Key result
Narrative review details VTE risk assessment tools and thromboprophylaxis controversies in acutely ill medical patients.
Why the study?
The optimal strategy for identifying acutely ill medical inpatients at risk for venous thromboembolism to enable targeted thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain, and many events occur despite appropriate prophylaxis.
This narrative review outlines current strategies and ongoing controversies regarding VTE risk assessment, as well as thromboprophylaxis dosing and duration in medical inpatients.
VTE prophylaxis controversies persist in medical inpatients; leaves open optimal risk tools, dosing, and duration for prospective trials.
Hospitalisation with an acute medical illness represents a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism. Identification of patients at high risk of VTE at hospital admission and provision of appropriate thromboprophylaxis is a key intervention to improve patient safety during hospitalisation. The successful implementation of a systematic approach to VTE prevention in England highlights the effectiveness of this approach. However, the optimal strategy for identification of at-risk patients enabling targeted thromboprophylaxis provisions remains uncertain and many VTE events occur despite provision of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. In this narrative review, we discuss the pros and cons of commonly utilised VTE risk assessment tools for acutely ill medical patients, the current controversies in optimal dosing and duration of thromboprophylaxis and highlight special patient populations where further research is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clapham et al. (2023) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. VTE risk assessment tools and thromboprophylaxis was evaluated. This narrative review discusses VTE risk assessment tools for acutely ill medical patients, controversies in thromboprophylaxis dosing and duration, and special populations needing further research.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: