Key result
A review of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients highlights wide variations and imprecise definitions regarding the onset, duration, adequacy, and risk factors across trials and guidelines.
Why the study?
Concepts used in thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients remain imprecise or inappropriately defined, with wide variation in the onset, duration, adequacy, and risk factor definitions.
There is a need for standardized definitions regarding the onset, duration, adequacy, and risk factors for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients to improve clinical practice and guideline implementation.
Imprecise definitions and variation should not yet change practice; leaves open the need for standardized thromboprophylaxis criteria in trials.
Up to about 60% of venous thromboembolic events in a community are associated with hospitalization, and most can be prevented by appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Several randomized clinical trials and guidelines have addressed the issue of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients and recommended strategies to assess patients' risk and thromboprophylaxis. Simple and validated risk assessment models are available to assist physicians in selecting patients who are at high risk for VTE, in whom thromboprophylaxis should be used. However, some concepts employed are imprecise or not appropriately defined. Indeed, there has been wide variation in the onset, duration, and adequacy of thromboprophylaxis, as well as in the definition of some risk factors. In this article, we highlight these issues and the unmet definitions in thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients mainly by addressing selected randomized clinical trials and guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferreira et al. (2022) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Thromboprophylaxis was evaluated. A review of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients highlights wide variations and imprecise definitions regarding the onset, duration, adequacy, and risk factors across trials and guidelines.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: