Thromboprophylaxis rates in US medical centers: success or failure?

Venous thromboembolism prevention: a systematic review of methods to improve prophylaxis and decrease events in the hospitalized patient

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is currently a key initiative internationally and in US hospitals, where there has been a recent focus on national quality initiatives to prevent hospital-acquired VTE. Multiple strategies exist to prevent VTE by increasing prophylaxis rates in the hospitalized setting. Active, multifaceted interventions, including provider education, an active reminder to the provider, and regular audit and feedback to medical and hospital staff, appear to be the most effective current interventions. Active intervention programs have been validated both as electronic alerts, with or without computerized clinical decision support software and, more recently, human alerts, many of which utilize in-hospital pharmacists. A passive strategy, such as guideline dissemination, should not be used as a lone method. Although inappropriate duration remains a key reason as to why at-risk patients do not receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis within the hospital (defined by type, dose, and duration of prophylaxis), few studies address duration compared with hospital length of stay. Preventable VTE is a new quality outcome measure for hospitals but is measured in few studies. Future studies should focus on comparing various multifaceted interventions to assess their effect over time, including endpoints of bleeding for safety, appropriate type, dose, and duration of prophylaxis, overall and preventable VTE, and the impact on unnecessary prophylaxis for patients not at risk.

Lack of thromboprophylaxis across the care continuum in US medical patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is suboptimal, with many at-risk medical patients not receiving anticoagulants in hospital. Among those who receive anticoagulants in the hospital, thromboprophylaxis is frequently stopped at discharge despite persistent risk. Few studies have investigated prophylaxis use across the continuum of care. We analyzed anticoagulant use in medical patients in hospital and after discharge. Patient records (January 2005-December 2007) from medical patients with cancer, heart failure, severe lung disease, or infectious disease who were deemed at risk for VTE by the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were included. Records were queried for inpatient and outpatient anticoagulant use by cross-matching data from the Premier Perspective discharge database with the i3/Ingenix LabRx outpatient and inpatient database. Of the 9675 medical patients identified, only 36.1% received inpatient anticoagulation (24.9% cancer patients, 30.1% infectious disease patients, 42.5% severe lung disease patients, and 56.3% heart failure patients). Of those who received in-hospital anticoagulants, most received enoxaparin (58.6%) followed by unfractionated heparin and other prophylactic agents. Only 1.8% of medical patients were prescribed anticoagulants within 30 days after discharge, ranging from 1.1% of patients with infectious disease to 4.8% of patients with heart failure. The majority of patients discharged who received outpatient anticoagulation filled prescriptions for warfarin, followed by enoxaparin plus warfarin. This real-world study demonstrates that only one-third of at-risk medical patients receive anticoagulants in hospital, with < 2% continuing to receive prophylaxis after discharge. Therefore, there is a need to improve the provision of thromboprophylaxis in the continuum of care for acutely ill medical patients.

Adherence to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis orders in hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVE

We compared adherence to unfractionated heparin (UFH) 2 or 3 times daily prophylaxis orders versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) once daily orders. Our goals were to determine which strategy demonstrated the best adherence in terms of timing and frequency of dose administration, and to determine reasons for ordered heparin not being administered.

METHODS

We queried our electronic medication administration record where nurses document reasons for delayed administration or omitted doses. We identified 250 consecutive patients who were prescribed prophylaxis with UFH 2 or 3 times daily or LMWH once daily. We followed patients for their hospitalization to determine adherence to physicians' prophylaxis orders.

RESULTS

Adherence, defined as the ratio of prophylaxis doses given to doses ordered, was greater with LMWH (94.9%) than UFH 3 times daily (87.8%) or UFH twice daily (86.8%) regimens (P <.001). Patients receiving LMWH more often received all of their scheduled prophylaxis doses (77%) versus UFH 3 times daily (54%) or UFH twice daily (45%) (P <.001). There were no differences between regimens regarding reasons for omitted doses. The most common reason for late or omitted doses was patient refusal, which explained 44% of the UFH and 39% of the LMWH orders that were not administered.

CONCLUSIONS

LMWH once a day had better adherence than UFH 2 or 3 times daily. For both LMWH and UFH, patient refusal was the most common reason for not administering prophylaxis as prescribed. These findings require consideration when evaluating pharmacological prophylaxis strategies. Educational programs, explaining the rationale, may motivate patients to improve adherence during hospitalization.

