Venous thromboembolism in medical inpatients: Prophylaxis with low-weight heparin in a university hospital and prevalence of thromboembolic events

11Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VT) in current prophylactic practice with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) among medical inpatients and to analyze associated risk factors for VT. A cross-sectional survey on five given days was conducted in the medical departments of a university hospital. The prevalence of prophylaxis and confirmed VT was measured. Risk markers for receiving high doses of LMWH and for VT under prophylaxis were assessed by logistic regression models. Of 1194 inpatients, 1.4% suffered VT. The mean proportion of patients with LMWH prophylaxis was 24% (range: 4-64%). The prevalence of VT was higher among inpatients receiving prophylaxis than among those patients not receiving prophylaxis. (3.5% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.002). Under prophylaxis, independent risk markers for thrombosis were history of vein thrombosis (odds ratio [OR]: 4.03; confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.04-15.62) and age (OR: 1.08; 95%CI: 1.01-1.15). Two factors were independently associated with the prescription of high doses of LMWH: obesity was positively associated (OR: 7.50; 95%CI: 2.97-18.92; p < 0.0001) and respiratory insufficiency was negatively associated. In medical departments, current prophylaxis practice leads to many patients being given LMWH. LMWH doses and other preventive measures should be adapted in high-risk inpatients. © 2001 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Inc. Philadelphia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dhôte, R., Pellicer-Coeuret, M., Belouet-Moreau, C., Christoforov, B., & Vidal-Trecan, G. (2001). Venous thromboembolism in medical inpatients: Prophylaxis with low-weight heparin in a university hospital and prevalence of thromboembolic events. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 7(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/107602960100700104

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free