Comparison of Chemical and Mechanical Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonsurgical Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Thrombosis Pub Date : 2015-11-22 DOI:10.1155/2015/849142
Dany Gaspard, K. Vito, C. Schorr, K. Hunter, D. Gerber
{"title":"Comparison of Chemical and Mechanical Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism in Nonsurgical Mechanically Ventilated Patients","authors":"Dany Gaspard, K. Vito, C. Schorr, K. Hunter, D. Gerber","doi":"10.1155/2015/849142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Thromboembolic events are major causes of morbidity, and prevention is important. We aimed to compare chemical prophylaxis (CP) and mechanical prophylaxis (MP) as methods of prevention in nonsurgical patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of adult patients admitted to the Cooper University Hospital ICU between 2002 and 2010. Patients on one modality of prophylaxis throughout their stay were included. The CP group comprised 329 patients and the MP group 419 patients. The primary outcome was incidence of thromboembolic events. Results. Acuity measured by APACHE II score was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.215). Univariate analysis showed 1 DVT/no PEs in the CP group and 12 DVTs/1 PE in the MP group (p = 0.005). Overall mortality was 34.3% and 50.6%, respectively. ICU LOS was similar. Hospital LOS was shorter in the MP group. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of events in the MP prophylaxis group (odds ratio 9.9). After excluding patients admitted for bleeding in both groups, repeat analysis showed again increased events in the MP group (odds ratio 2.9) but this result did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. Chemical methods for DVT/PE prophylaxis seem superior to mechanical prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients on mechanical ventilation and should be used when possible.","PeriodicalId":75222,"journal":{"name":"Thrombosis","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thrombosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/849142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Background. Thromboembolic events are major causes of morbidity, and prevention is important. We aimed to compare chemical prophylaxis (CP) and mechanical prophylaxis (MP) as methods of prevention in nonsurgical patients on mechanical ventilation. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of adult patients admitted to the Cooper University Hospital ICU between 2002 and 2010. Patients on one modality of prophylaxis throughout their stay were included. The CP group comprised 329 patients and the MP group 419 patients. The primary outcome was incidence of thromboembolic events. Results. Acuity measured by APACHE II score was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.215). Univariate analysis showed 1 DVT/no PEs in the CP group and 12 DVTs/1 PE in the MP group (p = 0.005). Overall mortality was 34.3% and 50.6%, respectively. ICU LOS was similar. Hospital LOS was shorter in the MP group. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of events in the MP prophylaxis group (odds ratio 9.9). After excluding patients admitted for bleeding in both groups, repeat analysis showed again increased events in the MP group (odds ratio 2.9) but this result did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. Chemical methods for DVT/PE prophylaxis seem superior to mechanical prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients on mechanical ventilation and should be used when possible.
非手术机械通气患者静脉血栓栓塞化学预防与机械预防的比较
背景。血栓栓塞事件是发病的主要原因,预防很重要。我们的目的是比较化学预防(CP)和机械预防(MP)作为预防非手术患者机械通气的方法。方法。我们对2002年至2010年间在库珀大学医院ICU住院的成年患者进行了回顾性研究。在整个住院期间采用一种预防方式的患者被纳入。CP组329例,MP组419例。主要终点是血栓栓塞事件的发生率。结果。两组间以APACHE II评分测量的锐度具有可比性(p = 0.215)。单因素分析显示,CP组为1 DVT/no PE, MP组为12 DVT/ 1 PE (p = 0.005)。总死亡率分别为34.3%和50.6%。ICU LOS相似。MP组住院时间较短。多因素分析显示,MP预防组的事件发生率明显更高(优势比9.9)。在排除两组因出血入院的患者后,重复分析显示MP组的事件再次增加(优势比2.9),但该结果未达到统计学意义。结论。在机械通气的非手术患者中,化学方法预防DVT/PE似乎优于机械预防,应尽可能使用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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