Improving venous thromboembolism performance: a comprehensive guide for physicians and hospitalists

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major potentially preventable cause of hospital deaths and is associated with a substantial clinical and economic burden in the United States. Despite the availability of effective thromboprophylactic agents and evidence-based management guidelines, VTE prophylaxis is commonly underused and inappropriately prescribed in real-world practice. Several US organizations have developed quality improvement initiatives to close the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice, and thus reduce VTE-associated morbidity and mortality. The Surgical Care Improvement Project and the National Quality Forum, in collaboration with The Joint Commission, have developed performance measures to allow assessment of the quality and appropriateness of VTE prevention practices. A number of potential barriers to optimal VTE performance exist, including underestimation of the risks posed by VTE, overestimation of the risk of bleeding complications, and a lack of familiarity with clinical guidelines. Hospitals are urged to develop an institution-wide policy to improve VTE prevention and employ several quality-improvement initiatives to overcome barriers and optimize prescribing practices. In particular, multiple integrated, active strategies are required to raise awareness of the need for appropriate VTE prophylaxis. Hospital-wide education, risk-assessment tools, electronic alerts, computerized decision-support systems, together with audit and feedback mechanisms, are valuable tools that can be used to promote the use of performance measures to drive improvement of VTE prophylaxis and clinical outcomes.

Issues in assessing and reducing the risk for venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE

To describe issues and challenges associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment and the use of drug therapies for VTE prophylaxis.

SUMMARY

Patients at risk for VTE are a heterogeneous group. Systems for scoring VTE risk have been developed to identify patients who warrant prophylaxis, but most risk-scoring systems are complex and have not been validated. The optimal drug therapies and dosing strategies for reducing VTE risk are not well defined for many clinical situations, despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines from authoritative sources. Patient characteristics can influence the agent selected, dosing, timing of initiation, and duration of drug therapy. Individualized approaches to prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery should take into account the presence of severe renal impairment, critical illness, morbid obesity, epidural catheters, and history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. To provide safe, effective VTE prophylaxis, clinicians, including health-system pharmacists, should collaborate in developing management plans tailored to patients' needs.

CONCLUSION

Preventing VTE is a challenge that can be addressed by gaining an understanding of the issues involved in patient assessment and prophylactic drug therapy and using a team approach to optimize patient outcomes.

Improving the quality of care for patients at risk for venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE

To describe risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE), quality improvement efforts for VTE prevention, and strategies health-system pharmacists can use to improve anticoagulant use and outcomes in patients at risk for VTE.

SUMMARY

Risk factors for VTE involve the presence of one or more components of Virchow's triad (endothelial injury, circulatory stasis, and hypercoagulable states) and are exceedingly common in hospitalized patients. Several effective methods for VTE prophylaxis are readily available but remain underused. Quality improvement initiatives to improve VTE prophylaxis rates include evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, mandatory practice and outcomes reporting, and pay-for-performance requirements. The development and implementation of VTE risk assessment tools and treatment algorithms, protocols, policies, and procedures are among the strategies that health-system pharmacists can use to improve anticoagulant use and quality of care in patients at risk for VTE.

CONCLUSION

The use of anticoagulant therapy presents health-system pharmacists with both challenges and opportunities to improve the quality of care in patients at risk for VTE.

Defining the population in need of thromboprophylaxis - making hospitals safer

Venous thromboembolism in adults is related to recent hospitalisation in approximately half of all cases and approximately half of all hospitalised adult patients are considered to be at risk by conventional criteria. Due to advances in surgical practice, the identification of surgical patients in need of prophylaxis has become less rather than more certain. Faster surgical technique, regional anaesthesia and early mobilisation are considered to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism and hence possibly obviate the need for prophylaxis after early discharge from hospital. An increasing proportion of patients with hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism are medical patients, but the need to identify medical patients that require thromboprophylaxis is a new aspect of clinical practice for many physicians and prophylaxis remains under-utilised in non-surgical hospitalised patients. In this review prevention of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism is considered as a patient safety issue in the context of changing clinical practice. Strategies for refining and validating risk assessment models and evaluating the effect of risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis are suggested.

