Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 153 No. 11 (2023)

Contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Switzerland: a bi-centric prospective cohort

  • Marco Marando
  • Katherine Blondon
  • Pauline Darbellay Farhoumand
  • Mathieu Nendaz
  • Damien Grauser
  • Alain Sallet
  • Adriana Tamburello
  • Marco Pons
  • Marc Righini
  • Pietro Gianella
  • Marc Blondon
DOI
https://doi.org/10.57187/smw.2023.40117
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2023;153:40117
Published
01.11.2023

Summary

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a dreaded complication of hospitalised patients, with associated morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Previous studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, though effective, is inadequately administered in a large proportion of medical inpatients.

STUDY AIMS: Our primary aim was to evaluate the contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients admitted to two Swiss hospitals (a university hospital and a regional hospital). The secondary aim was to estimate the 90-day incidence of relevant thrombotic and bleeding events.

METHODS: In this prospective cohort, patients were recruited at the University Hospital of Geneva and the Regional Hospital of Lugano between September 2020 and February 2021 and followed for 90 days for venous thromboembolism and bleeding events. The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) at 24h after hospital admission was evaluated according to the simplified Geneva risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism.

RESULTS: Among 200 participants (100 at each site, mean age of 65 years), 57.5% were deemed at high risk of venous thromboembolism at admission. Thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 59.5% (95% CI 52.3–66.4%). Among high-risk and low-risk inpatients, thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 71.3% and 43.5%, respectively, with differences between sites. At 90 days, risks of adjudicated venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality were 1.5%, 1.5% and 6.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Despite the extensive literature on thromboprophylaxis, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis has not improved and remains insufficient among medical inpatients. Implementation and evaluation of clinical decision support systems are critically needed in this field.

clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT05306821

References

  1. Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Anderson FA, Arcelus JI, Bergqvist D, Brecht JG, et al.; VTE Impact Assessment Group in Europe (VITAE). Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe. The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality. Thromb Haemost. 2007 Oct;98(4):756–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH07-03-0212
  2. Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients. Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 SUPPL.):e195S-e226S. 10.1378/chest.11-2296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2296
  3. Office of the Surgeon General (US). National Heart L and BI (US). The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism. Rockville (MD). US: Office of the Surgeon General; 2008.
  4. Henke PK, Kahn SR, Pannucci CJ, Secemksy EA, Evans NS, Khorana AA, et al.; American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee. Call to Action to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020 Jun;141(24):e914–31. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000769
  5. Wein L, Wein S, Haas SJ, Shaw J, Krum H. Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jul;167(14):1476–86. 10.1001/archinte.167.14.1476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.14.1476
  6. Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Goldhaber SZ, Kakkar AK, Deslandes B, et al.; ENDORSE Investigators. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2008 Feb;371(9610):387–94. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60202-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60202-0
  7. Vazquez F, Watman R, Tabares A, Gumpel C, Baldessari E, Vilaseca AB, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adequacy of prophylaxis in hospitalized patients in Argentina: a multicentric cross-sectional study. Thromb J. 2014 Jul;12(1):15. 10.1186/1477-9560-12-15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-9560-12-15
  8. de Lorenzo-Pinto A, García-Sánchez R, Pascual Izquierdo C, Durán-García ME, Castuera-Gil AI, Andueza-Lillo JA, et al. Impact of the ENDORSE study results on thromboprophylaxis prescribing patterns in medical patients attending the emergency department. Int J Clin Pract. 2015 Jan;69(1):81–6. 10.1111/ijcp.12461 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12461
  9. Nendaz MR, Chopard P, Lovis C, Kucher N, Asmis LM, Dörffler J, et al. Adequacy of venous thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (IMPART): multisite comparison of different clinical decision support systems. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Jun;8(6):1230–4. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03817.x
  10. Nendaz M, Spirk D, Kucher N, Aujesky D, Hayoz D, Beer JH, et al. Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost. 2014 Mar;111(3):531–8. 10.1160/TH13-05-0427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH13-05-0427
  11. Blondon M, Limacher A, Righini M, Aujesky D, Méan M. Underuse of medical thromboprophylaxis in mobile elderly inpatients: the SWITCO65+ cohort. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020 Nov;5(1):142–7. 10.1002/rth2.12361 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12361
  12. Blondon M, Righini M, Nendaz M, Glauser F, Robert-Ebadi H, Prandoni P, et al. External validation of the simplified Geneva risk assessment model for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism in the Padua cohort. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar;18(3):676–80. 10.1111/jth.14688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14688
  13. Schulman S, Kearon C; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005 Apr;3(4):692–4. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x
  14. Cuker A, Arepally GM, Chong BH, Cines DB, Greinacher A, Gruel Y, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Blood Adv. 2018 Nov;2(22):3360–92. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024489
  15. Tritschler T, Kraaijpoel N, Girard P, Büller HR, Langlois N, Righini M, et al.; Subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease. Definition of pulmonary embolism-related death and classification of the cause of death in venous thromboembolism studies: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Jun;18(6):1495–500. 10.1111/jth.14769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14769
  16. Spirk D, Nendaz M, Aujesky D, Hayoz D, Beer JH, Husmann M, et al. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients: explicit assessment of thromboembolic risk and prophylaxis for medical patients in Switzerland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost. 2015 May;113(5):1127–34. 10.1160/TH14-06-0525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH14-06-0525
  17. Chmelik P, Chopard P, Bounameaux H. An evaluation of thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. Swiss Med Wkly. 2002 Sep;132(35-36):513–6. 10.4414/smw.2002.10059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2002.10059
  18. Chopard P, Dörffler-Melly J, Hess U, Wuillemin WA, Hayoz D, Gallino A, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients: definite need for improvement. J Intern Med. 2005 Apr;257(4):352–7. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01455.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01455.x
  19. Nendaz MR, Chopard P, Lovis C, Kucher N, Asmis LM, Dörffler J, et al. Adequacy of venous thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (IMPART): multisite comparison of different clinical decision support systems. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Jun;8(6):1230–4. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03817.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03817.x
  20. Akinbobuyi O, Shalders L, Nokes T. Ensuring timely thromboprophylaxis on a Medical Assessment Unit. BMJ Quality Improvement Programme 2016;5(1). 10.1136/bmjquality.u212414.w4934 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u212414.w4934
  21. NICE (National Institute for Heahlth and Care Excellence). Venous thromboembolism in adults. 2021;1–30.
  22. Moores LK, Tritschler T, Brosnahan S, Carrier M, Collen JF, Doerschug K, et al. Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Update to the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest. 2022 Jul;162(1):213–25. 10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.006
  23. Kyriakoulis KG, Dimakakos E, Kyriakoulis IG, Catalano M, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S, et al.; COVID-19 Thrombosis Collaborative Group, Endorsed by VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine, UEMS Division of Angiology/Vascular Medicine/and ESVM-European Society of Vascular Medicine and Supported by the Balkan Working Group. Practical Recommendations for Optimal Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: A Consensus Statement Based on Available Clinical Trials. J Clin Med. 2022 Oct;11(20):5997. 10.3390/jcm11205997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11205997
  24. Koren O, Nasser A, Elias M, Avraham G, Freidberg N, Saliba W, et al. Low venous thromboembolism incidence in high risk medical patients in an Israeli hospital. Can risk assessment be extrapolated to different populations? PLoS One. 2020 Jul;15(7):e0235683. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235683 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235683
  25. Depietri L, Marietta M, Scarlini S, Marcacci M, Corradini E, Pietrangelo A, et al. Clinical impact of application of risk assessment models (Padua Prediction Score and Improve Bleeding Score) on venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage and health expenditure associated with pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis: a “real life” prospective and retrospective observational study on patients hospitalized in a Single Internal Medicine Unit (the STIME study). Intern Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;13(4):527–34. 10.1007/s11739-018-1808-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-018-1808-z
  26. Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V, Ferrari A, Brandolin B, Perlati M, et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450–7. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04044.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04044.x
  27. Cobben MR, Nemeth B, Lijfering WM, Cannegieter SC. Validation of risk assessment models for venous thrombosis in hospitalized medical patients. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;3(2):217–25. 10.1002/rth2.12181 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rth2.12181
  28. Stuck AK, Spirk D, Schaudt J, Kucher N. Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. A systematic review. Thromb Haemost. 2017 Apr;117(4):801–8. 10.1160/TH16-08-0631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH16-08-0631

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>