Dataset Information

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practice and its association with outcomes in Australia and New Zealand burns patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with burn injuries are considered to have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). While untreated VTEs can be fatal, no studies have examined chemoprophylaxis effectiveness. This study aimed to quantify the variation in prevalence of VTE prophylaxis use in patients in Australian and New Zealand burns units and whether prophylaxis use is associated with in-hospital outcomes following burn injury.

Methods

Admission data for adult burns patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted between 1 July 2016 and 31 December 2018 were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand. Mixed effects logistic regression modelling investigated whether VTE prophylaxis use was associated with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality.

Results

There were 5066 admissions over the study period. Of these patients, 81% (n = 3799) with a valid response to the VTE prophylaxis data field received some form of VTE prophylaxis. Use of VTE prophylaxis ranged from 48.6% to 94.8% of patients between units. In-hospital death was recorded in <1% of patients (n = 33). After adjusting for confounders, receiving VTE prophylaxis was associated with a decrease in the adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis was observed between the units, and prophylaxis use was associated with a decrease in the odds of mortality. These findings provide an opportunity to engage with units to further explore differences in prophylaxis use and develop future best practice guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Tracy LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7901708 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical prophylaxis for venous thrombo-embolic disease (VTE) includes risk assessment, chemical prophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis (graduated compression stockings [GCS] and/or intermittent pneumatic compression devices [IPCD]). Although there is overwhelming evidence for the need and efficacy of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk, only about a third of those who are at risk of VTE receive appropriate prophylaxis.ObjectiveThere is debate as to the best combination of VTE prophylaxis following abdominal surgery due to lack of evidence. The aim of this survey was to understand this gap between knowledge and practice.MethodsIn 2019 and 2020, a survey was conducted to investigate the current practice of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for major abdominal surgery, with a focus on colorectal resections. The study received ethics approval and involved distributing an 11-item questionnaire to members of two professional surgical societies: the Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) and the General Surgeons Australia (GSA).ResultsFrom 214 surgeons: 100% use chemical prophylaxis, 68% do not use a risk assessment tool, 27% do not vary practice according to patient risk factors while > 90% use all three forms of VTE prophylaxis at some stage of treatment. Most surgeons do not vary practice between laparoscopic and open colectomy/major abdominal surgery and only 33% prescribe post-discharge chemical prophylaxis. 42% of surgeons surveyed had equipoise for a clinical trial on the use of IPCDs and the vast majority (> 95%) feel that IPCDs should provide at least a 2% improvement in VTE event rate in order to justify their routine use.ConclusionMost surgeons in Australia and New Zealand do not use risk assessment tools and use all three forms of prophylaxis regardless. Therfore there is a gap between practice and VTE prophylaxis for the use of mechanical prophylaxis options. Further research is required to determine whether dual modality mechanical prophylaxis is incrementally efficacious. Trial Registration- Not Applicable.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo study the impact of multiphase quality improvement efforts to enhance appropriate use of chemical and mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (VTEP) on the rate of hospital-acquired VTE and determine whether efforts have been associated with increased bleeding complications.Patients and methodsAll adult inpatients discharged between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015, were included in the study. Retrospective interrupted time series analysis compared VTEP performance, VTE outcomes, and unintended consequences (derived from linked administrative and clinical data) across 5 improvement phases: baseline (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006), paper order set phase (January 1, 2007-February 9, 2009), electronic order set phase (February 10, 2009-December 16, 2009), active reminder phase (December 17, 2009-May 31, 2012), and maintenance phase (June 1, 2012-September 30, 2015).ResultsGuideline VTEP plan adherence at the end of the study period (including documenting contraindications) reached 88.8% (654,138 of 736,384 patient days). Delivery of pharmacological VTEP increased from 43.9% (49,155 of 111,906 patients) to 60.8% (75,784 of 124,676 patients); delivery of mechanical or pharmacological VTEP increased less (65.0% [431,791 of 664,087 patient days] to 67.4% [496,625 of 736,384 patient days]). Mean VTE rates decreased from 4.6 per 1000 hospitalizations (21.7 VTEs per month) at baseline to 4.3 per 1000 hospitalizations (18.0 VTEs per month) during the maintenance phase (P<.001). More than 97% of patients who had development of VTE (534 of 548) received VTEP, but 65.7% (360 of 548) experienced gaps of 1 or more days in VTEP delivery. Measured in-hospital bleeding rates were fairly consistent over the study (4.6% [5,198 of 111,906 patients] at baseline to 5.3% [6,662 of 124,676 patients] during the reminder phase). There was little change in rates of 7-day readmission with bleeding or VTE.ConclusionOur VTEP project improved guideline compliance, increased the proportion of patients receiving VTEP, and was associated with a decrease in VTE. Gaps in VTEP delivery occurred despite protocoled order sets and electronic feedback. Further improvements in VTE may require new approaches.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis practices of surgeons performing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in female patients using hormonal contraceptives.MethodsOur research team designed an investigational survey using branching logic that was made available to the AANA membership. The survey was designed to identify clinical decision making regarding VTE prophylaxis after ACLR in patients without risk factors for VTE, the counseling of patients about VTE risk associated with hormonal contraceptives, and the use of VTE prophylaxis after ACLR in patients taking hormonal contraceptives.ResultsNinety-four respondents completed the survey. Eighty-nine respondents identified their gender (63% male and 37% female respondents). Respondents reported performing the following number of ACLRs annually: more than 50 (40%), 30 to 50 (29%), 15 to 30 (29%), and fewer than 15 (2%). Of the respondents, 62 (67%) reported that VTE developed after ACLR in their patients (male patients only, 32%; female patients only, 24%; and both male and female patients, 34%). Sixty-seven percent used chemoprophylaxis after ACLR. Surgeons who asked about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to be women (P = .01; odds ratio [OR], 4.2). Surgeons who changed their VTE prophylaxis plan as a result of asking about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to be women (P = .02; OR, 2.8). Surgeons who asked about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to have female patients with VTE after ACLR (P = .03; OR, 2.9). Surgeons who changed their VTE prophylaxis plan as a result of asking about hormonal contraceptive use were more likely to have female patients with VTE after ACLR (P = .001; OR, 4.6).ConclusionsThere is no standard of care for VTE prophylaxis after ACLR. A surgeon's own gender and prior clinical experience with VTE after ACLR may influence his or her likelihood to consider a patient's hormonal contraceptive use regarding VTE risk after ACLR.Clinical relevanceThe use of hormonal contraception is a risk factor for VTE in female patients undergoing ACLR. It is important to identify current practice patterns and the need for a standard of care.