Heparin, Enoxaparin, and Mechanical Prophylaxis Utilization Evaluation in DVT Prophylaxis in a Major Teaching Hospital in West of Iran
Abstract
Background: Considering the high prevalence and risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) in hospitalized patients and the existence of different prophylaxis methods in these patients, the necessity of evaluating the rational administration of heparin or enoxaparin and mechanical prophylaxis is one of the important priorities. The present study aimed to evaluate the consistency of the Heparin/Enoxaparin administration in comparison to guidelines in patients admitted to Imam Reza Hospital. Methods: In this prospective study drug use evaluation (DUE), 300 hospitalized patients receiving venous thrombosis prophylaxis were enrolled, of which 150 patients were selected from surgical wards and 150 patients from internal wards. The demographic and clinical data of patients were collected using clinical records of them. We used the checklists based on the Geneva System for patients admitted to internal wards and the Caprini Questionnaire for patients in surgical wards to evaluate whether patients had received heparin/enoxaparin prophylaxis and mechanical DVT prevention according to guidelines. Results: In the surgical ward, prophylactic treatment for venous thrombosis was administered in 85 (56.6%) patients admitted to surgical wards in accordance with the clinical guideline and in the internal ward, in 42 (28%) patients, with a significant difference between two sections (P: 0.0001). Mechanical prophylaxis, including compressive socks, was performed in 99 (66%) patients in the surgical ward and in the internal ward only in 56 (37.4%) patients, according to the guideline. Drug prophylaxis was administered in surgical wards in 116 (77.3%) patients and in internal wards, in 79 (52.6%) patients according to the guideline.Conclusion: Intravenous thrombosis prophylaxis, according to the guidelines, is more common in patients admitted to surgical wards than in internal wards. But in both sectors, statistics are far from international standards.
2. Pai M, Douketis J. Prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in acutely ill hospitalized medical adults. Literature review current through. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-of-venous-thromboembolic-disease-in-acutely-ill-hospitalized-medical-adults. Updated 07, 2020, Accessed 06, 2021.
3.Pai M, Douketis J. Prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in surgical patients. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-of-venous-thromboembolic-disease-in-adult-nonorthopedic-surgical-patients. Updated 04, 2020, Accessed 06, 2021.
4. Geerts WH, Code KI, Jay RM, Chen E, Szalai JP. A prospective study of venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med 1994;331(24):1601-6.
5. Chen Y, Shao J, Zhu W, Jia LS, Chen XS. Identification of risk factors for respiratory complications in upper cervical spinal injured patients with neurological impairment. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013;47(2):111-7.
6. Francis CW. “Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(29):4874-80.
7.Deng J, Thomas L, Li H, Varughesekutty E, et al. Overuse of DVT Prophylaxis in Medical Inpatients. Blood 2015;126(23):5563.
8. Minami CA, Yang AD, Ju M, et al. Evaluation of an institutional project to improve venous thromboembolism prevention. J Hosp Med 2016;11:S29-S37.
9.Amin Mansour B, Eshraghi N, Abrishamkar S, Torkashvand M, Asnaashari A. Comparing the effect of unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin in preventing of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis after craniotomy in patients with brain tumor. Journal of Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences 2013;15(3):273-276.
10. Spirk D, Nendaz M, Aujesky D, et al. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost 2015;113(5):1127-34.
11. Motte S, Samama CM, Guay J, et al. Prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism. Risk assessment and methods of prophylaxis. Can J Anesth 2006;53:S68
12. Khalili H, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Talasaz A, Najmedin F, Hosseinpoor R. Anticoagulant Utilization Evaluation in a Teaching Hospital: A Prospective Study. J Pharm Pract 2010;23(6):579-584.
13.Du Plessis JA, Van Blydenstein SA, Wong M. Evaluation of the use of low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medical patients. S Afr Med J 2020;110(3):235-242.
14.Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008;371(9610):387-94.
15. Pinjala R; ENDORSE-India investigators. Venous thromboembolism risk & prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE), a multinational cross-sectional study: results from the Indian subset data. Indian J Med Res 2012;136(1):60-7.
16. Bergmann JF, Lloret-Linares C, Rami A, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): results obtained in France. Presse Med 2011;40(12 Pt 1):e528-37.
17. Nimeri AA, Gamaleldin MM, McKenna KL, Turrin NP, Mustafa BO. Reduction of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients using a mandatory risk-scoring system: 5-year follow-up of an american college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2017;23(4):392-396.
18.Cardoso LF, Krokoscz DV, de Paiva EF, et al. Results of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis program for hospitalized patients. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2016;12:491-496.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 9, No 4 (Autumn 2021) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jpc.v9i4.8223 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Prophylaxis Venous Thrombosis Heparin Enoxaparin Thromboembolic Events | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
