Chemical versus Mechanical and Chemical Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Neurocritically Ill Patients: A Cohort Study.

IF 3.1 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Abdulrahman I Alshaya, Hayaa Alyahya, Reema Alzoman, Rawa Faden, Omar A Alshaya, Khalid Al Sulaiman, Faisal Alanazi, Sara Aldekhyl
{"title":"Chemical versus Mechanical and Chemical Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Neurocritically Ill Patients: A Cohort Study.","authors":"Abdulrahman I Alshaya,&nbsp;Hayaa Alyahya,&nbsp;Reema Alzoman,&nbsp;Rawa Faden,&nbsp;Omar A Alshaya,&nbsp;Khalid Al Sulaiman,&nbsp;Faisal Alanazi,&nbsp;Sara Aldekhyl","doi":"10.2147/CPAA.S388950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patients admitted with neurocritical illness are presumed to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The administration of chemical and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis is a common practice in critically ill patients. Recent data did not show a significant difference in the incidence of VTE between chemical compared to a combined chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with limited data in neurocritically ill population. The objective of this study is to investigate the incidence of VTE between chemical alone compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in neurocritically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary teaching hospital. Data were obtained from electronic medical records for all patients admitted with neurocritical illness from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not receive VTE prophylaxis during admission or were younger than 18 YO. Major outcomes were symptomatic VTE based on clinical and radiological findings, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Minor outcomes included severe or life-threatening bleeding based on GUSTO criteria, and mortality at 28-days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred and twelve patients were included in this study. Patients did not have any significant differences in their baseline characteristics. The incidence of VTE was similar in the chemical only group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 7/46 (15.2%)); P = 0.49. No difference between groups in their ICU LOS 6 [3-16.2] vs 6.5 [3-19]; P = 0.52, nor their mortality (18/166 (10.7%) vs 3/46 (6.5%)); P = 0.38, respectively. Less bleeding events were seen in the chemical prophylaxis group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 12/46 (26.1%); P = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings observed no difference between the administration of chemical VTE prophylaxis alone compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis strategy. More data are needed to confirm this finding with more robust methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":10406,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications","volume":"15 ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/0a/cpaa-15-1.PMC9833649.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology : Advances and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CPAA.S388950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Patients admitted with neurocritical illness are presumed to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The administration of chemical and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis is a common practice in critically ill patients. Recent data did not show a significant difference in the incidence of VTE between chemical compared to a combined chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with limited data in neurocritically ill population. The objective of this study is to investigate the incidence of VTE between chemical alone compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in neurocritically ill patients.

Patients and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary teaching hospital. Data were obtained from electronic medical records for all patients admitted with neurocritical illness from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not receive VTE prophylaxis during admission or were younger than 18 YO. Major outcomes were symptomatic VTE based on clinical and radiological findings, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Minor outcomes included severe or life-threatening bleeding based on GUSTO criteria, and mortality at 28-days.

Results: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in this study. Patients did not have any significant differences in their baseline characteristics. The incidence of VTE was similar in the chemical only group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 7/46 (15.2%)); P = 0.49. No difference between groups in their ICU LOS 6 [3-16.2] vs 6.5 [3-19]; P = 0.52, nor their mortality (18/166 (10.7%) vs 3/46 (6.5%)); P = 0.38, respectively. Less bleeding events were seen in the chemical prophylaxis group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 12/46 (26.1%); P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Our findings observed no difference between the administration of chemical VTE prophylaxis alone compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis strategy. More data are needed to confirm this finding with more robust methodology.

神经危重症患者的化学、机械和化学静脉血栓栓塞预防:一项队列研究。
目的:神经危重症患者被认为是静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)的高危患者。化学和/或机械静脉血栓栓塞预防是危重患者的常见做法。最近的数据显示,在神经危重症患者中,与化学和机械联合预防静脉血栓栓塞相比,化学预防与机械预防在静脉血栓栓塞发生率上没有显著差异,数据有限。本研究的目的是调查神经危重症患者静脉血栓栓塞的发生率,与化学和机械静脉血栓栓塞预防相比。患者和方法:这是一项在某三级教学医院进行的回顾性队列研究。数据来自2016年1月1日至2020年12月31日所有入院的神经危重症患者的电子病历。如果患者在入院时未接受静脉血栓栓塞预防或年龄小于18岁,则排除。主要结局是基于临床和影像学表现、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间(LOS)和医院LOS的症状性静脉血栓栓塞。次要结局包括严重或危及生命的出血(基于GUSTO标准)和28天死亡率。结果:本研究纳入了212例患者。患者的基线特征没有任何显著差异。与联合静脉血栓栓塞预防组相比,单独使用药物组的静脉血栓栓塞发生率相似(19/166 (11.3%)vs 7/46 (15.2%));P = 0.49。两组ICU LOS分别为6[3-16.2]和6.5 [3-19];P = 0.52,死亡率(18/166 (10.7%)vs 3/46 (6.5%));P = 0.38。与静脉血栓栓塞联合预防组相比,化学预防组出血事件较少(19/166 (11.3%)vs 12/46 (26.1%);P = 0.01)。结论:我们的研究结果观察到单独使用静脉血栓栓塞化学预防与联合静脉血栓栓塞预防策略之间没有差异。需要更多的数据以更可靠的方法来证实这一发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信