American journal of surgery · 2013
Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in critically ill nontrauma surgical patients who cannot receive chemical prophylaxis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Patel Madhukar S, Ewing Tyler, Kong Allen, Nguyen David, Lau Cecilia, Barrios Cristobal, Cinat Marianne, Dolich Matthew, Lekawa Michael, Malinoski Darren
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We sought to identify independent predictors of venous thromboembolism in critically ill general surgery patients who cannot receive chemical prophylaxis in order to identify those who may benefit from aggressive screening and/or prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement.
METHODS: Nontrauma patients in the surgical intensive care unit were prospectively followed for 2 years. Patients who had contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulation and received routine screening duplex examinations were included. Data regarding lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, past medical history (PMH), surgeries, and transfusions were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis or PE (venous thromboembolism) with a P < .05.
RESULTS: Data were complete for 204 patients. Twenty (9.8%) patients developed venous thromboembolism. Independent predictors of venous thromboembolism included postoperative blood product requirements (odds ratio = 1.04 per unit), a PMH of PE (OR = 10.1), and a PMH of renal insufficiency (odds ratio = 5.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive screening and/or prophylactic inferior vena cava filter may be considered when prophylactic anticoagulation is prohibited in patients with increased postoperative transfusion requirements or a PMH of either PE or renal insufficiency.
METHODS: Nontrauma patients in the surgical intensive care unit were prospectively followed for 2 years. Patients who had contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulation and received routine screening duplex examinations were included. Data regarding lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, past medical history (PMH), surgeries, and transfusions were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis or PE (venous thromboembolism) with a P < .05.
RESULTS: Data were complete for 204 patients. Twenty (9.8%) patients developed venous thromboembolism. Independent predictors of venous thromboembolism included postoperative blood product requirements (odds ratio = 1.04 per unit), a PMH of PE (OR = 10.1), and a PMH of renal insufficiency (odds ratio = 5.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive screening and/or prophylactic inferior vena cava filter may be considered when prophylactic anticoagulation is prohibited in patients with increased postoperative transfusion requirements or a PMH of either PE or renal insufficiency.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AnticoagulantsBlood TransfusionContraindicationsCritical IllnessFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesPulmonary EmbolismRisk FactorsStatistics, NonparametricSurgical Procedures, OperativeUltrasonography, Doppler, DuplexVena Cava FiltersVenous Thromboembolism