Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Current expanded treatment recommendations result in the inclusion of a large percentage of the obstetric population, which has limited their adoption. The purpose of this study was to identify a population at high risk for VTE, with minimal impact on the number of patients that would qualify for expanded treatment. Study Design We performed a retrospective analysis of a large obstetric population. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revsion (ICD-10) codes for VTE were used to identify patients presenting for obstetric or postpartum (PP) care from January 2016 to March 2018. The review focused on high-risk factors (history of VTE or high-risk thrombophilia), antepartum hospital admissions that were >72 hours in the previous 30 days, use of sequential compression devices, body mass index (BMI; kg/m2), age, and mode of delivery. Pharmacologic treatment efficacy was set at 90, 75, or 50%. Results During the 27-month review period, there were 120,235 deliveries and 93 had a VTE event in the index pregnancy or within 4 weeks PP (7.7/10,000 births). A history of VTE or high-risk thrombophilia was seen in 25.8% of cases. Antepartum admission was noted in 40.9%, and the combination of cesarean delivery (CD) with age and BMI ≥35 (Age + BMI + CD) was noted in 17.3% of PP cases. Targeting these latter two groups for VTE prophylaxis with a 75% efficacy suggests that 34% of the VTE events would likely have been prevented while increasing the total population treated by approximately 2%. Conclusion Expanding pharmacologic prophylactical coverage to include an antepartum admission of >72 hours and those with Age + BMI + CD would result in about a one-third reduction in total VTE events with about 2% requiring treatment. These data support some of the suggested recommendations for expanded pharmacological deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shields et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: