ArticleBMJ open2018
Anticoagulant therapies for acute venous thromboembolism among a cohort of patients discharged from Canadian urban and rural hospitals.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine anticoagulant therapy at hospital discharge for patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and secondarily, to describe factors affecting choice of therapy.
designA retrospective chart review.
settingCanadian hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta (n=4), Regina, Saskatchewan (n=2) and rural Alberta (n=3) from April 2014 to March 2015.
participantsAll patients discharged with an acute VTE were screened. Those with atypical clots, another indication for anticoagulation, pregnancy/breast feeding or lifespan <3 months were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primarily, we identified the proportion of patients discharged from hospital with acute VTE that were prescribed either traditional therapy (parenteral anticoagulant±warfarin) or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Secondarily, management based on setting, therapy choice based on deep vein thrombosis (DVT) versus pulmonary embolism (PE), clot burden and renal function was compared. DOAC dosing was assessed (when prescribed), length of hospital stay based on therapy was compared and planned follow-up in the community was described.
resultsAmong the 695 patients included, most were discharged following a diagnosis of PE (82.9%) on traditional therapy (parenteral anticoagulant±warfarin) (70.2%) with follow-up by either a family doctor (51.5%) or specialist/clinic (46.9%) postdischarge. Regional variation was most evident between urban and rural sites. Of those prescribed a DOAC (28.3%), the majority were dosed appropriately (85.8%). DOAC use did not differ between those with DVT and PE, was proportionately higher for less severe clots and declined with worsening renal function. Patients prescribed DOACs versus traditional therapy had a shorter length of stay (4 vs 7 days, respectively).
conclusionsUptake of DOAC therapy for acute VTE was modest and may have been influenced by the timing of the audit in relation to the approval of these agents for this indication. Future audits should occur to assess temporal changes and ongoing appropriateness of care delivery.
Indexed as
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.