lack of consistency in how the concept of immobility is defined and utilized in RCTs of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients. This circumstance may contribute to the underutilization of thromboprophylaxis in clinical practice with medical inpatients.

Rational thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients: not quite there yet

Rational thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients: not quite there yet

Reminders: a simple measure to ensure the mandatory venous thromboembolism risk assessment of hospitalised patients

To the Editor: The estimated number of potentially preventable deaths from venous thromboembolism (VTE) per year in the UK is in excess of 25,000 (1). It is known that pulmonary embolism is responsible for 10% of deaths in hospitalised patients in the Western world (2). In March 2007, the independent expert working group on the prevention of VTE in hospitalised patients came up with recommendations on behalf of the Department of Health (1). The group recommended that all medical patients should, as a part of a mandatory risk assessment, be considered for thromboprophylaxis measures (1). In particular, patients likely to be in hospital for longer than 4 days, with reduced mobility and with any of the following medical conditions: severe heart failure; respiratory failure (due either to exacerbation of chronic lung disease or pneumonia); acute infection; inflammatory illness and cancer, should be considered for prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH). Various studies have revealed that thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients is still not adequate, with only 30–40% of suitable patients being prescribed appropriate thromboprophylaxis (3,4). Previous audits at the Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust have revealed variable thromboprophylaxis prescription rates, with a mean of 20% within the acute medical unit (AMU). Since then our hospital guidelines on VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis prescription are displayed on the patient assessment areas. Enoxaparin is the LMWH available in our hospital. On the background of the above, we report the results of an interventional study carried out between September and November 2007, to improve VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis prescription for all acute medical admissions. The enoxaparin prescription rates for medical inpatients before and after applying a reminder for VTE risk assessment on the AMU admission sheet were compared. Admission sheets for patients coming in over various days of the week were screened for adherence to the guidelines within 24 h of a consultant-led emergency post-take ward round. Ninety-five admission sheets were screened before applying reminder labels and then 95 each with a reminder at the beginning and at the end of the admission sheet respectively. The reminder label read: Think! Does your patient need thromboprophylaxis? Consider enoxaparin 40 mg unless contraindicated. Table 1 describes the diagnosis/organ system affection of the 285 patients. The thromboprophylaxis prescription pattern is shown below in Table 2. The improvement (from 42% to 77%) in enoxaparin prescription rates after applying reminder labels to the admission sheets was significant (p < 0.001). There was no difference whether the reminders were applied at the beginning or at the end of the admission sheet. We found one patient in the reminder group where enoxaparin was inappropriately prescribed. Adherence to audited clinical guidelines based on best clinical practice has a role to play in improving patient safety and care standards. It is also crucial when there is a quick turnover of junior medical staff as occurs in most hospital settings. This is especially true of thromboprophylaxis; given the documented consequences of omission potentially leading to avoidable deaths. Very few studies based on ‘adherence improving strategies’ or ‘reminders’ have been published in the past (5,6). This interventional study demonstrates an audited improvement in clinical practice. The use of a simple sticker improved VTE risk assessment significantly and enabled the hospital now to comply with the national guidelines. Following the success of this study, the hospital has redesigned the AMU admission sheet with a reminder for VTE risk assessment printed on the front page. The AMU will also focus more closely on VTE risk assessment at the junior doctors’ induction sessions. The effectiveness of this strategy will be re-audited in due course. Reminders on admission sheets can improve the rates of VTE risk assessment. This improvement will help to ensure compliance with national recommendations to improve VTE risk assessment of all hospitalised patients.

Rational thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients: not quite there yet

Routine thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients is based on trials that predominantly use asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as the endpoint. As asymptomatic DVT is 10-30-fold more common than symptomatic DVT, this exaggerates estimates of benefit and cost-effectiveness. Based on symptomatic disease, the number needed to treat per venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevented is high (150-1600), and the true cost-effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for symptomatic event reduction is uncertain. The incidence of major bleeding among patients receiving prophylaxis is at least equal to the reduction in clinical VTE. Routine thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients is not warranted, and better patient selection is needed.