RESUMEN
Introduction: Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolisms (HA-VTEs) carry a significant health burden on patients and a financial burden on hospitals due to reimbursement penalties. VTE prophylaxis at our institute was performed through utilizing an order set based on healthcare professionals' perceived level of risk. However, the use of standardized risk assessment models is recommended by multiple professional societies. Furthermore, integrating decision support tools (DST) based on the standardized risk assessment models has been shown to increase the administration of appropriate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis. Nonetheless, such scoring systems are not inherently flawless and their integration into EMR as a mandatory step can come at the risk of healthcare professional fatigue and burnout. We conducted a study to evaluate the incidence of HA-VTE and length of stay pre- and post implementation of a DST. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, pre-post-implementation observational study at a tertiary medical center after implementing a mandatory DST. The DST used Padua scores for medical patients and Caprini scores for surgical patients. Patients were identified through ICD-10 codes and outcomes were collected from electronic charts. Healthcare professionals were surveyed through an anonymous survey and stored securely. Statistical analysis was conducted by using R (version 3.4.3). Results: A total of 343 patients developed HA-VTE during the study period. Of these, 170 patients developed HA-VTE in the 9 months following the implementation of the DST, while 173 patients were identified in the 9 months preceding the implementation. There was no statistically significant difference in mean HA-VTE/1000 discharge/month pre- and post implementation (4.4 (SD 1.6) compared to 4.6 (SD 1.2), confidence interval [CI] -1.6 to 1.2, p = 0.8). The DST was used in 73% of all HA-VTE cases over the first 6 months of implementation. The hospital length of stay (LOS) was 14.2 (SD 1.9) days prior to implementation and 14.1 (SD 1.6) days afterwards. No statistically significant change in readmission rates was noted (8.8% (SD 2.6) prior to implementation and 15.53% (SD 9.6) afterwards, CI -14.27 to 0.74, p = 0.07). Of the 56 healthcare professionals who answered the survey, 84% (n = 47) reported to be dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied with the DST, while 91% (n = 51) reported that it slowed them down. Conclusions: There were no apparent changes in the prevalence of HA-VTE, length of stay, or readmission rates when VTE prophylaxis was mandated through DST compared to a prior model which used order sets based on perceived risk. Further studies are needed to further evaluate the current risk assessment models and improve healthcare professionals' satisfaction with DST.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary revascularization for left-main disease is still debated. The study aimed to characterize patients who received dual versus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left-main disease and compare the outcomes of those patients. RESULTS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 551 patients who were grouped into 2 groups: patients who received SAPT (n = 150) and those who received DAPT (n = 401). There were no differences in age ( P = 0.451), gender ( P = 0.063), smoking ( P = 0.941), diabetes mellitus ( P = 0.773), history of myocardial infarction ( P = 0.709), chronic kidney disease ( P = 0.615), atrial fibrillation ( P = 0.306), or cerebrovascular accident ( P = 0.550) between patients who received SAPT versus DAPT. DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome [87 (58%) vs. 273 (68.08%); P = 0.027], after off-pump CABG [12 (8%) vs. 73 (18.2%); P = 0.003] and in patients with radial artery grafts [1 (0.67%) vs. 32 (7.98%); P < 0.001]. While SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction [55 (36.67%) vs. 61 (15.21%); P < 0.001] and in patients with postoperative acute kidney injury [27 (18%) vs. 37 (9.23%); P = 0.004]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT for follow-up major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events was not significantly different from that of SAPT [ß, -2.08 (95% confidence interval (CI), -20.8-16.7); P = 0.828]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT on follow-up all-cause mortality was not significantly different from that of SAPT [ß, 4.12 (CI, -11.1-19.32); P = 0.595]. There was no difference in bleeding between groups ( P = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome, after off-pump CABG, and with radial artery grafts. SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction and acute kidney injury. Patients on DAPT after CABG for left-main disease had comparable major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events and survival to patients on SAPT, with no difference in bleeding events.
