出血风险评分系统对创伤患者静脉血栓栓塞最佳预防性抗凝疗法的疗效:一项单中心、回顾性、观察性队列研究。

IF 1.2 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Atsushi Tomizawa, Takaaki Maruhashi, Akito Shibuya, Akihiko Akamine, Masayuki Kuroiwa, Yuichi Kataoka, Yasushi Asari, Koichiro Atsuda, Katsuya Otori
{"title":"出血风险评分系统对创伤患者静脉血栓栓塞最佳预防性抗凝疗法的疗效:一项单中心、回顾性、观察性队列研究。","authors":"Atsushi Tomizawa, Takaaki Maruhashi, Akito Shibuya, Akihiko Akamine, Masayuki Kuroiwa, Yuichi Kataoka, Yasushi Asari, Koichiro Atsuda, Katsuya Otori","doi":"10.1186/s40780-023-00319-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We developed a bleeding risk scoring system (BRSS) using prophylactic anticoagulation therapy to comprehensively assess the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma patients. This study evaluated the usefulness of this system in trauma patients, with a focus on minimizing the rate of bleeding events associated with prophylactic anticoagulation therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of BRSS in trauma patients who received prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for VTE at the Kitasato University Hospital Emergency and Critical Care Center between April 1, 2015, and August 31, 2020. To compare the incidence of bleeding events, patients were divided into two groups: one group using the BRSS (BRSS group) and another group not using the BRSS (non-BRSS group).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 94 patients were enrolled in this study, with 70 and 24 patients assigned to the non-BRSS and BRSS groups, respectively. The major bleeding event rates were not significantly different between the two groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 5.7%; p = 1.000). However, minor bleeding events were significantly reduced in the BRSS group (4.2% vs.27.1%; p = 0.020). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was not an independent influencing factor of major bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.660; 95% confidence interval: 0.067-6.47; p = 0.721). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was an independent influencing factor of minor bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.119; 95% confidence interval: 0.015-0.97; p = 0.047). The incidence of VTE did not differ significantly between groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 8.6%; p = 0.674).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BRSS may be a useful tool for reducing the incidence of minor bleeding events during the initial prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in trauma patients. There are several limitations of this study that need to be addressed in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":16730,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10729339/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of the bleeding risk scoring system for optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy of venous thromboembolism in trauma patients: a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Atsushi Tomizawa, Takaaki Maruhashi, Akito Shibuya, Akihiko Akamine, Masayuki Kuroiwa, Yuichi Kataoka, Yasushi Asari, Koichiro Atsuda, Katsuya Otori\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40780-023-00319-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We developed a bleeding risk scoring system (BRSS) using prophylactic anticoagulation therapy to comprehensively assess the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma patients. This study evaluated the usefulness of this system in trauma patients, with a focus on minimizing the rate of bleeding events associated with prophylactic anticoagulation therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of BRSS in trauma patients who received prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for VTE at the Kitasato University Hospital Emergency and Critical Care Center between April 1, 2015, and August 31, 2020. To compare the incidence of bleeding events, patients were divided into two groups: one group using the BRSS (BRSS group) and another group not using the BRSS (non-BRSS group).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 94 patients were enrolled in this study, with 70 and 24 patients assigned to the non-BRSS and BRSS groups, respectively. The major bleeding event rates were not significantly different between the two groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 5.7%; p = 1.000). However, minor bleeding events were significantly reduced in the BRSS group (4.2% vs.27.1%; p = 0.020). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was not an independent influencing factor of major bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.660; 95% confidence interval: 0.067-6.47; p = 0.721). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was an independent influencing factor of minor bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.119; 95% confidence interval: 0.015-0.97; p = 0.047). The incidence of VTE did not differ significantly between groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 8.6%; p = 0.674).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>BRSS may be a useful tool for reducing the incidence of minor bleeding events during the initial prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in trauma patients. There are several limitations of this study that need to be addressed in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10729339/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40780-023-00319-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40780-023-00319-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们开发了一种使用预防性抗凝疗法的出血风险评分系统(BRSS),用于全面评估创伤患者的静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)风险。本研究评估了该系统在创伤患者中的实用性,重点是最大限度地降低与预防性抗凝疗法相关的出血事件发生率:我们对2015年4月1日至2020年8月31日期间在北里大学医院急诊和重症监护中心接受VTE预防性抗凝治疗的创伤患者使用BRSS的疗效进行了回顾性评估。为了比较出血事件的发生率,患者被分为两组:一组使用BRSS(BRSS组),另一组不使用BRSS(非BRSS组):本研究共招募了 94 名患者,其中 70 名和 24 名患者分别被分配到非 BRSS 组和 BRSS 组。两组的大出血率无明显差异(BRSS 组,4.2%;非 BRSS 组,5.7%;P = 1.000)。但是,BRSS 组的轻微出血事件明显减少(4.2% 对 27.1%;P = 0.020)。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,BRSS 不是大出血事件的独立影响因素(几率比 0.660;95% 置信区间:0.067-6.47;P = 0.721)。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,BRSS 是轻微出血事件的独立影响因素(几率比 0.119;95% 置信区间:0.015-0.97;P = 0.047)。各组之间的 VTE 发生率没有明显差异(BRSS 组,4.2%;非 BRSS 组,8.6%;P = 0.674):BRSS可能是减少创伤患者初期预防性抗凝治疗期间轻微出血事件发生率的有效工具。本研究存在一些局限性,需要在今后的研究中加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of the bleeding risk scoring system for optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy of venous thromboembolism in trauma patients: a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study.

Background: We developed a bleeding risk scoring system (BRSS) using prophylactic anticoagulation therapy to comprehensively assess the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma patients. This study evaluated the usefulness of this system in trauma patients, with a focus on minimizing the rate of bleeding events associated with prophylactic anticoagulation therapy.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of BRSS in trauma patients who received prophylactic anticoagulation therapy for VTE at the Kitasato University Hospital Emergency and Critical Care Center between April 1, 2015, and August 31, 2020. To compare the incidence of bleeding events, patients were divided into two groups: one group using the BRSS (BRSS group) and another group not using the BRSS (non-BRSS group).

Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled in this study, with 70 and 24 patients assigned to the non-BRSS and BRSS groups, respectively. The major bleeding event rates were not significantly different between the two groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 5.7%; p = 1.000). However, minor bleeding events were significantly reduced in the BRSS group (4.2% vs.27.1%; p = 0.020). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was not an independent influencing factor of major bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.660; 95% confidence interval: 0.067-6.47; p = 0.721). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BRSS was an independent influencing factor of minor bleeding events (odds ratio, 0.119; 95% confidence interval: 0.015-0.97; p = 0.047). The incidence of VTE did not differ significantly between groups (BRSS group, 4.2%; non-BRSS group, 8.6%; p = 0.674).

Conclusions: BRSS may be a useful tool for reducing the incidence of minor bleeding events during the initial prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in trauma patients. There are several limitations of this study that need to be addressed in future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
8 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