33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Individualized Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification Using the 2005 Caprini Score to Identify the Benefits and Harms of Chemoprophylaxis in Surgical Patients: A Meta-analysis.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We performed a meta-analysis to investigate benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis among surgical patients individually risk stratified for venous thromboembolism (VTE) using Caprini scores.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

          This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggestions imply that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full discussion of the grading, see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: we recommend that every hospital develop a formal strategy that addresses the prevention of VTE (Grade 1A). We recommend against the use of aspirin alone as thromboprophylaxis for any patient group (Grade 1A), and we recommend that mechanical methods of thromboprophylaxis be used primarily for patients at high bleeding risk (Grade 1A) or possibly as an adjunct to anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2A). For patients undergoing major general surgery, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), or fondaparinux (each Grade 1A). We recommend routine thromboprophylaxis for all patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery or major, open urologic procedures (Grade 1A for both groups), with LMWH, LDUH, fondaparinux, or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). For patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty, we recommend one of the following three anticoagulant agents: LMWH, fondaparinux, or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA); international normalized ratio (INR) target, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0 (each Grade 1A). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS), we recommend the routine use of fondaparinux (Grade 1A), LMWH (Grade 1B), a VKA (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1B], or LDUH (Grade 1B). We recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty or HFS receive thromboprophylaxis for a minimum of 10 days (Grade 1A); for hip arthroplasty and HFS, we recommend continuing thromboprophylaxis > 10 days and up to 35 days (Grade 1A). We recommend that all major trauma and all spinal cord injury (SCI) patients receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A). In patients admitted to hospital with an acute medical illness, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, LDUH, or fondaparinux (each Grade 1A). We recommend that, on admission to the ICU, all patients be assessed for their risk of VTE, and that most receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A validation study of a retrospective venous thromboembolism risk scoring method.

              Validate a retrospective venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk scoring method, which was developed at the University of Michigan Health System and based on the Caprini risk assessment model, and assess the confounding effects of VTE prophylaxis. Assessing patients for risk of VTE is essential to initiating appropriate prophylaxis and reducing the mortality and morbidity associated with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. VTE risk factors were identified for 8216 inpatients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program using the retrospective scoring method. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for VTE within 30 days after surgery for risk factors and risk level. A bivariate probit model estimated the effects of risk while controlling for adherence to prophylaxis guidelines. Distribution of the study population by risk level was highest, 52.1%; high, 36.5%; moderate, 10.4%; and low, 0.9%. Incidence of VTE within 30 days was overall 1.4%; by risk level: highest, 1.94%; high, 0.97%; moderate, 0.70%; low, 0%. Controlling for length of hospitalization (>2 d) and fiscal year, pregnancy or postpartum (OR = 8.3; 1.0-68, P < 0.05), recent sepsis (4.0; 1.4-10.9, P < 0.01), malignancy (2.3; 1.5-3.3, P < 0.01), history of VTE (2.1; 1.1-4.1, P < 0.05), and central venous access (1.8; 1.1-3.0, P < 0.05) were significantly associated with VTE. Risk level was significantly associated with VTE (1.9; 1.3-2.6, P < 0.01). The bivariate probit demonstrated significant correlation between the probability of VTE and lack of adherence to prophylaxis guidelines (rho = 0.299, P = 0.013). The retrospective risk scoring method is valid and supports use of individual patient assessment of risk for VTE within 30 days after surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann. Surg.
                Annals of surgery
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1528-1140
                0003-4932
                Jun 2017
                : 265
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ] *Division of Plastic Surgery, Division of Health Services Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT †Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ‡Department of Medicine University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada §Section of Vascular Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI ¶Division of Vascular Surgery, Division of Health Services Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
                Article
                10.1097/SLA.0000000000002126
                28106607
                94a043f9-caf7-4a56-835f-09d608401d2a
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article