Skip to content
2000
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1871-5257
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6182

Abstract

Background

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) is defined as cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) that occur in a hospital and within ninety days of a hospital admission. Deep vein thromboses (DVTs) most commonly occur within the deep veins of the pelvis and legs. If the thrombus dislodges and travels to the lungs, it can result in a pulmonary embolus (PE). VTE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, accounting for almost 10% of all hospital deaths. If risk factors are correctly identified and VTE prophylaxis is prescribed, VTE can be a preventable condition. In 2010, NHS England launched The National Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Programme. This included NICE guidance, and a VTE risk assessment tool, which must be completed for at least 95% of patients on admission. The National Thrombosis Survey, published by Thrombosis UK, studied how this program was implemented locally, and audited HA-VTE prevention strategies nationally.

Objectives

Using the Thrombosis Survey and NICE guidance as an aide, this study collects data about hospital-acquired DVT (HA-DVT) at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Gateshead (QEH) and aims to:

  1.    1.   Identify cases of HA-DVT and understand the clinical circumstances surrounding these cases
  2.    2.   Assess the quality of VTE preventative measures at QEH
  3.    3.   Outline potential improvement in reducing the incidence of HA-VTE at this hospital
Methods

This retrospective cohort study used electronic records to identify all cases of DVT between April 2019 and April 2022 at QEH. Cases of HA-DVT were defined as: a positive ultrasound doppler report and either the case occurring in the 90 days following an inpatient stay, or beyond two days into an admission. For these cases of HA-DVT, we recorded the: reason for admission; admitting specialty; presence of an underlying active cancer and deaths occurring within 90 days of diagnosis. We assessed the quality of VTE preventative measures, by recording the: completion of VTE risk assessments; prescription of weight-adjusted pharmacological VTE prophylaxis and provision of VTE prophylaxis on discharge. For HA-DVT cases occurring within 90 days of an inpatient stay, the preventative measures were assessed on the original admission. Electronic records were used to record the completion rate of the National VTE risk assessment tool for all inpatients during this time frame.

Results

The VTE risk assessment tool was completed for 98.5% of all admissions. One hundred and thirty-five cases of HA-DVT were identified between April 2019 and April 2022. Sixteen patients with HA-DVT did not have VTE prophylaxis prescribed on admission. Eleven of these patients had a clearly documented reason why anticoagulation was avoided. In HA-DVT cases where pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was prescribed, 23% were prescribed an inappropriate dose for their weight. If anticoagulation was required on discharge, this was prescribed appropriately in 94% of cases. About 31% of the patients with HA-DVT had an underlying active malignancy. Thirty-nine patients died within 90 days of the DVT being diagnosed; in only 1 case was VTE thought to be a contributing factor to death.

