HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Geerts, W. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Geerts, W. H. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Patients

Correspondence: William H. Geerts, MD, FRCPC, Thromboembolism Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Room D674, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4N 3M5; Phone 416-480-4427; Fax 416-480-4186; Email William.Geerts{at}sunnybrook.ca

Abstract

The prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients recovering from major trauma, spinal cord injury (SCI), or other critical illness is often challenging. These patient groups share a high risk for VTE, they often have at least a temporary high bleeding risk, and there are relatively few thromboprophylaxis trials specific to these populations. A systematic literature review has been conducted to summarize the risks and prevention of VTE in these three groups. It is concluded that routine thromboprophylaxis should be provided to major trauma, SCI and critical care patients based on an individual assessment of their thrombosis and bleeding risks. For patients at high risk for VTE, including those recovering from major trauma and SCI, prophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) should commence as soon as hemostasis has been demonstrated. For critical care patients at lower thrombosis risk, either LMWH or low-dose heparin is recommended. For those with a very high risk of bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis should be instituted as early as possible and continued until pharmacologic prophylaxis can be initiated. The use of prophylactic inferior vena caval filters is strongly discouraged because their potential benefit has not been shown to outweigh the risks or substantial costs. Implementation of thromboprophylaxis in these patients requires a local commitment to this important patient safety priority as well as a highly functional delivery system, based on the use of pre-printed orders, computer prompts, regular audit and feedback, and ongoing quality improvement efforts.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?