ArticleIntensive care medicine2014
PROF-ETEV study: prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease in critical care units in Spain.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Venous thromboembolic events in critically ill traumatic brain injury patients.Intensive care medicine · 2017Trial
- Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Statement for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in the Critical Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- A multicentre controlled pre-post trial of an implementation science intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Focus on transfusion, bleeding and thrombosis.Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVenous thromboembolic disease (VTE) in critically ill patients has a high incidence despite prophylactic measures. This fact could be related to an inappropriate use of these measures due to the absence of specific VTE risk scores. To assess the current situation in Spain, we have performed a cross-sectional study, analyzing if the prophylactic measures were appropriate to the patients' VTE risk.
methodsThrough an electronic questionnaire, we carried out a single day point prevalence study on the VTE prophylactic measures used in several critical care units in Spain. We performed a risk stratification for VTE in three groups: low, moderate-high, and very high risk. The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were used to determine if the patients were receiving the recommended prophylaxis.
resultsA total of 777 patients were included; 62% medical, 30% surgical, and 7% major trauma patients. The median number of the risk factors for VTE was four. According to the proposed VTE risk score, only 2% of the patients were at low risk, whereas 83% were at very high risk. Sixty-three percent of patients received pharmacological prophylaxis, 12% mechanical prophylaxis, 6% combined prophylaxis, and 19% did not receive any prophylactic measure. According to criteria suggested by the guidelines, 23% of medical, 71% of surgical, and 70% of major trauma patients received an inappropriate prophylaxis.
conclusionsMost critically ill patients are at high or very high risk of VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. The efforts to improve the identification of patients at risk, and the implementation of appropriate prevention protocols should be enhanced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25138229What 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.