Use Of Thromboprophylaxis In Patients Research Articles

Understanding the use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with lower limb immobilisation

Understanding the use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with lower limb immobilisation

Venous thromboembolism in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: development of a predictive model.

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). However, thromboprophylaxis is largely underused. This study aimed to determine possible VTE development risk factors and to develop a novel predictive model. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with newly diagnosed AML. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression to estimate binary outcomes and identify potential predictors. Based on our final model, a dynamic nomogram was constructed with the goal of facilitating VTE probability calculation. Out of 626 eligible patients with AML, 72 (11.5%) developed VTE during 6 months of follow-up. Six parameters were independent predictors: male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.077-2.065), prior history of thrombotic events (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.4-4.96), international normalized ratio (OR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05-0.95), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.94), and intensive therapy (OR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.07-3.91). The C statistics for the model was 0.68. The model was adequately calibrated and internally validated. The decision-curve analysis suggested the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with VTE risks between 8 and 20%. We developed a novel and convenient tool that may assist clinicians in identifying patients whose VTE risk is high enough to warrant thromboprophylaxis.

Prophylaxis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparin-tinzaparin: Real world evidence.

Thromboprophylaxis, as a preventive measure for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), may be beneficial for patients with active cancer and high-risk for thrombosis. The present post hoc analysis include a total of 407 patients enrolled in the Greek Management of Thrombosis study, who received thromboprophylaxis with tinzaparin. The objectives of the present analysis were: i) To obtain sufficient evidence for the administration of prophylaxis in patients with active cancer, irrespective of Khorana risk assessment model score; ii) to identify the selection criteria for both dose and duration of tinzaparin; and iii) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin administered for CAT prophylaxis. The main tumor types for the patients included in the present study were as follows: Lung (25.1%), pancreatic (14.3%), breast (9.1%), stomach (8.4%), colorectal (7.9%) and ovarian (7.6%). Furthermore, metastatic disease was observed in 69.5% of the patients. High thrombotic burden agents (HTBAs) were administered to 66.3% of the patients, and 17.4% received erythropoietin. A total of 43.7% of the patients exhibited a Khorana score <2. The results of the present study demonstrated that both the presence of metastatic disease and the use of HTBAs seemed to influence oncologists' decisions for the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with active cancer, regardless of Khorana score. Tinzaparin, in dose expressed in the standard notation for heparins, i.e., anti-Xa factor international units (Anti-Xa IU), was administered at an intermediate dose (InterD; 8,000-12,000 Anti-Xa IU; once daily) to 52.4% of patients, while the remaining patients received a prophylactic dose (ProD; ≤4,500 Anti-Xa IU; once daily). The average duration of thromoprophylaxis was 5 months. Furthermore, a total of 14 (3.4%) thrombotic events and 6 (1.5%) minor bleeding events were recorded. A total of four thrombotic events were observed following an InterD treatment of tinzaparin, while 10 thrombotic events were observed following ProD treatment. The present study also demonstrated that an InterD of tinzaparin was administered more frequently to patients with a body mass index >30 kg/m2, a history of smoking and a history of metastatic disease, along with administration of erythropoietin. InterD tinzaparin treatment was found to be potentially more efficacious and without safety concerns. The present study is a registered clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov code, NCT03292107; registration date, September 25, 2017).

Low in-hospital mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 receiving thromboprophylaxis: data from the multicentre observational START-COVID Register