Conclusion

The hospital exceeded the national standard of VTE risk assessment completion on admission (greater than 95%). For almost a quarter of patients with HA-DVT, the dose of thromboprophylaxis prescribed was not appropriate for weight. In five cases of HA-DVT, thromboprophylaxis was omitted with no clear justification. HA-DVT often affects the most clinically vulnerable patients and is associated with a high mortality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/chamc/10.2174/0118715257269027231228114930
2024-06-01
2024-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. NICE. Venous thromboembolism in over 16s: Reducing the risk of hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.2018Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG89
    [Google Scholar]
  2. HirshJ. HoakJ. Management of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A statement for healthcare professionals. Council on Thrombosis (in consultation with the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology), American Heart Association.Circulation199693122212224510.1161/01.CIR.93.12.2212 8925592
    [Google Scholar]
  3. HuntB.J. Preventing hospital associated venous thromboembolism.BMJ2019365l423910.1136/bmj.l4239 31227478
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HeitJ.A. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community: Implications for prevention and management.J. Thromb. Thrombolysis2006211232910.1007/s11239‑006‑5572‑y 16475038
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KahnS.R. MorrisonD.R. CohenJ.M. EmedJ. TagalakisV. RoussinA. GeertsW. Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.Cochrane Libr.20137CD00820110.1002/14651858.CD008201.pub2 23861035
    [Google Scholar]
  6. PiazzaG. FanikosJ. ZayaruznyM. GoldhaberS.Z. Venous thromboembolic events in hospitalised medical patients.Thromb. Haemost.20091023505510 19718471
    [Google Scholar]
  7. RobertsL.N. DurkinM. AryaR. Annotation: Developing a national programme for VTE prevention.Br. J. Haematol.2017178116217010.1111/bjh.14769 28542789
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ThrombosisU.K. Getting it right first time. National Thrombosis Survey.2021Available from: https://thrombosisuk.org/girft.php
    [Google Scholar]
  9. RobertsLN. PorterG. BarkerRD. Comprehensive VTE prevention program incorporating mandatory risk assessment reduces the incidence of hospital-associated thrombosis.Chest201314471276128110.1378/chest.13‑0267
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LesterW. FreemantleN. BegajI. RayD. WoodJ. PaganoD. Fatal venous thromboembolism associated with hospital admission: A cohort study to assess the impact of a national risk assessment target.Heart201399231734173910.1136/heartjnl‑2013‑304479 24038168
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KahnS.R. LimW. DunnA.S. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis. 9th edn. American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Chest2012141S2195226
    [Google Scholar]
  12. RosenbergD. EichornA. AlarconM. McCullaghL. McGinnT. SpyropoulosA.C. External validation of the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) for medical patients in a tertiary health system.J. Am. Heart Assoc.201436e00115210.1161/JAHA.114.001152 25404191
    [Google Scholar]
  13. BarbarS. NoventaF. RossettoV. FerrariA. BrandolinB. PerlatiM. De BonE. TormeneD. PagnanA. PrandoniP. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua Prediction Score.J. Thromb. Haemost.20108112450245710.1111/j.1538‑7836.2010.04044.x 20738765
    [Google Scholar]
  14. AlikhanR. ForsterR. CohenA.T. Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction).Cochrane Libr.201420182CD00374710.1002/14651858.CD003747.pub4 24804622
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LaporteS. LiotierJ. BertolettiL. KleberF.X. PineoG.F. ChapelleC. MoulinN. MismettiP. Individual patient data meta‐analysis of enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prevention in medical patients.J. Thromb. Haemost.20119346447210.1111/j.1538‑7836.2011.04182.x 21232002
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LesterW. GomezK. ShapiroS. DabhiK. LaffanM. NICE NG89 recommendations for extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis – is it justified and is it cost effective: A rebuttal from the British Society for Haematology.Br. J. Haematol.2019186579079110.1111/bjh.16007 31168789
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SebaalyJ. CovertK. Enoxaparin dosing at extremes of weight: Literature review and dosing recommendations.Ann. Pharmacother.201852989890910.1177/1060028018768449 29592538
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LiA. EshaghpourA. TsengE.K. DouketisJ.D. AnvariM. TiboniM. SiegalD.M. IkesakaR.T. CrowtherM.A. Weight-adjusted tinzaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in bariatric surgery patients weighing 160 kg or more.Thromb. Res.20211981610.1016/j.thromres.2020.11.021 33246191
    [Google Scholar]
  19. PfrepperC. KochE. WeiseM. SiegemundR. SiegemundA. PetrosS. MetzeM. Weight-adjusted dosing of tinzaparin for thromboprophylaxis in obese medical patients.Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost.20237210005410.1016/j.rpth.2023.100054 36876282
    [Google Scholar]
