The Impact Of a Standardized Protocol On Thromboprophylaxis, Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Rates In Hospitalized Patients With Hematological Malignancies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in patients with underlying cancer. This risk is higher during hospitalization for acute medical conditions. Consequently, routine thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized cancer patients. A retrospective review of admissions to the Leukemia/Bone Marrow Transplant (LBMT) unit at our institution between January and June 2010 demonstrated that VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in only 6.6% of admissions. In March 2012, a mandatory VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis protocol was introduced in the LBMT unit as part of a hospital-wide policy to improve thromboprophylaxis compliance for all hospitalized patients. Objectives The primary goal is to assess the impact of the VTE thromboprophylaxis protocol on the use of thromboprophylaxis in the LBMT unit. Secondary aims of this study are to evaluate the incidence of VTE (including catheter-related thrombosis [CRT]) and bleeding after the introduction of the protocol. Methods A retrospective chart review of all admissions to the Vancouver General Hospital LBMT unit between March 1, 2012 and February 28, 2013 was performed (intervention cohort [IC]). Only the first admission for each patient during the study period was included in the analysis. Data were extracted from electronic medical records using standardized forms. The primary outcome, rate of VTE prophylaxis, was compared to historical data from January 2010 to June 2010 (historical cohort [HC]). Results 361 patients were included in the IC and 166 patients were included in the HC. All baseline patient characteristics, thrombotic risk factors and bleeding risk factors were similar between the cohorts with the exception of the presence of thrombocytopenia (82.0% IC vs. 68.7% HC, p=0.001) (Table 1 ). At least one dose of thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 14.0% of admissions in the IC vs. 6.6% of admissions in the HC. This increase was statistically significant (p=0.01). Despite the low prophylaxis prevalence, VTE was uncommon, occurring in only 1.9% patients in the IC (pulmonary embolism [PE] in 5 patients, CRT in 1 patient and left ventricular thrombus in 1 patient) vs. 2.4% patients in the HC (deep vein thrombosis +/- PE in 3 patients, CRT and PE in 1 patient) (p=0.7). In contrast, bleeding complications were frequent (even in the absence of anticoagulants), with 13.3% of patients in the IC and 19.3% of patients in the HC experiencing at least one bleeding episode (p=0.08). 22 patients (6.1%) in the IC and 8 patients (4.8%) in the HC died during the study period. While fatal bleeding events occurred in 2 patients in each cohort in the absence of anticoagulation, no deaths due to VTE were observed. Conclusions After introduction of a standardized protocol, VTE prophylaxis rate in hospitalized LBMT patients significantly increased by over 2-fold but remains low. No changes in bleeding and VTE rates were observed despite the increase in prophylaxis compliance. Although thrombocytopenia is likely the prime reason for withholding prophylaxis, further review is ongoing to elucidate the reasons why thromboprophylaxis was not prescribed in the majority of patients. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0,012 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 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 ».