ObjectivesTo evaluate the degree of compliance with the current guidelines regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in medical patients during admission and to identify risk factors linked to complications of VTE prophylaxis.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingThe Internal Medicine Department of the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela (tertiary referral hospital).ParticipantsA total of 396 hospitalised, elderly patients who did not undergo surgery and had no active or previous oral anticoagulation or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) treatment (during the previous year) and who received VTE prophylaxis during admission.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe degree of compliance with the current guidelines was estimated by calculating PADOVA and IMPROVE indexes in all cases. We analysed the development of the following complications: major and minor bleeding, major and minor haematoma and decrease of platelet count.ResultsWe found that VTE prophylaxis was correctly indicated in 88.4% of patients. We found two (0.5%) cases with major bleeding, 17 (4.3%) with minor bleeding, 30 (7.6%) with decreased platelet count, 29 (7.3%) with major haematoma and 82 (20.7%) with minor haematoma. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, the presence of major haematomas was linked to obesity (OR 4.1; 95% CI 1.8 to 9.2, p=0.001), concomitant antiplatelet treatment (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.5, p=0.03) and enoxaparin use (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 10.9, p=0.029), and the presence of minor haematomas was associated with PADOVA index <4 points (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.5 to 6.4, p=0.003) and diabetes mellitus (OR 2; 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7, p=0.031).ConclusionsComplications during VTE prophylaxis in elderly hospitalised medical patients are frequent even with correct application of current guidelines. The main factors linked to haematomas were obesity and concomitant antiplatelet treatment, the presence of which should lead physicians to exercise extreme caution. The use of tinzaparin for VTE prophylaxis in these patients could have a better safety profile.
A collaborative project in different areas of Spain and Portugal was designed to find out the variables that influence the mortality after discharge and develop a prognostic model adapted to the current healthcare needs of chronic patients in an internal medicine ward. Inclusion criteria were being admitted to an Internal Medicine department and at least one chronic disease. Patients’ physical dependence was measured through Barthel index (BI). Pfeiffer test (PT) was used to establish cognitive status. We conducted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models to analyze the influence of those variables on one-year mortality. We also developed an external validation once decided the variables included in the index. We enrolled 1406 patients. Mean age was 79.5 (SD = 11.5) and females were 56.5%. After the follow-up period, 514 patients (36.6%) died. Five variables were identified as significantly associated with 1 year mortality: age, being male, lower BI punctuation, neoplasia and atrial fibrillation. A model with such variables was created to estimate one-year mortality risk, leading to the CHRONIBERIA. A ROC curve was made to determine the reliability of this index when applied to the global sample. An AUC of 0.72 (0.7–0.75) was obtained. The external validation of the index was successful and showed an AUC of 0.73 (0.67–0.79). Atrial fibrillation along with an advanced age, being male, low BI score, or an active neoplasia in chronic patients could be critical to identify high risk multiple chronic conditions patients. Together, these variables constitute the new CHRONIBERIA index.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.