Multifaceted Intervention to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Medical Illness: A Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Trial

Affiliation auteurs!!!! Error affiliation !!!!
TitreMultifaceted Intervention to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Medical Illness: A Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Trial
Type de publicationJournal Article
Year of Publication2016
AuteursRoy P-M, Rachas A, Meyer G, Le Gal G, Durieux P, Kouri DEl, Honnart D, Schmidt J, Legall C, Hausfater P, Chretien J-M, Mottier D, Grp PREVENUStudy
JournalPLOS ONE
Volume11
Paginatione0154832
Date PublishedMAY 26
Type of ArticleArticle
ISSN1932-6203
Résumé

Background Misuse of thromboprophylaxis may increase preventable complications for hospitalized medical patients. Objectives To assess the net clinical benefit of a multifaceted intervention in emergency wards (educational lectures, posters, pocket cards, computerized clinical decision support systems and, where feasible, electronic reminders) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism. Patients/Methods Prospective cluster-randomized trial in 27 hospitals. After a pre-intervention period, centers were randomized as either intervention (n = 13) or control (n = 14). All patients over 40 years old, admitted to the emergency room, and hospitalized in a medical ward were included, totaling 1,402 (712 intervention and 690 control) and 15,351 (8,359 intervention and 6,992 control) in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively. Results Symptomatic venous thromboembolism or major bleeding (primary outcome) occurred at 3 months in 3.1% and 3.2% of patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.34]). The rates of thromboembolism (1.9% vs. 1.9%), major bleedings (1.2% vs. 1.3%), and mortality (11.3% vs. 11.1%) did not differ between the groups. Between the pre-intervention and intervention periods, the proportion of patients who received prophylactic anticoagulant treatment more steeply increased in the intervention group (from 35.0% to 48.2%: + 13.2%) than the control (40.7% to 44.1%: + 3.4%), while the rate of adequate thromboprophylaxis remained stable in both groups (52.4% to 50.9%: -1.5%; 49.1% to 48.8%: -0.3%). Conclusions Our intervention neither improved adequate prophylaxis nor reduced the rates of clinical events. New strategies are required to improve thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized medical patients.

DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0154832