RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to explore the prophylaxis effect under a guideline-based thromboprophylaxis protocol among critically ill patients in a respiratory ICU. METHODS: For this single-center prospective cohort study, we followed the thromboprophylaxis protocol, which was drawn up based on relevant guidelines and Chinese experts' advice. Clinical data were entered into an electronic case report form and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore independent risk factors of VTE event under this protocol. RESULTS: From August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, 884 patients underwent thromboprophylaxis according to this protocol; 10.5% of them received mechanical prophylaxis, 43.8% received pharmacological prophylaxis, and 45.7% received pharmacological combined with mechanical prophylaxis. The proportion of VTE events was 14.3% for patients who received the thromboprophylaxis protocol, of which 0.1% had pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE), 2.0% had proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and 12.1% had isolated distal DVT. There was no significant difference between different thromboprophylaxis measures. Cirrhosis (OR 5.789, 95% CI [1.402, 23.894], P = 0.015), acute asthma exacerbation (OR 39.999, 95% CI [4.704, 340.083], P = 0.001), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment (OR 22.237, 95%CI [4.824, 102.502], P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for proximal DVT under thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The thromboprophylaxis protocol based on guidelines applied in the ICU was practicable and could help decrease the proportion of PTE and proximal DVT events. The risk factors of VTE events happening under the thromboprophylaxis protocol require more attention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To verify whether the bleeding risk assessment guidelines from the 9th American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) are prognostic for respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) patients and to explore risk factors for hemorrhages, we conducted a secondary data analysis based on our previously published cohort study of venous thromboembolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary data analysis on the single-center prospective cohort from our previous study. Patients admitted to the RICU at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital from August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 were included and followed up until discharge. RESULTS: The study enrolled 931 patients, of which 715 (76.8%) were at high risk of bleeding, while the remaining were at low risk. Of the total, 9.2% (86/931) suffered major bleeding, and no significant difference was found between the two risk groups (p = 0.601). High-risk patients had poor outcomes, including higher mortality and longer stays. Independent risk factors for major bleeding were APACHE II score ≥ 15; invasive pulmonary aspergillosis; therapeutic dose of anticoagulants; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood transfusion not related to bleeding appeared to be an independent protective factor for major bleeding (OR 0.099, 95% CI 0.045-0.218, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Bleeding risk assessment models from the 9th ACCP guidelines may not be suitable for patients in RICU. Building a bleeding risk assessment model that is suitable for patients in all RICUs remains a challenge. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.