Adherencia a las recomendaciones de tromboprofilaxis post-cesárea: estudio de corte transversal

  • Grille S
  • Maggiari L
  • Morales I
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Cesarean section increases four times the risk of venous thromboembolism compared to vaginal delivery. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines are used at our service. A written alert was designed to stratify patients at high, intermediate or low risk making a suggestion for thromboprophylaxis. Aim: To assess the compliance with the guidelines and to evaluate the impact of a written alert in the thromboprophylaxis compliance in women subjected to caesarean section. Patients and Methods: Review of medical records of 233 women aged 19 to 32 years, subjected to a caesarean section in a Gynecology Service, between 2016-2017. Results: Compliance with recommendations was observed in 29% of patients (68/233), 86% in the low-risk group, 26% in the intermediate risk group and 100% in the high risk group. In 41/233 (18%) of patients, a written alert was included in the medical record. Compliance with recommendations in the presence of the written alert was 61% (25/41 women) compared to 22% (43/192) in those lacking the alert (p < 0.01). In women whose emergency caesarean section was the only risk factor, the compliance with the recommendation was 8%, compared with 30% among those who had at least one thrombotic risk factor associated with caesarean section (p < 0.01). Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, we observed a low compliance with thromboprophylaxis guidelines in cesarean women. We observed that the use of a written alert improved the compliance with thromboprophylaxis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Grille, S., Maggiari, L., Morales, I., Ojeda, J., Pérez, B., Pérez, I., … Guillermo, C. (2021). Adherencia a las recomendaciones de tromboprofilaxis post-cesárea: estudio de corte transversal. Revista Médica de Chile, 149(6), 881–887. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872021000600881

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