Annals of vascular surgery · 2017
Evaluating the Utilization of Prophylactic Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Trauma Patients.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Jones Lloyd M, Chu Quyen D, Samra Navdeep, Hu Bo, Zhang Wayne W, Tan Tze-Woei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence-based guidelines on the use of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients after trauma has led to variation of its application. We seek to understand the national trend of the use of prophylactic IVCF in trauma population.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Trauma Databank (2002-2014) was performed to identify patients who received an IVCF after trauma. Those without a preexisting venous thromboembolism or discharge diagnosis of VTE were classified as receiving prophylactic IVCF. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the use of prophylactic IVCF and risk factors for VTE. P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Among the 2,189,994 patients evaluated, 41,155 (2%) received a prophylactic IVCF. The rate of overall IVCF placement (2.9% in 2002-2006 to 1.6% in 2014, P < 0.001) and prophylactic IVCF placement (2.5% in 2002-2006 to 1.2% in 2014, P < 0.001) decreased over the study period. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors associated with the use of prophylactic IVCF were male gender (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), African-American race (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), injury severity score ≥ 24 (OR 4.4, 95% CI 4.2-4.5), Glasgow Coma Scale <8 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5), spinal cord injury with paraplegia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.7-5.6), pelvic fracture (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.7-3.0), long bone fracture (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.3-1.4), and solid organ injury (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3) (P < 0.001). Patients who were treated at a level-II trauma center (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, P < 0.001), at a facility with ≥200 beds (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4, P < 0.001), and those with medical insurance coverage (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.6-1.8, P < 0.001) were also more likely to receive a prophylactic IVCF.
CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients has decreased over time between 2008 and 2014. Considerable variation exists in its use, which is not fully accounted for by the VTE rate. Further study is required to evaluate appropriate indications for placement of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Trauma Databank (2002-2014) was performed to identify patients who received an IVCF after trauma. Those without a preexisting venous thromboembolism or discharge diagnosis of VTE were classified as receiving prophylactic IVCF. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the use of prophylactic IVCF and risk factors for VTE. P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Among the 2,189,994 patients evaluated, 41,155 (2%) received a prophylactic IVCF. The rate of overall IVCF placement (2.9% in 2002-2006 to 1.6% in 2014, P < 0.001) and prophylactic IVCF placement (2.5% in 2002-2006 to 1.2% in 2014, P < 0.001) decreased over the study period. In multivariable analysis, significant risk factors associated with the use of prophylactic IVCF were male gender (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), African-American race (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.2), injury severity score ≥ 24 (OR 4.4, 95% CI 4.2-4.5), Glasgow Coma Scale <8 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.4-1.5), spinal cord injury with paraplegia (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.7-5.6), pelvic fracture (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.7-3.0), long bone fracture (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.3-1.4), and solid organ injury (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3) (P < 0.001). Patients who were treated at a level-II trauma center (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1-1.2, P < 0.001), at a facility with ≥200 beds (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4, P < 0.001), and those with medical insurance coverage (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.6-1.8, P < 0.001) were also more likely to receive a prophylactic IVCF.
CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients has decreased over time between 2008 and 2014. Considerable variation exists in its use, which is not fully accounted for by the VTE rate. Further study is required to evaluate appropriate indications for placement of prophylactic IVCF in trauma patients.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Databases, FactualFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioPractice Patterns, Physicians'Process Assessment, Health CareProsthesis ImplantationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesVena Cava FiltersVena Cava, InferiorVenous ThromboembolismWounds and Injuries