  20. CeccatoD. Di VincenzoA. PaganoC. PesaventoR. PrandoniP. VettorR. Weight-adjusted versus fixed dose heparin thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized obese patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur. J. Intern. Med.202188738010.1016/j.ejim.2021.03.030 33888393
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GoldenbergN. KahnS.R. SolymossS. Markers of coagulation and angiogenesis in cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.J. Clin. Oncol.200321224194419910.1200/JCO.2003.05.165 14615447
    [Google Scholar]
  22. FargeD. FrereC. ConnorsJ.M. KhoranaA.A. KakkarA. AyC. MuñozA. BrennerB. PrataP.H. BrilhanteD. AnticD. CasaisP. Guillermo EspositoM.C. IkezoeT. AbutalibS.A. Meillon-GarcíaL.A. BounameauxH. PabingerI. DouketisJ. AgenoW. AjauroF. AlcindorT. AngchaisuksiriP. ArcelusJ.I. BarbaR. BazarbachiiA. BellesoeurA. BensaoulaO. BenzidiaI. BitaD. BitsadzeV. BlicksteinD. BlosteinM. BogalhoI. BrandaoA. CaladoR. CarpentierA. CeresettoJ.M. ChitsikeR. ConnaultJ. CorreiaC.J. CrichiB. De PaulaE.V. DemirA.M. DevilleL. DoucetL. DounaevskaiaV. DurantC. EllisM. EmmerichJ. FalangaA. FontC. GallardoE. GaryT. GonçalvesF. GrisJ-C. HayashiH. HijA. Jara-PalomaresL. JiménezD. KhizroevaJ. N’GuessanM. LangerF. Le HelloC. Le MaignanC. LecumberriR. LeeL.H. LiedermanZ. Lopes dos SantosL. MachadoD.H. MakatsariyaA. ManeyroA. MarjanovicZ. MilhaileanuS. MonrealM. MoraisS. MoreiraA. MukaiM. NdourA. Correa OliveiraL. Otero-CandelaraR. Tostes PintaoM.C. PoschF. PrilolletP. RafiiH. Dias RibeiroD. RiessH. RighiniM. Robert-EbadiH. RothschildC. RoussinA. Rueda CaminoJ.A. Ruiz-ArtachoP. SaharovG. SantosJ. SebuhyanM. ShamseddineA. SpectreG.S. TaherA. Trujillo-SantosJ. TzoranI. VilliersS. WongR. YamashitaY. YannoutsosA. YasudaC. 2022 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer, including patients with COVID-19.Lancet Oncol.2022237e334e34710.1016/S1470‑2045(22)00160‑7 35772465
    [Google Scholar]
  23. OsataphanS. PatellR. ChiasakulT. KhoranaA.A. ZwickerJ.I. Extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients with cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis.Blood Adv.2021582055206210.1182/bloodadvances.2020004118 33861298
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KucherN. SpirkD. BaumgartnerI. MazzolaiL. KorteW. NobelD. BanyaiM. BounameauxH. Lack of prophylaxis before the onset of acute venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients: The SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER).Ann. Oncol.201021593193510.1093/annonc/mdp406 19828560
    [Google Scholar]
  25. CarrierM. KhoranaA.A. MorettoP. Lack of Evidence to Support Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Medical Patients with Cancer.Am. J. Med.201412718286.e1
    [Google Scholar]
  26. RasmussenM.S. JorgensenL.N. Wille-JørgensenP. NielsenJ.D. HornA. MohnA.C. SømodL. OlsenB. Prolonged prophylaxis with dalteparin to prevent late thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: A multicenter randomized open‐label study.J. Thromb. Haemost.20064112384239010.1111/j.1538‑7836.2006.02153.x 16881934
    [Google Scholar]
  27. KakkarV.V. BalibreaJ.L. Martínez-GonzálezJ. PrandoniP. Extended prophylaxis with bemiparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer: The CANBESURE randomized study.J. Thromb. Haemost.2010861223122910.1111/j.1538‑7836.2010.03892.x 20456751
    [Google Scholar]
  28. RajkumarC. Effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression in reduction of risk of deep vein thrombosis in patients who have had a stroke (CLOTS 3): A multicentre randomised controlled trial.Lancet201339610245802804
    [Google Scholar]
  29. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. The International Stroke Trial (IST): A randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke.Lancet199734990651569158110.1016/S0140‑6736(97)04011‑7 9174558
    [Google Scholar]
  30. DennisM. MordiN. GrahamC. SandercockP. The timing, extent, progression and regression of deep vein thrombosis in immobile stroke patients: Observational data from the CLOTS multicenter randomized trials.J. Thromb. Haemost.20119112193220010.1111/j.1538‑7836.2011.04486.x 21883879
    [Google Scholar]
  31. KamphuisenP.W. AgnelliG. What is the optimal pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in patients with acute ischemic stroke?Thromb. Res.2007119326527410.1016/j.thromres.2006.03.010 16674999
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SandercockP.A.G. LeongT.S. Low-molecular-weight heparins or heparinoids versus standard unfractionated heparin for acute ischaemic stroke.Cochrane Libr.201720174CD00011910.1002/14651858.CD000119.pub4 28374884
    [Google Scholar]
  33. LunR. DhaliwalS. ZitikyteG. RoyD.C. HuttonB. DowlatshahiD. Comparison of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with minor ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack.JAMA Neurol.2021792141148 34870698
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute stroke.2021Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-and-treatment-ofvenous-thromboembolism-in-patients-with-acute-stroke
/content/journals/chamc/10.2174/0118715257269027231228114930
Loading
/content/journals/chamc/10.2174/0118715257269027231228114930
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test