Venous thromboembolism: a public health concern

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or both, affects an estimated 300,000-600,000 individuals in the U.S. each year, causing considerable morbidity and mortality. It is a disorder that can occur in all races and ethnicities, all age groups, and both genders. With many of the known risk factors-advanced age, immobility, surgery, obesity-increasing in society, VTE is an important and growing public health problem. Recently, a marked increase has occurred in federal and national efforts to raise awareness and acknowledge the need for VTE prevention. Yet, many basic public health functions-surveillance, research, and awareness-are still needed. Learning and understanding more about the burden and causes of VTE, and raising awareness among the public and healthcare providers through a comprehensive public health approach, has enormous potential to prevent and reduce death and morbidity from deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism throughout the U.S.

The role of risk factors in delayed diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Despite diagnostic advances, delays in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) are common.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between delays in the diagnosis of PE and underlying risk factors for PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the records of 408 patients with acute PE. Patients were divided into 2 groups, surgical or medical, based on risk factors leading to the embolism. Analysis involved demographic characteristics of the patients, dates of symptom onset, first medical evaluation, and confirmatory diagnostic tests. Diagnostic delay was described as diagnosis of PE more than 1 week after symptom onset.

RESULTS

The mean time to diagnosis for all patients was 6.95 ± 8.5 days (median, 3 days; range, 0-45 days). Of the total number of patients, 29.6% had presented within the first 24 hours and 72.3% within the first week. The mean time to diagnosis was 4.4 ± 7.6 days (median, 2 days; range, 0-45 days) in the surgical group and 8.0 ± 8.6 days (median, 4 days; range, 0-45 days) in the medical group (P = .000). The mean time to diagnosis in the medical group was approximately 4 times greater than that of the surgical group on univariate analysis. Early or delayed diagnosis had no significant impact on mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Delay in the diagnosis of PE is an important issue, particularly in medical patients. We suggest that a public health and educational initiative is needed to improve efficiency in PE diagnosis.

The potential benefits of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer patients

Cancer patients are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism due to a range of factors directly related to their disease and its treatment. Given the high incidence of post-surgical venous thromboembolism in cancer patients and the poor outcomes associated with its development, thromboprophylaxis is warranted. A number of evidence-based guidelines delineate anticoagulation regimens for venous thromboembolism treatment, primary and secondary prophylaxis, and long-term anticoagulation in cancer patients. However, many give equal weight to several different drugs and do not make specific recommendations regarding duration of therapy. In terms of their efficacy and safety profiles, practicality of use, and cost-effectiveness the low-molecular-weight heparins are at least comparable to, and offer several advantages over, other available antithrombotics in cancer patients. In addition, data are emerging that the antithrombotics, and particularly low-molecular-weight heparins, may exert an antitumor effect which could contribute to improved survival in cancer patients when given for long-term prophylaxis. Such findings reinforce the importance of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin in cancer patients.

Optimizing the prevention of venous thromboembolism: recent quality initiatives and strategies to drive improvement

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with a substantial health care and economic burden, yet many VTE events are preventable. Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines derailing effective thromboprophylaxis strategies, the underuse and inappropriate prescribing of VTE prophylaxis are common. Current national quality initiatives were reviewed to identify strategies that may help hospitals and health care professionals optimize current VTE prophylaxis practices.

METHODS

A computerized literature search was performed using PubMed and MEDLINE, and this was complemented by hand searches of relevant journals and Web sites to identify additional literature related to VTE prevention and quality improvement.

FINDINGS

Many organizations, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the National Quality Forum, the Joint Commission, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have developed performance measures, quality indicators, public reporting initiatives, incentive programs, and "negative reimbursement" that are designed to help improve VTE prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

It remains the responsibility of individual hospitals to identify specific areas in which they can improve their VTE prophylaxis rates to obtain positive results from the reporting initiatives and incentive programs. If performance measures are to be met, all hospital departments will need to implement effective VTE prevention policies, including early risk assessment, appropriate prophylaxis prescribing, monitoring, and follow-up. Multifaceted, integrated initiatives involving risk assessment tools, decision support, electronic alert systems, and hospitalwide education, with a mechanism for audit and feedback, may help ensure that all health care professionals comply with VTE-prevention policies and initiatives.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most common preventable cause of death in hospitals, but many patients do not receive proven preventive therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the extent to which inpatients received therapies for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

DESIGN

Medical records review of a random sample of hospitalized patients, stratified by hospital teaching status.

SETTING

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) acute-care hospitals.

PATIENTS

Two groups hospitalized >or=48 hours during the year ending March 31, 2007: (1) all 4963 patients older than 74 years with a principal discharge diagnosis of heart failure; and (2) all 1448 patients with any discharge diagnosis of PE.

MEASUREMENTS

Rate of VTE preventive care.

RESULTS

Sixty-three of the 100 randomly selected heart failure patients had adequate anticoagulation, 29 (46%) of whom were taking warfarin for chronic conditions. For patients discharged with a PE diagnosis, records from all 330 nonteaching and 449 (40%) teaching hospital cases were reviewed. Most cases (698; 90%) were excluded because there was only a remote history of PE or the diagnosis was made prior to admission. Thirty-four of the 63 patients (54%) with confirmed in-hospital PE and unequivocal VTE risk factors received appropriate preventive treatment. Thirty of the 66 patients (48%) with missed opportunities for prevention had inappropriate mechanical prophylaxis or inadequate use of anticoagulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized veterans with PE or at risk for VTE, missed opportunities for prevention were frequent and included inappropriate or inadequate interventions. Retrospective chart review was an inefficient method for identifying patients with in-hospital PE.

Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin in medical patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of cancer and cancer treatment and is associated with multiple clinical consequences, including recurrent VTE, bleeding, and an increase in the risk of death. Although the risks associated with VTE have been well recognized in surgical cancer patients, there is also considerable and increasing risk in medical cancer patients. VTE risk factors in medical cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, major comorbid illnesses, current hospitalization, active chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and antiangiogenic agents. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended commonly for the prevention of VTE in hospitalized cancer patients and in higher risk ambulatory cancer patients because of their favorable risk-to-benefit profile. These agents have demonstrated effectiveness in both the primary and secondary prevention of VTE in medical cancer patients. Extended-duration anticoagulant therapy is often recommended to reduce the risk of VTE recurrence in patients with cancer. LMWHs are often used for long-term prophylaxis because of a reduced need for coagulation monitoring, few major bleeding episodes, and once-daily dosing. Despite clinical and practical benefits, a substantial proportion of medical cancer patients do not receive VTE prophylaxis. To improve the appropriate prevention and treatment of VTE in cancer patients, guidelines have been published recently by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Widespread dissemination and application of these guidelines are encouraged to improve the appropriate use of these agents and to improve clinical outcomes in medical cancer patients at risk for VTE and its complications.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the medical patient: controversies and perspectives

Despite the high morbidity and mortality associated with venous thromboembolism in hospitalized at-risk medical patients, the publication of large-scale studies showing that prophylaxis is effective in this patient group, and the presence of international guidelines, prophylaxis rates in medically ill patients remain suboptimal. Studies show that low-molecular-weight heparins, given once daily, are at least as effective as unfractionated heparin usually given thrice daily with equivalent or improved safety profiles, and that thrice-daily dosing of unfractionated heparin might be more effective than twice-daily dosing. However, the most recent American College of Chest Physicians guidelines do not distinguish between these regimens, and twice-daily unfractionated heparin is still commonly used in the United States. Furthermore, the optimal duration for out-of-hospital and extended prophylaxis for specific patient groups is not established. Finally, there are few data on the use of mechanical methods in this patient group and no established standard of care for prophylaxis of special patient populations, such as obese patients or those with renal insufficiency. Even though prophylaxis entails additional acquisition costs, it can reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism, which can improve care and decrease overall costs.

Venous thromboembolic events in hospitalised medical patients

The number of acutely ill hospitalised medical patients at risk for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) has not been well defined. Therefore, we used the 2003 United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to estimate VTE events among hospitalised medical patients. We then modeled the potential reduction in VTE with universal utilisation of appropriate pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. We calculated that 8,077,919 acutely ill hospitalised medical patients were at risk for VTE. Heart failure, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and cancer were the most common medical diagnoses. We estimated that 196,134 VTE-related events occurred in 2003, afflicting two out of every 100 acutely ill hospitalised medical patients. These VTE-related events were comprised of 122,235 symptomatic deep venous thromboses, 32,654 symptomatic episodes of pulmonary embolism, and 41,245 deaths due to VTE. In our model, rates of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis prescription were low for various acute medical illnesses, ranging from 15.3% to 49.2%. However, with universal thromboprophylaxis, 114,174 VTE-related events would have been prevented. In conclusion, acutely ill medical patients represent a large population vulnerable to the development of VTE during hospitalisation. The number of VTE-related events would be halved with universal thromboprophylaxis. Further efforts focused on improving VTE prevention strategies in hospitalised medical patients are warranted.

Economic burden of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients

Venous thromboembolism, a condition that includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a significant medical problem that affects more than 1 million patients each year. In addition to the immense impact of venous thromboembolism on morbidity and mortality, the economic burden of the disease is considerable, costing the health care system in the United States more than $1.5 billion/year. The cost of managing an initial episode of deep vein thrombosis is estimated at $7712-10,804, and for an initial pulmonary embolism event $9566-16,644. Management of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer costs more than $20,000. Although much of the costs of venous thromboembolism are associated with managing the acute event, there are also significant costs associated with its long-term complications such as recurrent venous thromboembolism, postthrombotic syndrome, and pulmonary hypertension. Data from numerous robust clinical trials have demonstrated that with appropriate prophylaxis, many of these venous thromboembolism events can be prevented in both surgical and medical patients. Even though the strong evidence supporting venous thromboembolism prophylaxis spans several decades, a number of large American and global registries have documented very poor use of appropriate venous thromboprophylaxis. Because of increasing regulatory requirements, hospitals nationwide are developing necessary documentation of appropriate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis programs for both surgical and medical patients. Hospitals and clinicians must have a firm understanding of not only the clinical impact but also the economic impact of failing to use appropriate prophylaxis and of the cost-effectiveness of different venous thromboprophylaxis methods.

Inpatient thromboprophylaxis use in U.S. hospitals: adherence to the seventh American College of Chest Physician's recommendations for at-risk medical and surgical patients

BACKGROUND

The clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) burden remains high in the United States, despite guidelines recommending that safe and effective VTE prophylaxis be available. This study assesses the real-world rate of appropriate inpatient VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized U.S. medical and surgical patients at risk of VTE, in accordance with the seventh American College of Chest Physicians, (ACCP) guidelines.

METHODS

Medical and surgical discharges from Premier's Perspective database between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006 were considered. Discharges aged > or = 40 years, with a length of stay > or = 6 days, at risk of VTE due to the presence of > or = 1 VTE risk factors identified by the seventh ACCP guidelines, and without contraindications for anticoagulation, were included in the analysis. Appropriate prophylaxis was determined by comparing the daily use, dosage, and duration of anticoagulants and compression devices with the seventh ACCP recommendations for each medical condition or surgical procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 390,024 discharges met the inclusion criteria, of which 201,224 (51.6%) were medical discharges and 188,800 (48.4%) were surgical discharges. Overall, 65.9% of medical discharges and 77.7% of surgical discharges received at least 1 order for VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. However, only 12.7% of medical discharges and 16.4% of surgical discharges received appropriate prophylaxis when the recommended prophylaxis type, dose, and duration from the seventh ACCP guidelines were taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Few medical and surgical patients at high risk of VTE receive appropriate inpatient prophylaxis in accordance with guideline recommendations. It is important for individual hospitals to improve VTE prophylaxis practices to meet national performance initiatives.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a prospective survey

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolism recognize pneumonia and changes in respiratory status as risk factors. There is little information on the preventive use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in hospitalized patients with pneumonia.

METHODS

We prospectively screened 1067 admissions to our hospital for preventive use of LMWH according to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. The analysis included 168 patients with pneumonia (age 74 +/- 16 years, 56% men). The primary and secondary outcomes were treatment with LMWH in eligible patients and LMWH use according to guidelines (daily dose, duration of treatment).

RESULTS

LMWH use was indicated in 126 (75%) patients and 119 (94%) were actually treated. In 41% of patients treatment was according to the ACCP guidelines. The dose and duration of LMWH treatment were appropriate in 61% and 66% of patients, respectively. Non-use of LMWHs was not associated with clinical and demographic characteristics. Adverse effects included bleeding (N = 7) and thrombocytopenia (N = 2) but were not associated with fatality. Prolonged treatment with LMWH was associated with adverse effects (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of LMWH prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with pneumonia reached 94%. Adherence to ACCP guidelines was complete in 41% of patients. Prolonged treatment with LMWH was associated with non-fatal adverse effects, which calls for timely withdrawal of LMWH once no longer indicated.

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in the US: improving hospital performance

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention has been recognized as the most important practice for improving patient safety in hospitals. To be effective, VTE prophylaxis must be appropriately prescribed with respect to type, dose and duration. Large-scale studies of medical discharge records have highlighted low rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients, especially those with cancer or severe lung disease. Lack of prophylaxis and an insufficient duration are the most common forms of inappropriate prophylaxis. Multifaceted, active, quality improvement initiatives have been developed and shown to successfully increase the appropriate prescribing of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk. By increasing the use of appropriate VTE prophylaxis in at-risk patients, the disease burden of hospital-acquired VTE and its resulting complications can be reduced.

Physician compliance with advanced electronic alerts for preventing venous thromboembolism among hospitalized medical patients

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, more than half of the hospitalized medical patients at high risk do not receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Although VTE among hospitalized patients at risk is reduced with electronic alerts (eAlerts), the majority of eAlerts are being ignored by the responsible physician.

METHODS

We investigated physician compliance with an advanced eAlert system in 1027 (age 59 +/- 17 years) hospitalized medical patients. A continuously flashing non-interruptive eAlert, visible to all healthcare professionals, was issued in the electronic patient chart 6 h after admission if the physician did not order prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The rate of appropriate prophylaxis increased from 44% before to 76% after the implementation of the eAlert system. Although the patients whose physicians cared for > or = 20 patients during the study period had a more frequent physician response to the eAlert than patients whose physicians cared for fewer patients (69% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), they received appropriate prophylaxis less often (72% vs. 81%, P = 0.016). After adjustment for significant patient predictors of appropriate prophylaxis, including cancer, age, duration of hospital stay, and thrombocytopenia, patients whose physicians cared for > or = 20 patients during the study period were less likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.96; P = 0.032) than patients whose physicians cared for fewer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of an advanced eAlert system accompanied by continuing medical education for the prevention of VTE resulted in a substantial increase in the rate of appropriate prophylaxis among hospitalized medical patients. However, many eAlerts may cause decreased physician compliance owing to 'alert fatigue'.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism: a key patient safety priority

It is more than 50 years since the first publication of a study showing that symptomatic and fatal venous thromboembolism could be reduced with the use of thromboprophylaxis. Furthermore, it is 23 years since the first evidence-based guidelines recommended routine use of thromboprophylaxis for most hospitalized patients. However, despite the overwhelming evidence that thromboprophylaxis safely and inexpensively reduces thromboembolic complications associated with acute illness and surgery, there continue to be large gaps in the provision of this key patient safety intervention and even larger gaps in the provision of optimal thromboprophylaxis. The implementation of quality improvement strategies, both at the national level and in local hospitals, are able to increase awareness of thromboembolic risks, to increase adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines, and to decrease both clinically important thromboembolic events and hospital costs. Therefore, the objective is for every hospitalized patient to receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis based on their thromboembolic and bleeding risks.

Economic and practical aspects of thromboprophylaxis with unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins in hospitalized medical patients

Acutely ill medical patients are at significant risk of developing venous thromboembolic (VTE) complications during or after their hospitalization. Venous thromboembolic events, such as proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), place a high and unacceptable burden on health care resources, up to US$1.5 billion annually in the United States. However, the burden of VTE can be reduced by use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Prophylaxis of VTE with either a low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) or a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in medical inpatients is effective, well tolerated and cost-effective, compared with no prophylaxis. Low-molecular-weight heparins have a number of practical benefits over UFH, including once-daily subcutaneous injection and the potential to be used in the outpatient setting. These clinical advantages could translate to improved patient adherence to therapy and provide economic benefits, where LMWHs are more cost-effective compared with UFH.