COVID-19 infection causes respiratory pathology with severe interstitial pneumonia and extra-pulmonary complications; in particular, it may predispose to thromboembolic disease. The current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19, however, the optimal heparin dosage treatment is not well-established. We conducted a multicentre, Italian, retrospective, observational study on COVID-19 patients admitted to ordinary wards, to describe clinical characteristic of patients at admission, bleeding and thrombotic events occurring during hospital stay. The strategies used for thromboprophylaxis and its role on patient outcome were, also, described. 1091 patients hospitalized were included in the START-COVID-19 Register. During hospital stay, 769 (70.7%) patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs: low molecular weight heparin (the great majority enoxaparin), fondaparinux, or unfractioned heparin. These patients were more frequently affected by comorbidities, such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, previous thromboembolism, neurological disease, and cancer with respect to patients who did not receive thromboprophylaxis. During hospital stay, 1.2% patients had a major bleeding event. All patients were treated with antithrombotic drugs; 5.4%, had venous thromboembolism [30.5% deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 66.1% pulmonary embolism (PE), and 3.4% patients had DVT + PE]. In our cohort the mortality rate was 18.3%. Heparin use was independently associated with survival in patients aged ≥ 59 years at multivariable analysis. We confirmed the high mortality rate of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients in ordinary wards. Treatment with antithrombotic drugs is significantly associated with a reduction of mortality rates especially in patients older than 59 years.

Validation of Caprini’s Saphenous Ablation Scores

Introduction: Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) after varicose vein surgery is well recognized. Less well documented is Endovenous Heat-Induced Thrombosis (EHIT), thrombus extension into a deep vein after superficial venous thermo ablation. There is no current agreement on the routine use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing varicose vein surgery. more data on the incidence of VTE, and the need for postoperative thromboprophylaxis are necessary to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines. Aim of the study: Comparison of the use of Caprini's Saphenous Ablation Scores versus Standard Caprini’s Score for the prophylaxis of VTE in EVLA. Patients &amp; Methods: 60 patients admitted to Royal Vascular Center, Alexandria - Egypt. From Jan. 1st, 2021, to June 30th 2021 divided in 3 groups. - Group A) Treated by ablation of Great saphenous vein and received VTE prophylaxis according to Caprini’s Saphenous Ablation Scores Fig 1-A &amp; B -Group B) Treated by ablation of Great saphenous vein and received VTE prophylaxis according to Standard Caprini’s Risk Assessment Score for VTE Fig 2-A&amp;B - C) Treated by ablation of Great saphenous vein without VTE prophylaxis Ablation was done using radial 1480 YAG laser fibers and Post-operative Duplex was done one day, 3 month and one-year. Results: Age: 35.6+0.2, 34.3+0.5 and 37.6+0.09 years in the 3 groups M/F: 6/14, 8/12 and 7/13. In group A) all patients showed absent reflux post operatively and in all follow up visits. Duplex examination revealed significant reflux in the great saphenous veins in all patients and ranged from 0.7:0.9 Sec. and mean duration 0.7+0.09 Sec. Vein diameter ranged from (0.6: 0.9,X+0.76 CM.) in group A), (0.6: 0.8,X+0.7 CM.) in group B) , (0.5: 0.8,X+0.65 CM.) in group C) According to Caprini’s saphenous score 14 patients 70% were classified as low risk, 4 patients 20% were of moderate risk and 2 patients 10% of high-risk in Group A, while applying standard Caprini’s Score in group B patients revealed: 6 patients 30% were of moderate risk and 14 patients 70% of high risk in Group B ) . 3 patients developed superficial thrombophlebitis 15% and one patient 5% developed left calf DVT in Group C, while no VTE events were shown in both A&amp;B Groups Significant drop in CVSS in patients in the three groups. Conclusion: Risk assessment of patients undergoing varicose veins ablation should be done and applying Caprini’s saphenous score as a better alternative to Standard Caprini’s score for VTE prophylaxis and is considered a safe and cost-effective tool in VTE prevention in these patients.

