P01 | Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a subanalysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study
A. Abenante1, A. Squizzato2, L. Bertù2, R. Buso3, D. Carrara4, T. Ciarambino5, D. Arioli6, F. Dentali2 | 1Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Varese, 2Dipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Varese-Como, 3Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Ospedale Ca’ Foncello, Treviso, 4Medicina Interna, Ospedale della Versilia, AUSL Toscana Nord-Ovest, 5Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Ospedale di Marciabise, ASL Caserta, 6Medicina Interna Area Critica, Policlinico AOU di Modena, Italy
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Background and Aim: Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) may frequently experience both an increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding. The use of risk assessment models (RAMs) could aid their management. We present a post-hoc analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study, wherein we focused on the use of thromboprophylaxis among IMUs during hospital stays and the associated factors.
Methods: The FADOI-NoTEVole study was an observational, retrospective, multi-center study conducted in 38 Italian IMUs. Our primary aim is to evaluate the predictors associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis during hospital stays. The secondary objectives are to evaluate RAMs adherence, prophylaxis prescription, and the number of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events.
Results: Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 927 out of 1387 (66.8%) patients with a Padua Prediction score (PPS) ≥4. Remarkably, 397 in 1230 (32.3%) patients with both PPS ≥4 and a low IMPROVE bleeding risk score did not receive it. The prescription of thromboprophylaxis mostly correlated with reduced mobility (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.90-2.81), ischemic stroke (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.34-2.91), history of previous thrombosis (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.49-4.07), and the presence of a central venous catheter (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.99-4.54).
Conclusions: Our analysis provided insight into how indications for thromboprophylaxis are determined, highlighting the complexities faced by patients admitted to IMUs. These individuals often present with a significant burden of comorbidities, posing both a heightened risk for bleeding and thrombosis.
Altmetrics
Downloads
Citations
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.