Physician alerts to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis remains underused among hospitalized patients. We designed and carried out a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to test the hypothesis that an alert from a hospital staff member to the attending physician will reduce the rate of symptomatic VTE among high-risk patients not receiving prophylaxis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled patients using a validated point score system to detect hospitalized patients at high risk for symptomatic VTE who were not receiving prophylaxis. We randomized 2493 patients (82% on Medical Services) from 25 study sites to the intervention group (n=1238), in which the responsible physician was alerted by another hospital staff member, or the control group (n=1255), in which no alert was issued. The primary end point was symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE within 90 days. Patients whose physicians were alerted were more than twice as likely to receive VTE prophylaxis as control subjects (46.0% versus 20.6%; P<0.0001). The symptomatic VTE rate was lower in the intervention group (2.7% versus 3.4%; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.25), but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. The rate of major bleeding at 30 days in the alert group was similar to that in the control group (2.1% versus 2.3%; P=0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy of direct notification of the physician by a staff member increases prophylaxis use and leads to a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE in hospitalized patients. However, VTE prophylaxis continues to be underused even after physician notification, especially among Medical Service patients.

Clinical predictors of prophylaxis use prior to the onset of acute venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER)

BACKGROUND

We investigated clinical predictors of appropriate prophylaxis prior to the onset of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

METHODS

In 14 Swiss hospitals, 567 consecutive patients (306 medical, 261 surgical) with acute VTE and hospitalization < 30 days prior to the VTE event were enrolled.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis was used in 329 (58%) patients within 30 days prior to the VTE event. Among the medical patients, 146 (48%) received prophylaxis, and among the surgical patients, 183 (70%) received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). The indication for prophylaxis was present in 262 (86%) medical patients and in 217 (83%) surgical patients. Among the patients with an indication for prophylaxis, 135 (52%) of the medical patients and 165 (76%) of the surgical patients received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). Admission to the intensive care unit [odds ratio (OR) 3.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94-5.57], recent surgery (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.51-3.44), bed rest > 3 days (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.45-3.09), obesity (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.03-3.90), prior deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24) and prior pulmonary embolism (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.26) were independent predictors of prophylaxis. In contrast, cancer (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89-1.25), age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.01), acute heart failure (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.79-1.63) and acute respiratory failure (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89-1.59) were not predictive of prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an indication for prophylaxis was present in most patients who suffered acute VTE, almost half did not receive any form of prophylaxis. Future efforts should focus on the improvement of prophylaxis for hospitalized patients, particularly in patients with cancer, acute heart or respiratory failure, and in the elderly.

Epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in cardiorespiratory and infectious disease

Venous thromboembolic complications -- deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism -- occur in a significant proportion of hospitalized medical patients. The incidence in acutely ill medical patients is 10%-40%, equivalent to that seen in general surgical patients. Prophylaxis is effective and well tolerated, yet remains under-prescribed in medical wards. Current recommendations for prophylaxis are generalized and do not specifically address many patient groups. Data on the prevalence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and infectious diseases are limited. However, studies on large numbers of hospitalized patients with these admission diagnoses have provided important information on incidence, and the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. This review summarizes current knowledge of the epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and infectious diseases, and highlights the benefits of, and needs for, appropriate prophylaxis in these groups. Increased awareness of the prevalence of thrombosis in the major subgroups of medical inpatients should improve the prescribing of prophylaxis and prevent potentially avoidable and costly complications.

Prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation for thrombosis: major issues in oncology

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Primary prevention with pharmacologic agents (or mechanical methods, if anticoagulants are contraindicated) is recommended in all cancer patients hospitalized for surgical or medical reasons. The role of prophylaxis in outpatients is less certain because of the diversity of the patient populations and their cancer treatments with respect to the associated risks of VTE and bleeding. Treatment with low-molecular weight heparin is the recommended first-line approach in cancer patients with newly diagnosed VTE, and is usually continued for a minimum of 3-6 months. Other management issues that require further research include the optimum duration of anticoagulant therapy, the treatment of recurrent VTE, the role of vena cava filters, the effects of VTE and its treatment on quality of life, and the impact of anticoagulants on survival. Newer anticoagulants hold promise in providing more-effective and convenient treatment of VTE in this high-risk population, but further studies are awaited.