Thromboprophylaxis for inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care settings: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background: Patients with advanced cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Increasingly, patients are admitted to palliative care settings for brief admissions, with greater numbers of discharges (vs deaths) reported internationally. There is limited guidance around the use of thromboprophylaxis or incidence of venous thromboembolism for these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to review the use of thromboprophylaxis as well as incidence of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in palliative care units or residential hospices for patients with advanced cancer. Design: A systematic review using Cochrane methods. Data sources: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 28 September 2018 along with a grey literature search; the reference lists of selected papers were hand-searched. Inclusion criteria were original papers assessing thromboprophylaxis use in palliative care units or residential hospices for adult inpatients with cancer. Two reviewers independently selected and appraised papers using a tool designed for disparate data. Heterogeneity in study design made a meta-analysis not possible. Results: A total of 11 full-text papers (9 quantitative and 2 qualitative) and 11 abstracts were included. Thromboprophylaxis use ranged between 4% and 53%; venous thromboembolism rates between 0.5% and 20%; and bleeding incidence was between 0.01% and 9.8%. Risk assessment tools were used infrequently and adherence to international thromboprophylaxis guidelines ranged between 5% and 71%. Physician opinions differed around the use of thromboprophylaxis; patients were largely accepting of thromboprophylaxis if it was offered. Conclusion: There is limited evidence around the optimal use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care settings. Although some patients may derive benefit, further research in this area is warranted.

Pronóstico de la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa en cirugía ortopédica o pacientes traumatológicos y uso de tromboprofilaxis

BackgroundThere is scarce evidence about the prognosis of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery and in patients suffering non-surgical trauma. MethodsWe used the RIETE database (Registro Informatizado de pacientes con Enfermedad Trombo Embólica) to compare the prognosis of venous thromboembolism and the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing different orthopedic procedures and in trauma patients not requiring surgery. ResultsFrom March 2001 to March 2015, a total of 61,789 patients were enrolled in RIETE database. Of these, 943 (1.52%) developed venous thromboembolism after elective arthroplasty, 445 (0.72%) after hip fracture, 1,045 (1.69%) after non-major orthopedic surgery and 2,136 (3.46%) after non-surgical trauma. Overall, 2,283 patients (50%) initially presented with pulmonary embolism. Within the first 90 days of therapy, 30 patients (0.66%; 95% CI 0.45-0.93) died from pulmonary embolism. The rate of fatal pulmonary embolism was significantly higher after hip fracture surgery (n = 9 [2.02%]) than after elective arthroplasty (n = 5 [0.53%]), non-major orthopedic surgery (n = 5 [0.48%]) or non surgical trauma (n = 11 [0.48%]). Thromboprophylaxis was more commonly used for hip fracture (93%) or elective arthroplasty (94%) than for non-major orthopedic surgery (71%) or non-surgical trauma (32%). Major bleeding was significantly higher after hip fracture surgery (4%) than that observed after elective arthroplasty (1.6%), non-major orthopedic surgery (1.5%) or non-surgical trauma (1.4%). ConclusionsThromboprophylaxis was less frequently used in lower risk procedures despite the absolute number of fatal pulmonary embolism after non-major orthopedic surgery or non-surgical trauma, exceeded that observed after high risk procedures.

Venous Thromboembolism Incidence and Prophylaxis Use After Gastrectomy Among Korean Patients With Gastric Adenocarcinoma

The guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society for Clinical Oncology recommend the routine use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. However, many physicians in Asian countries use venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis much less often because of the perceived lower VTE incidence in this population. To evaluate the incidence of postgastrectomy VTE in Korean patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, and to identify the complications and evaluate the efficacy and safety of VTE prevention methods. The Optimal Prophylactic Method for Venous Thromboembolism After Gastrectomy in Korean Patients (PROTECTOR) randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015. Patients with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma presenting to a single center (Seoul St Mary's Hospital in Seoul, South Korea) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either an intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)-only group or an IPC+low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin sodium group. The data were analyzed on intention-to-treat and per protocol bases. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to October 30, 2017. Venous thromboembolism incidence was the primary outcome. Postoperative complications, particularly those associated with VTE prophylaxis methods, were the secondary end point. Of the 682 patients enrolled and randomized, 447 (65.5%) were male and 245 (34.5%) were female, with a mean (SD) age of 57.67 (12.94) years. Among the 666 patients included in the analysis, the overall incidence of VTE was 2.1%. The incidence of VTE was statistically significantly higher in the IPC-only group compared with the IPC+LMW heparin group (3.6%; 95% CI, 2.05%-6.14% vs 0.6%; 95% CI, 0.17%-2.18%; P = .008). Among the 14 patients (2.1%) with VTE, 13 were asymptomatic and received a deep vein thrombosis diagnosis, whereas 1 patient received a symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism diagnosis. The overall incidence of bleeding complications was 5.1%. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly higher in the IPC+LMW heparin group compared with the IPC-only group (9.1% vs 1.2%; P < .001). No cases of VTE-associated mortality were noted. Use of IPC alone is inferior to the use of IPC+LMW heparin in preventing postoperative VTE. Because LMW heparin is associated with a high bleeding risk, further study is needed to stratify the patients at high risk for perioperative development of VTE. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448746.

