A review of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for hospitalized adult patients: a survey of US health care providers on attitudes and practices

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable mortality among hospitalized patients, but appropriate risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis remain underutilized or misapplied.

Objectives

We conducted an electronic survey of US health care providers to explore attitudes, practices, and barriers related to thromboprophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients and at discharge.

Results

A total of 607 US respondents completed the survey: 63.1% reported working in an academic hospital, 70.7% identified as physicians, and hospital medicine was the most frequent specialty (52.1%). The majority of respondents agreed that VTE prophylaxis is important (98.8%; 95% CI: 97.6%-99.5%) and that current measures are safe (92.6%; 95% CI: 90.2%-94.5%) and effective (93.8%; 95% CI: 91.6%-95.6%), but only half (52.0%; 95% CI: 47.9%-56.0%) believed that hospitalized patients at their institution are on appropriate VTE prophylaxis almost all the time. One-third (35.4%) reported using a risk assessment model (RAM) to determine VTE prophylaxis need; 44.9% reported unfamiliarity with RAMs. The most common recommendation for improving rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis was to leverage technology. A majority of respondents (84.5%) do not reassess a patient's need for VTE prophylaxis at discharge, and a minority educates patients about the risk (16.2%) or symptoms (18.9%) of VTE at discharge.

Conclusion

Despite guideline recommendations to use RAMs, the majority of providers in our survey do not use them. A majority of respondents believed that technology could help improve VTE prophylaxis rates. A majority of respondents do not reassess the risk of VTE at discharge or educate patients about this risk of VTE at discharge.

Call to Action to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable disease that affects hospitalized inpatients. Risk stratification and prophylactic measures have good evidence supporting their use, but multiple reasons exist that prevent full adoption, compliance, and efficacy that may underlie the persistence of VTE over the past several decades. This policy statement provides a focused review of VTE, risk scoring systems, prophylaxis, and tracking methods. From this summary, 5 major areas of policy guidance are presented that the American Heart Association believes will lead to better implementation, tracking, and prevention of VTE events. They include performing VTE risk assessment and reporting the level of VTE risk in all hospitalized patients, integrating preventable VTE as a benchmark for hospital comparison and pay-for-performance programs, supporting appropriations to improve public awareness of VTE, tracking VTE nationwide with the use of standardized definitions, and developing a centralized data steward for data tracking on VTE risk assessment, prophylaxis, and rates.

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

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective, and cost-effective, thromboprophylaxis remains underused or inappropriately used. Our previous review suggested that system-wide interventions, such as education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions were more effective at improving the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis than relying on individual providers' behaviors. However, 47 of the 55 included studies in our previous review were observational in design. Thus, an update to our systematic review, focused on the higher level of evidence of RCTs only, was warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of VTE in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE, focusing on RCTs only.

SEARCH METHODS

Our research librarian conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE Ovid, and subsequently translated it to CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Ovid, BIOSIS Previews Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; in the Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED; in the Cochrane Library), LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 7 January 2017. We also screened reference lists of relevant review articles. We identified 12,920 potentially relevant records.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all types of RCTs, with random or quasi-random methods of allocation of interventions, which either randomized individuals (e.g. parallel group, cross-over, or factorial design RCTs), or groups of individuals (cluster RCTs (CRTs)), which aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis, or decrease the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded observational studies, studies in which the intervention was simply distribution of published guidelines, and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. Studies could be in any language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on the following outcomes: the number of participants who received prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis (as defined by study authors), the occurrence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic), mortality, and safety outcomes, such as bleeding. We categorized the interventions into alerts (computer or human alerts), multifaceted interventions (combination of interventions that could include an alert component), educational interventions (e.g. grand rounds, courses), and preprinted orders (written predefined orders completed by the physician on paper or electronically). We meta-analyzed data across RCTs using a random-effects model. For CRTs, we pooled effect estimates (risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for clustering, when possible. We pooled results if three or more trials were available for a particular intervention. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 12,920 records identified by our search, we included 13 RCTs (N = 35,997 participants) in our qualitative analysis and 11 RCTs (N = 33,207 participants) in our meta-analyses.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (RD 21%, 95% CI 15% to 27%; three studies; 5057 participants; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). The substantial statistical heterogeneity may be in part explained by patient types, type of hospital, and type of alert. Subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis.Multifaceted interventions were associated with a small increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (cluster-adjusted RD 4%, 95% CI 2% to 6%; five studies; 9198 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted interventions with an alert component were found to be more effective than multifaceted interventions that did not include an alert, although there were not enough studies to conduct a pooled analysis.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received appropriate prophylaxis (RD 16%, 95% CI 12% to 20%; three studies; 1820 participants; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). Alerts were also associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE at three months (RR 64%, 95% CI 47% to 86%; three studies; 5353 participants; I² = 15%; low-certainty evidence). Computer alerts were associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We reviewed RCTs that implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed at improving thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. We found increased prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and increased prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts. While multifaceted interventions were found to be less effective than alerts, a multifaceted intervention with an alert was more effective than one without an alert. Alerts, particularly computer alerts, were associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE at three months, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.Our analysis was underpowered to assess the effect on mortality and safety outcomes, such as bleeding.The incomplete reporting of relevant study design features did not allow complete assessment of the certainty of the evidence. However, the certainty of the evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be better than for our previous review (low- to moderate-certainty evidence, compared to very low-certainty evidence for most outcomes). The results of our updated review will help physicians, hospital administrators, and policy makers make practical decisions about adopting specific system-wide measures to improve prescription of thromboprophylaxis, and ultimately prevent VTE in hospitalized patients.

Comparisons Between Upper and Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Review of the RIETE Registry

BACKGROUND

The outcome of patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) has not been consistently compared with that in patients with lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT).

METHODS

We used the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad Trombo Embólica (RIETE) registry to compare the outcomes during the course of anticoagulant therapy in patients with UEDVT versus outcomes in patients with LEDVT.

RESULTS

As of August 2015, 37,366 patients with acute DVT had been enrolled in RIETE: 35094 (94%) had LEDVT, 1334 (3.6%) non-catheter related UEDVT (672 unprovoked and 662 provoked) and 938 (2.5%) had catheter-related UEDVT. During the course of anticoagulation, patients with unprovoked UEDVT had a higher rate of DVT recurrences (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.37-3.43) and a similar rate of PE recurrences or major bleeding than those with unprovoked LEDVT. Patients with non-catheter-related provoked UEDVT had a similar outcome than those with provoked LEDVT. Among patients with UEDVT, those with non-catheter related unprovoked UEDVT had a lower rate of PE recurrences (HR: 0.06; 95% CI: 0-0.35) and major bleeding (HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.46) than those with catheter-related UEDVT or those with non-catheter related provoked UEDVT (HR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.004-0.60; and 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08-0.52, respectively). On multivariable analysis, any difference had disappeared.

CONCLUSION

During the course of anticoagulation, patients with UEDVT had a similar outcome than those with LEDVT. Among UEDVT patients, there were some differences according to the presence of catheter or additional risk factors for DVT. These differences disappeared after adjusting for potentially confounding variables.