Key result
A multifaceted intervention for VTE prophylaxis reduced any DVT in elderly post-acute care patients compared to the preintervention phase (7.8% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39-0.86; P=.002).
Why the study?
Does a multifaceted intervention implementing an evidence-based guideline for VTE prophylaxis reduce deep venous thrombosis in elderly post-acute care patients?
Observational (n=1,373)
Yes
Does a multifaceted intervention implementing an evidence-based guideline for VTE prophylaxis reduce deep venous thrombosis in elderly post-acute care patients?
Odds Ratio: 0.58 (95% CI 0.39–0.86)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.8% vs 12.8%
p-value: p=.002
Implementation of a multifaceted intervention for VTE prophylaxis guidelines significantly reduced the rate of DVT in elderly post-acute care patients.
May support VTE prophylaxis bundles in elderly post-acute care; leaves open causal confirmation by randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis in elderly patients, including post-acute care patients, is at variance with scientific evidence. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a multifaceted intervention was followed by a decrease in deep venous thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: A prospective preintervention-postintervention study was conducted in 1373 patients (preintervention phase, n = 709; postintervention phase, n = 664), aged 65 years or older, enrolled in 33 hospital-based post-acute care facilities in France. An evidence-based guideline addressing pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis was implemented through a multifaceted intervention. The main outcome measure was any DVT diagnosed at routine comprehensive ultrasonography performed by registered angiologists. RESULTS: A DVT was found in 91 patients (12.8%) in the preintervention phase and in 52 patients (7.8%) in the postintervention phase (P = .002). The decrease in DVT involved the calf (7.1% vs 3.6%; P = .005) and the proximal venous segments (5.8% vs 4.2%; P = .18) and remained significant after adjusting for risk factors (adjusted odds ratio of any DVT, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.86). Pharmacologic prophylaxis with either low-molecular-weight heparin at the high-risk dose, unfractionated heparin, and vitamin K antagonist was similar in the 2 study groups, whereas patients in the postintervention group were more likely to use graduated compression stockings (27.4% vs 34.6%; P = .004) and less likely to receive low-molecular-weight heparin at the low-risk dose (24.7% vs 18.5%; P = .006), which was not recommended by our guideline. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention addressing venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in post-acute care patients can be followed by a significant decrease in the rate of any DVT in elderly patients. More active interventions are needed to enforce compliance with evidence-based guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Élodie Sellier (2006) conducted an observational in Venous thromboembolism risk (n=1,373). Multifaceted intervention for VTE prophylaxis vs. Preintervention phase was evaluated on Any DVT diagnosed at routine comprehensive ultrasonography (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.86, p=.002). A multifaceted intervention for VTE prophylaxis reduced any DVT in elderly post-acute care patients compared to the preintervention phase (7.8% vs 12.8%; adjusted OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39-0.86; P=.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: