Inadequação de tromboprofilaxia venosa em pacientes clínicos hospitalizados

Rocha, Ana Thereza; Braga, Priscila Sales; Ritt, Guilherme Fonteles; Lopes, Antônio Alberto

doi:10.1590/s0104-42302006000600026

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…20 At Hospital Geral de Roraima, 31.1% of physicians reported knowing DVT incidence in our country. In our study and in others, such as those by Marchi et al, 21 Caiafa & Bastos, 16 Rocha et al 22 and Deheinzelin et al, 23 all performed in Brazil, and those by Vallano et al 24 and Chopard et al, 25 performed in other countries, we can observe that most physicians do not submit patients with identified risk of DVT to prophylaxis (Table 10). According to Arnold et al, inadequate prophylaxis is more frequently caused by omission, followed by improper duration and incorrect choice of prophylactic method.…”

supporting

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Profilaxia da trombose venosa profunda: aplicação prática e conhecimento teórico em um hospital geral

Pereira

Brito²,

Martins³

et al. 2008

J. vasc. bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 64%

“…These results are similar to those found in the literature, 16,20,21 being only different from the results found in a study carried out in Bahia, Brazil, in 2006, in which lack of prophylaxis was more frequently found among clinical patients. 22 The data show that we had one of the worst rates as to number of patients who were given prophylaxis when indicated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Profilaxia da trombose venosa profunda: aplicação prática e conhecimento teórico em um hospital geral

Pereira

Brito²,

Martins³

et al. 2008

J. vasc. bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Segundo Rocha et al 19 e Deheinzelin et al 20 , a profilaxia farmacológica adequada é realizada em apenas 34% a 42% dos pacientes clínicos internados com indicação de fazê-la. Em relação aos pacientes cirúrgicos com o alto risco para o desenvolvimento de TEV, essa taxa varia de 43% a 71%.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Frequência de profilaxia para tromboembolismo venoso

Paz¹,

Caldas²,

Farinazo³

et al. 2017

PRMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MedicinaEste é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) sob a licença Creative Commons Attribution, que permite uso, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, sem restrições desde que o trabalho original seja corretamente citado. Summary Objective: To identify the frequency of the use of prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis and to compare the use of prophylaxis for DVT in the Medical and Surgical Clinic of the FHCGV. Method: Cross-sectional and descriptive study, in the period from October to October 2016, involving 38 patients, 29 clinical and 9 surgical. Data were collected from medical records and prescriptions. Patients were stratified according to the risk of venous thromboembolism (using Kucher's modified Padua score for clinical patients and the Caprini score for surgical patients). We defined the presence of adequate or inadequate prophylaxis for VTE following the international recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: A frequency of prophylaxis for VTE was found to be 100%, since all patients were receiving some form of prophylaxis, medication and/or non-medication. However, when analyzing the suitability of the prophylaxis according to the risk group and the recommendations for prophylaxis, we found that 5 patients (55.56%) had adequate prophylaxis in the surgical group, and 4 patients (44.44%) had adequate prophylaxis, Inadequate. In the clinical group, it was observed that 14 patients (48.28%) presented adequate prophylaxis and 15 (51.72%), inadequate. There was no significant trend between groups (p> 0.05). Conclusion: It was possible to observe that among the patients analyzed, none of them did not receive prophylaxis for VTE; however, when stratifying the risks, it was noted that the patients in the medium and low risk groups were those who most frequently received inadequate prophylaxis, whereas among the patients High risk were those who received adequate prophylaxis more frequently. We could conclude that it is very important to establish protocols based on the profile of the institution, thus improving patient care. ARTIGO DE PESQUISA Frequência de profilaxia para tromboembolismo venoso Frequency of prophylaxia for venous tromboembolism in the FHGCV

show abstract

“…Although venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the main preventable cause of death in hospitalised patients (1,2), VTE prophylaxis is still not routinely administered in most hospitals (3-6). There are numerous barriers to prophylaxis use, especially the natural resistance to change, fear of side effects, lack of effective institutional policies, and even lack of knowledge regarding the guidelines or difficulties in remembering the recommendations (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies assessing the adequacy of VTE prophylaxis are usually limited to an analysis of the number of patients at risk and the number who received prophylaxis (mechanical or drug) (3-6). Moreover, cross-sectional studies with data collected on a single day are common; however, these studies do not allow for an assessment of the adequacy of an anticoagulant dose or prophylaxis duration (4-6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venous thromboembolism risk assessment in hospitalised patients: A new proposal

Alckmin¹,

Garcia²,

Bricola³

et al. 2013

Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:Cross-sectional studies have been conducted to evaluate the adequacy of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. However, these studies often evaluate prophylaxis on the data collection day, without analysing the prophylactic dose or duration and without reference to inappropriate use in patients without risk. A prospective, observational study was performed to assess the adequacy of prophylaxis in a general medicine ward of a university hospital.METHOD:In the analysis, the use of the proper prophylactic dose at the correct time, the use in patients with contraindications, and the misuse in patients without risk of venous thromboembolism were considered.RESULTS:A total of 245 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 104 (42.4%) were considered to be at risk, and 82.7% either received adequate prophylaxis (i.e., the correct dose at the right time) or did not receive prophylaxis because it was contraindicated. Among the 141 patients who were not at risk, 81 (57.4%) incorrectly received prophylaxis, the majority (61/81) of whom presented with risk factors but did not demonstrate reduced mobility. Among the entire group, only 59.6% of patients were properly treated.CONCLUSIONS:The evaluation of prophylaxis adequacy should consider not only whether the correct dose is administered at the correct time but also whether it is used in patients with contraindications and whether it is inappropriately administered to patients who are not at risk.

show abstract

Inadequação de tromboprofilaxia venosa em pacientes clínicos hospitalizados

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Profilaxia da trombose venosa profunda: aplicação prática e conhecimento teórico em um hospital geral

Profilaxia da trombose venosa profunda: aplicação prática e conhecimento teórico em um hospital geral

Frequência de profilaxia para tromboembolismo venoso

Venous thromboembolism risk assessment in hospitalised patients: A new proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About