ArticleJournal of blood medicine2021
Trends of Ordering Hypercoagulability Work-Up at an Academic Medical Center.
Article in Journal of blood medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism is a significant clinical event, with an annual incidence of 1-2 per 1000 population. Risk factors include recent surgery, prolonged immobility, oral contraceptive use, and active cancer. Inherited risks include protein C and S deficiencies, antithrombin deficiency, factor V Leiden mutation and prothrombin. These factors can be tested to guide therapy, but current evidence suggests that testing for inherited thrombophilia is not recommended in most inpatient settings. In the era of high value care, hypercoagulable testing for VTE creates a financial burden for the hospital and patients. We performed a retrospective chart review of hypercoagulable orders on VTE patients at our institution.
methodsInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained. A total of 287 adult patients admitted over a 3-month period with the diagnosis of VTE were included. Patients were identified via ICD-10 codes and data were collected from electronic medical records. Patient characteristics, provoked versus unprovoked VTE, and relative contraindications for hypercoagulability work-up were analyzed. Our primary outcome was to assess the appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in VTE patients based on screening guidelines. Our secondary outcome was to analyze the cost burden of ordering these tests.
resultsA total of 287 patients were included in our data analysis. Patient risk factors for VTE were malignancy, previous DVT, immobilization, surgery 3 months prior, and central line placement. Fifty-seven of 287 patients had at least one hypercoagulable test ordered during hospitalization which did not adhere to guidelines. Misuse of testing occurred during active thrombosis, active anticoagulation, presence of risk factors, first episode of VTE, and malignancy. The cost of ordering these 5 thrombophilia tests totaled over $40,000.
conclusionIn our study, numerous patients were tested without compliance to standard recommendations, which created financial and value-based burdens on our health care system. Increased awareness among clinicians is thus warranted to ensure high value care.
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.