Archives of internal medicine · 2003
Deep vein thrombosis in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care facilities: a multicenter cross-sectional study of risk factors, prophylaxis, and prevalence.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bosson Jean-Luc, Labarere Jose, Sevestre Marie Antoinette, Belmin Joel, Beyssier Laurence, Elias Antoine, Franco Alain, Le Roux Philippe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis has not been established, to our knowledge, in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care facilities.
OBJECTIVES: To describe risk factors and physician practices in the prevention of venous thromboembolism and to estimate the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis.
METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in the subacute care departments of 36 French hospitals. The study population included 852 inpatients older than 64 years. Systematic ultrasound examination was performed by angiologists.
RESULTS: Of the 852 inpatients, 178 (20.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2%-23.8%) had 3 or more risk factors other than age, while 144 patients (16.9%; 95% CI, 14.4%-19.6%) had none. The rate of prophylactic anticoagulant treatment was 56.1%, ranging from 20.0% to 86.9%, depending on the department. In multivariate analysis, prophylaxis use was associated with acute immobilization (odds ratio [OR], 4.17; 95% CI, 2.48-7.01), chronic immobilization (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.22-4.60), major surgical procedure (OR, 6.81; 95% CI, 4.26-10.88), and congestive heart failure (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67). Prophylaxis use was low in patients who had cancer (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) or myocardial infarction (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.14-1.00). It was not significantly associated with paralytic stroke or history of venous thromboembolism. Deep vein thrombosis was detected in 135 patients (15.8%; 95% CI, 13.4%-18.5%): 50 (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.7%) had proximal vein thrombosis and 85 (10.0%; 95% CI, 8.0%-12.2%) had calf vein thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis is high in these patients, despite wide use of prophylaxis. Further prospective studies assessing the clinical benefit of extended duration prophylaxis are needed in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care settings.
OBJECTIVES: To describe risk factors and physician practices in the prevention of venous thromboembolism and to estimate the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis.
METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in the subacute care departments of 36 French hospitals. The study population included 852 inpatients older than 64 years. Systematic ultrasound examination was performed by angiologists.
RESULTS: Of the 852 inpatients, 178 (20.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2%-23.8%) had 3 or more risk factors other than age, while 144 patients (16.9%; 95% CI, 14.4%-19.6%) had none. The rate of prophylactic anticoagulant treatment was 56.1%, ranging from 20.0% to 86.9%, depending on the department. In multivariate analysis, prophylaxis use was associated with acute immobilization (odds ratio [OR], 4.17; 95% CI, 2.48-7.01), chronic immobilization (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.22-4.60), major surgical procedure (OR, 6.81; 95% CI, 4.26-10.88), and congestive heart failure (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67). Prophylaxis use was low in patients who had cancer (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) or myocardial infarction (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.14-1.00). It was not significantly associated with paralytic stroke or history of venous thromboembolism. Deep vein thrombosis was detected in 135 patients (15.8%; 95% CI, 13.4%-18.5%): 50 (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.7%) had proximal vein thrombosis and 85 (10.0%; 95% CI, 8.0%-12.2%) had calf vein thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis is high in these patients, despite wide use of prophylaxis. Further prospective studies assessing the clinical benefit of extended duration prophylaxis are needed in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care settings.