Prognosis of venous thromboembolism in orthopaedic surgery or trauma patients and use of thromboprophylaxis

BackgroundThere is scarce evidence about the prognosis of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery and in patients suffering non-surgical trauma. MethodsWe used the RIETE database (Registro Informatizado de pacientes con Enfermedad Trombo Embólica) to compare the prognosis of venous thromboembolism and the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing different orthopaedic procedures and in trauma patients not requiring surgery. ResultsFrom March 2001 to March 2015, a total of 61,789 patients were enrolled in RIETE database. Of these, 943 (1.52%) developed venous thromboembolism after elective arthroplasty, 445 (0.72%) after hip fracture, 1045 (1.69%) after non-major orthopaedic surgery and 2136 (3.46%) after non-surgical trauma. Overall, 2283 patients (50%) initially presented with pulmonary embolism. Within the first 90 days of therapy, 30 patients (0.66%; 95% CI 0.45–0.93) died from pulmonary embolism. The rate of fatal pulmonary embolism was significantly higher after hip fracture surgery (n=9 [2.02%]) than after elective arthroplasty (n=5 [0.53%]), non-major orthopaedic surgery (n=5 [0.48%]) or non surgical trauma (n=11 [0.48%]). Thromboprophylaxis was more commonly used for hip fracture (93%) or elective arthroplasty (94%) than for non-major orthopaedic surgery (71%) or non-surgical trauma (32%). Major bleeding was significantly higher after hip fracture surgery (4%) than that observed after elective arthroplasty (1.6%), non-major orthopaedic surgery (1.5%) or non-surgical trauma (1.4%). ConclusionsThromboprophylaxis was less frequently used in lower risk procedures despite the absolute number of fatal pulmonary embolism after non-major orthopaedic surgery or non-surgical trauma, exceeded that observed after high risk procedures.

Apixaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: Rational and design of the AVERT trial

Patients with active cancer have a heightened risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This risk is further increased by the initiation of chemotherapy. Although previous studies have suggested that the use of parenteral thromboprophylaxis in all ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy significantly decreases the rate of VTE, current clinical practice guidelines do not recommend routine use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population. A major criticism of these studies has been the inclusion of patients at lower risk for VTE, which may have diluted the potential beneficial effect of the parenteral thromboprophylaxis. It is therefore imperative to appropriately risk stratify ambulatory cancer patients using a validated scoring system (e.g. Khorana risk score) in order to identify those most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Direct oral anticoagulants, such as apixaban, may offer a convenient and safe option for thromboprophylaxis. As such, AVERT will randomize 574 ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy who are at high-risk for VTE (as defined by a Khorana score of ≥2) to Apixaban 2.5 mg BID versus placebo. The primary study outcome will be the first episode of objectively documented symptomatic or incidental VTE (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) within the first 6 months (180 days ± 3) following initiation of the blinded study drug for both intervention and placebo groups. The secondary safety outcomes include major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and overall survival rates. This study will hopefully offer evidence regarding the benefit of apixaban in ambulatory patients at high risk for VTE receiving chemotherapy.

Real-life use of thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for pulmonary disorders: A single-center retrospective study.

Underuse of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients is still common worldwide. Little is known about the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with pulmonary diseases in everyday hospital practice. The aim of this study was to assess the use of pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in real-life patients with pulmonary diseases. In this retrospective study, 2 validated scoring systems, i.e., the Padua prediction score and Caprini VTE risk assessment, were used to assess the VTE risk in 2011 patients (1133 men and 878 women), aged 18 years or more, hospitalized for pulmonary diseases (median 6 days) in a single tertiary pulmonary medical center from January to December 2014. Using the Padua prediction score, we identified 428 (21.28%) patients at a high risk for VTE, including 167 (39.01%) who received thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and 261 (60.98%) individuals at a high risk without thromboprophylaxis (p < 0.001). A total of 888 (44.16%) patients who scored 5 points or more using the Caprini VTE risk assessment were identified as subjects at a high risk for VTE, including 34.79% of patients receiving thromboprophylaxis. From among patients at a high risk for VTE, 579 (65.20%) did not receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis (p < 0.001). Underuse of thromboprophylaxis was observed more commonly among patients hospitalized for lung cancer or pneumonia (50.60% and 24.87% of patients at a high risk for VTE without prophylaxis, respectively). Thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with pulmonary diseases regardless of the scoring system used. Implementation of thromboprophylaxis should be markedly improved in this patient group.

Prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis in France: A national survey among vascular disease and supportive care specialists.

Long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) has been well-established. Conversely, the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer remains controversial in the absence of homogeneous guidelines. Our aim was to assess the awareness of treatment guidelines and the management of patients with CAT in daily clinical practice. A national survey based on an open questionnaire developed by a panel of health professionals including specialists in vascular medicine, oncology, supportive care and pharmacy, was proposed on line to 2104 specialists experts in the management of CAT with the objective to collect at least 400 answers. Clinical practice assessment included the treatment of lung adenocarcinoma-associated thrombosis, the use of thromboprophylaxis and factors influencing the management of patients with CAT. A total of 401 questionnaires were completed by specialists of vascular medicine (68%), oncology (12%) and other (20%). LMWH was the preferred option for over 90% of the participants for the treatment of recent overt proximal pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis. Up to 70% of the participants considered treatment duration for 6 months and more than 12 months in case of active malignancy. Patient management in the setting of incidental VTE and thromboprophylaxis were heterogeneous in the absence of clear guidance while VTE risk scores would be used by only 14% of participants. Patients with CAT are properly managed based on clear and consistent guidelines. Patient care is heterogeneous regarding treatment duration beyond 6 months and thromboprophylaxis while VTE risk scores are misused. Identification of referent health care professionals for CAT management and more clear guidelines are required.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with Cisplatin based chemotherapy \u2014 a cohort study

BackgroundCancer related thrombosis not only increases morbidity and mortality but also poses a significant financial burden on health care system. Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients substantially increases with the addition of chemotherapy. Lately, cisplatin has been implicated as an independent factor. There is little data estimating the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapy when compared to other chemotherapeutic agents.MethodsPatients who had received chemotherapy between November 2010 and October 2012 were retrospectively identified from a single institute cancer registry. 200 patients who had received cisplatin based chemotherapy were identified as the exposed group while 200 patients who had received non-Cisplatin based regimens were identified as the non-exposed group. Patients were followed for development of VTE throughout the entire duration of therapy and one month thereafter. Cox proportional hazard model was used to compute relative risks with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThe baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Mean age for the entire cohort was 55.4 ± 10.7 years and male to female ratio was almost 1:1. On univariate analysis, cisplatin based chemotherapy, presence of central venous catheter, female gender, poor performance status, high risk stratification according to the Khorana model and use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor were all significantly associated with the development of VTE. The crude relative risk for the incidence of VTE in cisplatin group was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.4 – 4.2) times compared to the non-Cisplatin group. When the relative risk was adjusted for the above variables in multivariable analysis, it increased to 3.3 (95% CI, 1.6 – 6.8) compared to the control group.ConclusionA high incidence of VTE in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapy was demonstrated in this study. Prospective studies are warranted to establish this observation with certainty and to explore the possible use of thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapeutic regimens.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Receiving Cisplatin Based Chemotherapy: a Retrospective Cohort Study

ABSTRACT Aim: Cancer related thrombosis not only increases morbidity and mortality but also poses a significant financial burden on health care system. Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients substantially increases with the addition of chemotherapy. Lately cisplatin has been implicated as an independent factor. There is little data estimating the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapy when compared to other chemotherapeutic agents. Methods: Patients who had received chemotherapy between October 2010 and October 2012 were retrospectively identified from a single institute cancer registry. 200 patients who had received cisplatin based chemotherapy were identified as the exposed group while 200 patients who had received non-cisplatin based regimens were identified as the non-exposed group. Patients were evaluated for development of VTE throughout the entire duration of therapy and one month thereafter. Cox proportional hazard model was used to compute relative risks with 95% confidence intervals. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Mean age for the entire cohort was 55.4 ± 10.7 years and male to female ratio was almost 1:1. On univariate analysis, cisplatin based chemotherapy, presence of central venous catheter, female gender, poor performance status, high risk stratification according to the Khorana model and use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor were all significantly associated with the development of VTE. The crude risk ratio of the incidence of VTE in cisplatin group was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.4–5.6) times compared to the non-cisplatin group. When the risk ratio was adjusted for the above variables in multivariable analysis, it increased to 3.3 (95% CI, 1.6–6.9) compared to control. Conclusions: A high incidence of VTE in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapy was demonstrated in this study. Prospective studies are warranted to establish this observation with certainty and to explore the possible use of thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving cisplatin based chemotherapeutic regimens. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thrombosis Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

There is considerable uncertainty related to the thromboembolic risk after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), or venous thromboembolism (VTE) at hospital discharge following laparoscopic cholecystectomy were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. From 1998 through 2009, 4 107 430 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed. The in-hospital prevalence of PE was 0.15%, DVT was 0.40%, and VTE was 0.53%. The prevalence of PE increased from 0.04% in patients aged 21 to 30 years to 0.31% in patients aged 71 to 80 years. Deaths due to in-hospital PE were 780 (0.02%) of the 4 107 430 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The rate of death increased with age. The prevalence of VTE following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is low and fatal PE is rare. The risk of VTE increased with age, as did the risk of death in those who had PE. These data may be useful in assessing the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Thrombotic risk assessment questionary helps increase the use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures.

Background:Pelvic and acetabular fractures have been known as one of the high risk factors for developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but thromboprophylaxis for patients with such fractures remains underused despite its widely accepted benefits. Current guidelines have not been universally adopted in clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to introduce a Thrombotic Risk Assessment Questionary (assessment table) according to evidence-based guidelines and evaluate its impact on the use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures.Materials and Methods:We retrospectively reviewed 305 consecutive patients with pelvic and acetabular fractures from August 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. The control group without using the assessment table included 153 patients admitted during the first 13 months, and the assessment group using the assessment table included 152 patients admitted during the following months. Data on clinical outcomes of DVT, the number of patients receiving prophylaxis, and the time of the first dose of anticoagulant were collected.Results:Compared with the control group, Patients using the assessment table were more likely to be given DVT prophylaxis (84.2% vs. 37.3%, P < 0.05) and the time of the first dose of anticoagulant was reduced (4.32 days ± 4.78 days vs. 6.6 days ± 5.96 days, P < 0.05). Patients in the assessment group had lower risk of developing DVT (8.6% vs. 20.3%, P < 0.05).Conclusion:The assessment table can significantly improve the use of thromboprophylaxis after pelvic and acetabular fractures, which will likely reduce the incidence of DVT. Developing individual hospital prophylaxis strategy is an effective way to determine whether hospitalized patients should receive pharmacologic and/or mechanical prophylaxis or not.

Thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving inpatient palliative care: a survey of present practice in Austria

There is limited data on the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with advanced cancer. We therefore aimed to study the practice of thromboprophylaxis in palliative care units in Austria. We monitored use, indication, and contraindications to thromboprophylaxis in 134 patients hospitalized in 21 palliative care units in a prospective, cross-sectional study. Forty-seven percent of patients were on low molecular weight heparin on the day of the study for primary or secondary thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis had been withdrawn in 18% of the patients upon admission to the palliative care unit. Contraindications for thromboprophylaxis were present in 27% of all patients. Cancer was present in 86% of the patients. The use of thromboprophylaxis was similar in cancer patients and in non-cancer patients (49% vs. 42%). Contraindications for thromboprophylaxis were present in 24% of all cancer patients. Significantly more bedridden cancer patients had contraindications for prophylaxis when compared with mobile cancer patients (35% vs. 16%; p = 0.03). Low performance status was by far the most frequent contraindication among these patients (89%). Seventy-one percent of all bedridden cancer patients were treated in accordance with common guidelines for thromboprophylaxis when contraindications were taken into account. Eighty-seven percent of patients who had been involved in decision making opted for getting prophylaxis. Our data reveal that about half of all cancer patients in palliative care units are treated with thromboprophylaxis. Low performance status was the most frequent contraindication for thromboprophylaxis.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Below-knee Immobilisation of the Leg - survey of Current Practice in the Netherlands.

Introduction. Anticoagulant treatment might be used to prevent DVT and its complications in patients with leg immobilisation. Methods. In April 2007, a questionnaire was sent to all 79 Dutch surgical and orthopaedic teaching hospitals and was used to obtain information in relation to use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with immobilisation for below-knee leg injuries in their department. Results. A total of 79 questionnaires were sent, of which 69 were returned (response rate 88%). In total, 8 of the 69 departments never used thromboprophylaxis at all (12%), 27 of 61 (44%) only prescribed treatment in patients with a general elevated thrombosis risk. Nobody only treated specific injuries. Low molecular weight heparin was the most common agent by far, being prescribed in 95% of the cases. Also in 95% of the cases, the duration of treatment was the whole period of immobilisation. Discussion. We aimed our survey at highlighting variation in practice among Dutch surgical and orthopaedic departments, regarding the use of throm-boprophylaxis after immobilisation of the lower leg. We investigated the type of agent used, the timing and duration of the prophylaxis, and the use of a protocol. Conclusions. There is a substantial variation and inconsistency in practice among surgical and orthopaedic departments in the Netherlands due to different advices in clinical guidelines. Future guidelines should state a clear advice. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended by us for all patients with immobilisation for lower extremity injuries, irrespective of age and other risk factors. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and the use of new thromboprophylactic agents.

Fatal postoperative pulmonary embolism in mild haemophilia

The use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with haemophilia receiving factor replacement is often not considered necessary, but remains an area of debate. In this report we describe a patient with mild haemophilia A, who underwent major pelvic surgery. He had several underlying risk factors associated with the development of thromboembolism, and ultimately died as a direct consequence of multiple pulmonary emboli. The need for thromboprophylaxis and the risk balance ratio should always be considered in patients with bleeding disorders if they fall into what would otherwise be high-risk category for hospital acquired venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in a South Australian teaching hospital.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is relatively common among hospitalized patients, is often clinically silent, and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Risk stratification and routine use of thromboprophylaxis for patients at moderate to high risk for VTE are key strategies that can be used to prevent VTE. To assess the appropriateness of the selection and implementation of thromboprophylactic measures for prevention of VTE within a South Australian teaching hospital. Guidelines for risk stratification and prophylaxis were compiled from a range of studies, consensus statements, and tertiary references. Using prospective, observational methodology, data collection was performed through case note audit for 130 inpatient admissions over a 4-week period. The decisions regarding the usage of thromboprophylaxis were considered inappropriate in 32% of cases in the study cohort. Suboptimal practices were also observed with respect to factors including the choice between mechanical and pharmacologic methods and the timing of initiation and cessation of thromboprophylaxis. These findings provide evidence suggesting that the selection and implementation of thromboprophylaxis require improvement and that appropriate means to facilitate this improvement need to be developed and evaluated through future research.