Retrospective Analysis of Adherence to Thromboprophylaxis after Orthopedic Surgery in a Community Hospital
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Venous thromboembolism is a well-known complication of total knee replacement, total hip replacement, and hip fracture repair. Venous thromboembolism, which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, can cause significant morbidity and mortality. In addition, treatment of this condition can result in substantial costs to the health care system. Patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery are considered at high risk for these complications, with the rate of venous thromboembolism approaching 40% to 60% among patients who have not received postoperative thromboprophylaxis. Rates of venous thromboembolism have decreased significantly with the use of guideline-recommended thromboprophylaxis. Because many cases of venous thromboembolism occur after discharge from hospital, postdischarge prophylaxis is an important component of treatment. Thromboprophylaxis for patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery has been the standard of care for more than 15 years. The 2008 guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommended the use of a low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, or a vitamin K antagonist (e.g., warfarin) for at least 10 days after total knee replacement and for an extended period of up to 28–35 days after total hip replacement or hip fracture repair. Although patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery are generally considered to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism, individual patient risk factors also influence the occurrence of this problem. Additional risk factors include immobility, cancer, previous venous thromboembolism, older age, and obesity. Risk stratification has historically been used to make decisions about thromboprophylaxis for individual patients; however, such stratification is often not done in practice because it is quite cumbersome. With the availability of LMWH, the use of warfarin has been decreasing steadily in this patient population, which avoids the need to monitor the international normalized ratio (INR) and titrate warfarin to a target INR of 2–3. However, several barriers still exist to providing appropriate thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in this patient population. Because thromboprophylaxis of at least 10 days (for total knee replacement) and of extended duration (for total hip replacement or hip fracture surgery) has been shown to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism, it is remarkable that more patients are not receiving postdischarge therapy, especially given that a recent meta-analysis showed no significant increase in episodes of major bleeding when these agents were used for this purpose. The results of studies evaluating in-hospital adherence to available guidelines have been disappointing, with most adherence rates being suboptimal. Adherence with postdischarge thromboprophylaxis is also important, given reports that the majority of cases of thromboembolism after total hip and knee replacement are diagnosed after discharge. The primary objective of this retrospective analysis was to examine the rate of adherence to the 2008 ACCP guidelines for the appropriate duration of postoperative therapy with LMWH or warfarin among orthopedic patients in an urban community hospital. Previous studies of adherence have rarely reported postdischarge compliance, but for this study, in-hospital data were combined with community data to generate the total duration of therapy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».