MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An Assessment of Surgical Thromboprophylaxis in a Tertiary Care Center

2008· article· en· W2572556722 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cassianne Robinson‐Cohen, Vicky Tagalakis, Marie‐France Dubois, Danielle Pilon

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyMedical prescriptionIncidence (geometry)Logistic regressionCohortPediatricsEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent surgical complication. The type of surgery and baseline patient VTE risk factors are important in defining postoperative VTE risk. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends implementation of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis according to surgery type and VTE risk factors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients to determine adherence to the 2004 ACCP surgical thromboprophylaxis recommendations and to assess for predictors of non-adherence. Methods. Using data from the administrative healthcare database CIRESSS (Centre Informatisé de Recherche Évaluative en Services en Soins de Santé), in patients admitted for surgery between January 1st and December 31st 2006 at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), a tertiary care center in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, we retrospectively assembled a cohort of all consecutively admitted surgical patients who met ACCP criteria for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. We assessed the proportion of patients who received in the 24 hours pre- and post-surgery a prescription for thromboprophylaxis. We used conditional logistic regression to determine clinical characteristics associated with an absent prescription. The incidence of objectively-defined symptomatic postoperative VTE was assessed at three months. Results. Of 2286 surgical admissions that met ACCP recommendations for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, 1852 (81%) received thromboprophylaxis and 434 (19%) did not. Male sex (odds ratio (OR): 1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.4–2.4)), age <40 years (OR: 1.8, 95% CI (1.2–2.9)), absent varicose veins (OR: 3.2, 95% CI (1.1–10.0)), pregnancy within 3 months of surgery (OR: 8.5, 95% CI (3.5–20.8)), a moderate risk for post-operative VTE as per ACCP criteria (OR: 4.4, 95% CI (2.9–6.52)), non-major surgery (OR: 4.5, 95% CI (2.3–8.8)), short-duration hospitalization (2–3 days vs. 13 days or more) (OR: 15.3, 95% CI (9.6–24.4)), absence of active cancer (OR: 1.6, 95% CI (1.2–2.1)), absence of heart failure (OR: 1.8, 95% CI (1.1–2.8)), and non-orthopaedic surgery (OR: 28.2, 95% CI (15.9–49.9)) were associated with lack of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. At three months following surgery, 16 patients (0.7%) developed VTE, and the adjusted relative risk of VTE in patients without thromboprophylaxis was 2.1 (95% CI:0.5–7.9). Conclusions. Though surgical thromboprophylaxis was observed in 81% of surgical patients, 19% of patients who met criteria for ACCP thromboprophylaxis did not receive prophylaxis. Targeted recommendations in particular toward pregnant women undergoing non-obstetrical surgery, patients with short duration hospitalization, and patients undergoing non-orthopaedic surgery may ameliorate thromboprophylaxis compliance rates, which in turn may impact on post-operative VTE risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→