Improving venous thromboembolism risk assessment rates in a tertiary urology department

In-Hospital Venous Thromboembolism and Pulmonary Embolism After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to test for temporal trends of in-hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after major urologic cancer surgery (MUCS).

METHODS

In the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2010-2019), this study identified non-metastatic radical cystectomy (RC), radical prostatectomy (RP), radical nephrectomy (RN), and partial nephrectomy (PN) patients. Temporal trends of VTE and PE and multivariable logistic regression analyses (MLR) addressing VTE or PE, and mortality with VTE or PE were performed.

RESULTS

Of 196,915 patients, 1180 (1.0%) exhibited VTE and 583 (0.3%) exhibited PE. The VTE rates increased from 0.6 to 0.7% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] + 4.0%; p = 0.01). Conversely, the PE rates decreased from 0.4 to 0.2% (EAPC - 4.5%; p = 0.01). No difference was observed in mortality with VTE (EAPC - 2.1%; p = 0.7) or with PE (EAPC - 1.2%; p = 0.8). In MLR relative to RP, RC (odds ratio [OR] 5.1), RN (OR 4.5), and PN (OR 3.6) were associated with higher VTE risk (all p < 0.001). Similarly in MLR relative to RP, RC (OR 4.6), RN (OR 3.3), and PN (OR 3.9) were associated with higher PE risk (all p < 0.001). In MLR, the risk of mortality was higher when VTE or PE was present in RC (VTE: OR 3.7, PE: OR  4.8; both p < 0.001) and RN (VTE: OR 5.2, PE: OR  8.3; both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RC, RN, and PN predisposes to a higher VTE and PE rates than RP. Moreover, among RC and RN patients with either VTE or PE, mortality is substantially higher than among their VTE or PE-free counterparts.

Evaluation of the Quality and Safety of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Among Gastroenterology Inpatients at a Tertiary Hospital in Australia

Background and objective: Hospital acquired venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) are common and preventable. The Queensland Health VTE prophylaxis guidelines, developed in 2018, provide guidance for risk assessment, and prescribing of anticoagulation for prophylaxis and treatment of hospital inpatients. Currently, there are limited recommendations for gastroenterology patients. This study investigated the completion of VTE risk assessments, and the appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis regimens, in accordance with Queensland Health guidelines for gastroenterology patients. The quality and safety of VTE prophylaxis regimens was assessed based on their VTE risk and bleeding risk. Method: A retrospective study was conducted by obtaining a random sample of gastroenterology patients admitted to a tertiary Australian hospital, from 1st May 2019 and 1st May 2020, to determine the compliance of VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis prescribing with state-wide VTE guidelines. The quality and safety of thromboprophylaxis was evaluated using the modified Caprini and HASBLED scores, and subsequent thromboprophylaxis-related complications. Results: Of the 94 patients reviewed, 68 did not have contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. Of these 68 patients, 32 (47%) had no VTE risk assessment recorded in their clinical records and were not prescribed any thromboprophylaxis during the hospitalization. There was no significant difference between thromboprophylaxis prescribing for patients with low VTE risk, compared to moderate to high VTE risk (P = .075). There was a trend for decrease in thromboprophylaxis prescribing as HASBLED bleeding risk score increased, and patients with moderate-high bleed risk were less likely to be prescribed thromboprophylaxis (P = .006). There were no thromboprophylaxis related complications identified. Conclusion: It is essential that all patients have a clearly documented risk assessment and are prescribed thromboprophylaxis according to best practice guidelines. The prescription of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should continue to be individualized, with each patient assessed holistically.

The Benefits and Imperative of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Screening for Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable condition in hospitalized patients globally. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and clinical significance of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk-screening protocols in preventing VTE events among hospitalized patients. Databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, were searched without date limits for studies comparing outcomes between hospitalized patients who did and did not receive VTE risk screening using standard tools. Twelve studies, enrolling over 139,420 patients, were included. Study quality was assessed using the ROBVIS tool. The results were summarized narratively. The findings show significant benefits of using VTE risk screening versus usual care across various outcomes. Using recommended tools, like Caprini, Padua and IMPROVE, allowed for the accurate identification of high-risk patients who benefited most from prevention. Formal screening was linked to much lower VTE rates, shorter hospital stays, fewer deaths and better use of preventive strategies matched to estimated clot risk. This review calls for the widespread adoption of VTE risk screening as an important safety step for at-risk hospital patients. More high-quality comparative research is needed to validate screening tools in different settings and populations. In summary, VTE risk screening is essential for healthcare systems to reduce life-threatening VTE events and improve patient outcomes through properly targeted preventive methods.