Heart failure in patients with deep vein thrombosis

Patients with heart failure (HF) are particularly vulnerable to the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its related complications of pulmonary embolism and right ventricular failure. To improve our understanding of the clinical characteristics, prophylaxis, and initial management of patients with HF and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we compared 685 patients with a history of HF with 3,890 patients without HF in a prospective registry of 5,451 consecutive patients with ultrasound-confirmed DVT. We excluded 876 patients for whom data regarding HF status were incomplete. Patients with HF had an increased frequency of co-morbid conditions such as neurologic disease including stroke (33% vs 26%, p = 0.0002), acute lung disease including pneumonia (31% vs 15%, p <0.0001), and acute coronary syndrome (11% vs 4%, p <0.0001) contributing to a higher medical acuity than in patients without HF. Furthermore, patients with HF were more likely to have VTE risk factors of immobilization (53% vs 42%, p <0.0001), acute infection (33% vs 27%, p = 0.01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 12%, p <0.0001). Patients with and without HF and DVT had a high frequency of recent hospitalization (48% vs 47%, p = 0.96). Fewer than 12 of patients with HF (46%) who subsequently developed DVT received any VTE prophylaxis. In conclusion, the combination of higher medical acuity, increased frequency of VTE risk factors, and low rate of VTE prophylaxis presents a "triple threat" to patients with HF.

Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Information about the variation in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and in prophylaxis practices around the world is scarce. The ENDORSE (Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting) study is a multinational cross-sectional survey designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, and to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who receive effective prophylaxis.

METHODS

All hospital inpatients aged 40 years or over admitted to a medical ward, or those aged 18 years or over admitted to a surgical ward, in 358 hospitals across 32 countries were assessed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines were used to assess VTE risk and to determine whether patients were receiving recommended prophylaxis.

FINDINGS

68 183 patients were enrolled; 30 827 (45%) were categorised as surgical, and 37 356 (55%) as medical. On the basis of ACCP criteria, 35 329 (51.8%; 95% CI 51.4-52.2; between-country range 35.6-72.6) patients were judged to be at risk for VTE, including 19 842 (64.4%; 63.8-64.9; 44.1-80.2) surgical patients and 15 487 (41.5%; 41.0-42.0; 21.1-71.2) medical patients. Of the surgical patients at risk, 11 613 (58.5%; 57.8-59.2; 0.2-92.1) received ACCP-recommended VTE prophylaxis, compared with 6119 (39.5%; 38.7-40.3; 3.1-70.4) at-risk medical patients.

INTERPRETATION

A large proportion of hospitalised patients are at risk for VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. Our data reinforce the rationale for the use of hospital-wide strategies to assess patients' VTE risk and to implement measures that ensure that at-risk patients receive appropriate prophylaxis.

Deep-Vein Thrombosis in the Elderly

Venous thromboembolism, including deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a major source of morbidity and mortality among elderly patients. To improve our understanding of elderly patients with deep-vein thrombosis, we compared 1932 patients with deep-vein thrombosis aged 70 years or older with 2554 nonelderly patients in a prospective registry of consecutive ultrasound-confirmed deep-vein thrombosis patients. The mean age of elderly patients was 78.9 ± 6.1 years compared with 51.8 ± 12.9 years in nonelderly ( P < .0001). Elderly patients were more likely to have prior recent hospitalization (49.2% vs 44.7%, P = .03), congestive heart failure (20.5% vs 9.9%, P < .0001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18.2% vs 11.7%, P < .0001), and recent immobilization (50.5% vs 39.6%, P < .0001) than the nonelderly patients. Elderly patients were less likely to present with typical deep-vein thrombosis symptoms of extremity discomfort (44.4% vs 60.6%, P < .0001) and difficulty ambulating (8.4% vs 11.2%, P = .002). Only 41% of elderly patients subsequently diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis had received any venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. In conclusion, elderly patients with deep-vein thrombosis represent a particularly vulnerable population with numerous comorbid conditions. Diagnosis can present a challenge because typical deep-vein thrombosis symptoms may be absent. Fewer than 50% of elderly patients with deep-vein thrombosis had received any venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.