Abstract

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important problem for medical patients. In spite of the existence of evidence-based guidelines for prevention of VTE, prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is underutilized.

Objective: To assess the global and individual adherences (adjust to risk groups) to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines (VTEPG) in medical ill patients.

Desing: Prospective observational study.

Setting: The 50-bed medical floors of a university hospital.

Material and Methods: Patients: All consecutively medically ill patients (pt) admitted during a 6-month period (n: 452).

VTEPG: the guide divided medical patients in risk groups (G); G1: No need of VTEP (35 pt); G2: myocardial infarction (9 pt); G3: Stroke (21 pt); G4: high risk with thrombophilia, previous VTE, cancer (113pt); G5: respiratory and congestive heart failure, pulmonary infection (137 pt); G6: trauma (5 pt); G7: not included in previous groups, required an individual evaluation to asses VTE risk (112pt).

Prophylaxis methods included: low dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin 40 mg/d) and mechanical methods.

Main outcome measurements: 1- Global: correct application of the guide (defined by a coincidence between the prophylaxis received and the recommendation); 2-Adjust to risk group.

Results: Global adherence: Correct application of the guide was noted in 252 pts (56%);

Adjust to risk group: GR1:71%; GR2:44%; GR3:62%; GR4:76%; GR5:55%; GR6:60% and GR7:26%.

Conclusion:

  1. In our experience in medical patients global adherence to guides was 56%, the best adherence was observed in high risk groups 76% and the lowest 26% in those patients that need an individual risk assessment.

  2. This study and follow up permitted us to detect inaccurate prophylaxis uses and take corrective measures.

Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Author notes

Corresponding author