Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implementation strategies

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis implementation strategies are well-studied in some hospitalized medical and surgical patients. Although VTE is associated with substantial mortality and morbidity in trauma patients, implementation strategies for the prevention of VTE in trauma appear to be based on limited evidence. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature on active implementation strategies for VTE prophylaxis administration in hospitalized trauma patients and the impact on VTE events.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in adult hospitalized trauma patients to assess if active VTE prevention implementation strategies change the proportion of patients who received VTE prophylaxis, VTE events, and adverse effects such as bleeding or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia as well as hospital length of stay and the cost of care. An academic medical librarian searched Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until December 2022.

Results

Four studies with a total of 1723 patients in the active implementation strategy group (strategies included education, reminders, human and computer alerts, audit and feedback, preprinted orders, and/or root cause analysis) and 1324 in the no active implementation strategy group (guideline creation and dissemination) were included in the analysis. A higher proportion of patients received VTE prophylaxis with an active implementation strategy (OR=2.94, 95% CI (1.68 to 5.15), p<0.01). No significant difference was found in VTE events. Quality was deemed to be low due to bias and inconsistency of studies.

Conclusions

Active implementation strategies appeared to improve the proportion of major trauma patients who received VTE prophylaxis. Further implementation studies are needed in trauma to determine effective, sustainable strategies for VTE prevention and to assess secondary outcomes such as bleeding and costs.

Level of evidence

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023390538.

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), assessed in terms of: 1. Increase in the proportion of patients who receive prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis 2. Reduction in risk of symptomatic VTE3. Reduction in risk of asymptomatic VTE4. Safety of the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Group's Specialised Register (last searched July 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) 2010, Issue 3. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases (19 April 2010) as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies whose interventions aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis and/or appropriate prophylaxis, decrease the proportion of symptomatic VTE, or decrease the proportion of asymptomatic VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded studies that simply distributed published guidelines and studies whose interventions were not clearly described.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the following outcomes: the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (RP), the proportion of patients who received appropriate prophylaxis (RAP) (primary outcomes), and the occurrence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic VTE, and safety outcomes such as bleeding. We categorized interventions into education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions. We meta-analyzed RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) separately by random effects meta-analysis, and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2)statistic and subgroup analyses. Before analysis, we decided that results would be pooled if three or more studies were available for a particular intervention. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and cumulative meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 55 studies. One of these reported data in patient-days and could not be quantitatively analyzed with the others. The 54 remaining studies (8 RCTs and 46 NRS) eligible for inclusion in our quantitative synthesis enrolled a total of 78,343 participants. Among RCTs, there were sufficient data to pool results for one primary outcome (received prophylaxis) for the 'alert' intervention. Alerts, such as computerized reminders or stickers on patients' charts, were associated with a risk difference (RD) of 13%, signifying an increase in the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (95% confidence interval (CI) 1% to 25%). Among NRS, there were sufficient data to pool both primary outcomes for each intervention type. Pooled risk differences for received prophylaxis ranged from 8% to 17%, and for received appropriate prophylaxis ranged from 11% to 19%. Education and alerts were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis, and multifaceted interventions were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of any prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis. Multifaceted interventions had the largest pooled effects. I(2) results showed substantial statistical heterogeneity which was in part explained by patient types and type of hospital. A subgroup analysis showed that multifaceted interventions which included an alert may be more effective at improving rates of prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis than those without an alert. Results for VTE and safety outcomes did not show substantial benefits or harms, although most studies were underpowered to assess these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We reviewed a large number of studies which implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed to improve thromboprophylaxis rates in many settings and patient populations. We found statistically significant improvements in prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (RCTs) and multifaceted interventions (RCTs and NRS), and improvements in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis in NRS with the use of education, alerts and multifaceted interventions. Multifaceted interventions with an alert component may be the most effective. Demonstrated sources of heterogeneity included patient types and type of hospital. The results of our review will help physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators and policy makers make practical decisions about local adoption of specific system-wide measures to improve prevention of VTE, an important public health issue. We did not find a significant benefit for VTE outcomes; however, earlier RCTs assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis which were powered to address these outcomes have demonstrated the benefit of prophylactic therapies and a favourable balance of benefits versus the increased risk of bleeding events.

An observational study for venous thromboembolism risk assessment among hospitalized patients in general surgery clinics across Turkey

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) still remains a significant public health problem due to gaps between recommendations and clinical practice in VTE prophylaxis. This is the first clinical study designed to evaluate the applicability of a standard 'VTE prophylaxis and risk factor assessment form (VTE-PRAF)' and prescription of VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized patients in the daily practice of general surgeons in Turkey.

METHOD

A total of 1472 patients (mean age: 52.4 ± 16.9 years; 50.6% were men) were included in cross-sectional (n = 537), first longitudinal (n = 452) or the second longitudinal (n = 483) phases. Data on demographics, hospitalization, surgical intervention and prophylaxis were collected during the cross-sectional phase, whereas utilization of form was evaluated during longitudinal phases.

RESULTS

While 62.1% of patients were identified to be at 'high+ highest' risk, prophylaxis was evident only for 65.9%. Utilization of the form was higher in the second longitudinal phase (P < 0.001) but there was no relation between implementation of the form and prophylaxis use. VTE-PRAF was completed for 70.6% and 84.8% of patient who received prophylaxis while it was completed for 50.8% and 50.4% of patients with no prophylaxis, in the first and second longitudinal phases, respectively. Prophylaxis was administered in 58.6% and 62.6% of patients with completed VTE-PRAF in the first and second longitudinal phases, respectively. 'Suggested' and 'used' prophylaxis regimens were significantly more consistent for the cases evaluated with VTE-PRAF (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the use of prophylaxis only for 65.9% of general surgery inpatients at high risk for VTE, low use of prophylaxis is assumed to remain a significant threat to public health across Turkey. Inclusion of a standard VTE-PRAF in the hospital protocol seems to raise clinical awareness of VTE risk assessment and appropriate management in VTE which otherwise well-known to be associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Impact of e-VTE-PRAF is worth investigating.

Venous thromboprophylaxis in UK medical inpatients

We prospectively assessed the implementation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines and the impact of grand round presentation of the data in changing clinical practice. Two NHS teaching hospitals were studied for 24 months from January 2003. Patients were risk stratified according to the THRIFT (thromboembolic risk factor) consensus group guidelines and compared with the recommendations of the THRIFT and ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians) consensus groups. Six months following presentation of the initial results, a further analysis was made to assess changes in clinical practice. 1128 patients were assessed of whom 1062 satisfied the inclusion criteria for thromboprophylaxis. 89% of all patients were stratified as having high or moderate risk of developing VTE. Of these only 28% were prescribed some form of thromboprophylaxis-4% received the THRIFT-recommended and 22% received the ACCP-recommended thromboprophylaxis. The vast majority (72%) received no thromboprophylaxis at all. Reassessment, following data presentation at grand rounds, showed a significant increase to 31% inpatients receiving THRIFT (P<0.0001) and ACCP (P=0.002) recommended thromboprophylaxis. However,the proportion of patients receiving no form of prophylaxis barely changed (72% to 69%: P=0.59). We found a gross underutilization of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. A simple grand-round presentation of the data and recommended guidelines to clinicians significantly increased the proportion of patients receiving recommended thromboprophylaxis but did not increase the overall proportion of patients receiving it. We therefore conclude that a single presentation of guidelines is not enough to achieve the desired levels. Such presentations may only serve to make DVT (deep venous thromboembolism) aware clinicians prescribe prophylaxis more accurately.