MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2586556162 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.170.170

Alignment to ACCP Prophylaxis Guidelines and VTE Outcomes in THR and TKR Patients

2008· article· en· W2586556162 on OpenAlexaff
Bijan J. Borah, Heather McDonald, Joe Henk, Mark Crowther, Rita Selby, Philip Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonBayer (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismGuidelineIncidence (geometry)ArthroplastyKnee replacementVenous thromboembolismDeep veinRetrospective cohort studyThrombosisEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition, encompassing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that major orthopaedic surgery, such as total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR), is associated with a high risk of postoperative VTE. Because of this risk, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines recommend that these patients receive prophylaxis with anticoagulant therapy. However, the degree to which these guidelines are followed in routine practice is variable. In addition, few studies have documented the relationship between the variability in guideline alignment and VTE rates. Therefore, a retrospective database analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the ACCP guidelines for VTE prophylaxis are followed after THR/TKR and evaluate the incidence of VTE of those who received ACCP recommended prophylaxis according to the guidelines (‘ACCP’) and those who did not (‘non-ACCP’). Methods: In order to fully evaluate VTE prophylaxis patterns and outcomes, patients should be followed from the time of surgery through to hospital discharge and subsequently to care in the community. To our knowledge, a single database that captures this information for a specific patient in these three phases is not yet available. Therefore, a claims database associated with a large US health plan was linked to the Premier database, which provides details of inpatient medication use. Patients age ≥18 years undergoing TKR/THR between April 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007 and enrolled in the health plan 90 days prior to and 90 days following discharge from index hospitalization (or until death) were included in the analysis. Patients were considered to have received ACCP-guideline prophylaxis if they: initiated prophylaxis in hospital with LMWH, fondaparinux, or VKA initiated prophylaxis within one day of surgery (for THR patients) and were prescribed prophylaxis for a minimum of ten days, or until the occurrence of a bleeding event, a VTE-related event, or death. In addition, the number of DVTs and PEs occurring in ACCP and non-ACCP patients was recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess whether there was a significant relationship between ACCP guideline prophylaxis and the probability of a DVT or PE following THR/TKR. Results: Of the 30,644 eligible patients from the health plan, 3,497 patients could be linked to the inpatient database. Except for geographic indicators, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or baseline co-morbidities between those included and excluded from the final study sample. Of the 3,497 linked patients, 1,395 received ACCP guideline prophylaxis (40%). The number of DVTs occurring in the ACCP and non-ACCP groups were 27 and 62, respectively. Thus, 2.01% of ACCP and 3.76% of non-ACCP patients have a DVT following surgery and up to the end of 90-day followup (p=0.0521), suggesting that non-ACCP patients were almost twice as likely as ACCP patients to have a DVT. The number of PEs occurring in the ACCP and non-ACCP groups were 2 and 25, respectively. Thus, 0.14% of ACCP and 1.19% of non-ACCP patients experienced a PE following the date of surgery and up to the end of 90-day follow-up (p<0.0001), suggesting that non-ACCP patients were more than eight times more likely than ACCP patients to experience a PE. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that the probability of DVT and PE were significantly lower in patients receiving ACCP guideline prophylaxis (p=0.008 and p=0.03, respectively) Conclusions: By following patients from surgery through to care in the community, this study offers a unique perspective on ‘real-world’ prophylaxis patterns and clinical outcomes related to such patterns in THR and TKR patients. It suggests that: only 40% of THR/TKR patients receive prophylaxis that is in alignment with ACCP guidelines and that patients receiving prophylaxis according to the ACCP guidelines were less likely to have a DVT or PE than those not receiving ACCP guideline prophylaxis, the latter were almost twice as likely to have a DVT and more than eight times as likely to experience a PE.

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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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