ArticleThrombosis journal2011
Risk of venous thromboembolism and benefits of prophylaxis use in hospitalized medically ill US patients up to 180 days post-hospital discharge.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors and risk-assessment models.Haematologica · 2015Pooled it
- Safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis use in hospitalized elderly medical patients at a Saudi tertiary care center.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021Article
- Impact of a clinical pharmacist on ultrasound-guided venous thromboembolism screening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a pilot prospective study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2021Article
- Emergence of institutional antithrombotic protocols for coronavirus 2019.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Article
- Article
- A Prospective Observational Cohort of Clinical Outcomes in Medical Inpatients prescribed Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models(COMPT RAMs).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- D-dimer Levels in Acute, Medically Ill, Hospitalized Patients: A Large, Prospective, Multicenter Study in the United States.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events with or without thromboprophylaxis and the associated costs in a cohort of medically ill patients in both in-hospital and outpatient settings.
methodsA large hospital drug database and linked outpatient files were used to identify patients eligible for this analysis, based on demographic and clinical characteristics.
resultsAmong 11,135 patients identified, 1592 (14.30%) were admitted with chronic heart failure, 1684 (15.12%) with thromboembolic stroke, 3834 (34.43%) with severe lung disease, 1658 (14.89%) with acute infection, and 2367 (21.26%) with cancer. Of the 11,135 patients, 5932 received anticoagulant therapy at some point during their hospitalization and until 30 days after discharge. VTE events occurred in 1.30% of patients who received anticoagulant prophylaxis versus 2.99% of patients who did not. Risk-adjusted total healthcare costs for patients with a VTE or major or minor bleeding event were significantly higher than for those without events (VTE: $52,157 ± 24,389 vs $24,164 ± 11,418; major bleeding: $33,656 ± 18,196 vs $24,765 ± 11,974; minor bleeding: $33,690 ± 14,398 vs $23,610 ± 11,873). In a multivariate analysis, appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis use was significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinical VTE, compared with no anticoagulant use (hazard ratio: 0.37). Patients admitted with thromboembolic stroke were less likely to have a VTE than patients admitted with cancer (hazard ratio: 0.42).
conclusionsIn this analysis, VTE and major bleeding event rates were lower for patients who received prophylaxis compared with those who did not. Prophylaxis use was associated with lower healthcare costs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.