Why the study?
Does mechanical and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis reduce thromboembolic events in intensive care unit patients?
Does mechanical and pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis reduce thromboembolic events in intensive care unit patients?
Pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis are important strategies to reduce the high risk of thromboembolic events in critically ill ICU patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LMWH thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients faces diagnostic and outcome challenges; evidence remains hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials.
Thromboembolism is a major complication in hospitalized patients. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients have a greater risk of thrombotic events due to additional risk factors such as immobilization, mechanical ventilation, and central catheters. The diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients are challenging and these conditions are associated with high mortality. Medical thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as well as unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been shown to reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events in such patients. For patients with high risk of bleeding, mechanical thromboprophylaxis can be used. Literature database was conducted on Medline for articles published up to 2018 using particular search terms such as thromboprophylaxis and venous thromboembolism in ICU patients. The following review summarizes the existing data regarding thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with special consideration to the use of mechanical prophylaxis and pharmacologic prophylaxis using heparin products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ejaz et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: