Nonadministration of medication doses for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in a cohort of hospitalized patients

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis prescribing patterns for patients with orthopedic trauma: a clinical vignette survey

ABSTRACT

Background

A recent clinical trial suggested aspirin is a viable alternative to enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients after orthopedic trauma. The initial impact of these findings on VTE prophylaxis prescribing is unknown. The study aimed to evaluate stated VTE prophylaxis prescribing patterns among clinicians who treat patients after orthopedic trauma.

Methods

For this clinical vignette survey, we recruited surgeons and advanced practice providers who prescribed VTE prophylaxis to patients with orthopedic trauma across 40 states. Clinicians were shown seven clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with orthopedic trauma based on their fracture type, treatment, VTE risk factors, additional injuries and health insurance status. We assessed the stated VTE prophylaxis medications prescribed in-hospital and at discharge, patient factors associated with changes in medication prescribing preferences and practice variation by specialty and provider training.

Results

Among the 287 respondents, the median age was 43 years (IQR, 38-50), and 154 (weighted average, 63%) were men. For in-hospital VTE prophylaxis, enoxaparin was prescribed in 83% of the presented scenarios, and aspirin was prescribed in 13% (p<0.001). At discharge, aspirin was prescribed more frequently than enoxaparin (50% vs 41%, p<0.001). Healthcare providers with an aspirin discharge preference were 12% more likely to switch to enoxaparin if the patient had additional VTE risk factors, such as obesity (95% CI 4% to 19%, p=0.005).

Conclusions

Despite new clinical evidence, in-hospital VTE prophylaxis prescribing practices for patients with orthopedic trauma remain consistent with those reported a decade ago. However, compared with historical data, clinicians have significantly increased their preference for aspirin for thromboprophylaxis at discharge-unless the patient has additional thromboembolic risk factors.

Level of evidence

5-expert opinion.

Reduction in preventable time-critical dose omissions: impact of electronic medication management systems on in-patients

Background: The omission of time-critical medication doses may result in poor patient outcomes. There are few publications about the influence of electronic medication management (EMM) systems, including automated dispensing cabinets (ADC), on timely medication administration. The study aimed to evaluate the influence of EMM systems, including ADCs, on timely medication administration 6 and 30 months after EMM implementation, focussing on preventable time-critical medication dose omissions and documented reasons for not administering a dose.Methods: Data on doses of regular inpatient medications not administered were obtained from electronic medication records (EMR) over 1 week in March 2019 and 4 weeks in March 2021. An omission was a dose not administered before the next due dose. Time-critical medications were defined using the health service's guidelines. Reasons for doses not being administered were obtained from nursing documentation in the EMR collated from digital health reports. Reasons for time-critical medication doses not given were defined as 'valid' or 'preventable'.Results: In 2019 and 2021, 620 and 2524 patients with 44,756 and 146,940 scheduled medication doses were reviewed. Of these, 4385 (9.8%) and 19,610 (13.4%) doses were not administered. In 2019 and 2021, there were 593 (1.3%) and 1811 (1.2%), p < 0.0001, time-critical doses not administered. Preventable time-critical dose omissions decreased from 0.20% in 2019 to 0.15% (p = 0.015) in 2021. Wards with ADCs had a significantly lower rate of time-critical dose omissions compared to those without ADCs (1.1% vs 1.3%, p = 0.014).Conclusion: With the introduction of an EMM system, there was a decrease in the rate of time-critical medications not administered, including a reduced rate of preventable omissions over the 24-month period. Regular assessment of time-critical medication administration will help target patient safety improvements.

Effect of Aspirin Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Thromboprophylaxis on Medication Satisfaction and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic trauma. However, recent evidence suggests that aspirin is similar in efficacy and safety. To understand patients' experiences with these medications, we compared patients' satisfaction and out-of-pocket costs after thromboprophylaxis with aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of the PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT) trial, conducted at 21 trauma centers in the U.S. and Canada. We included adult patients with an operatively treated extremity fracture or a pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) twice daily or 81 mg of aspirin twice daily for thromboprophylaxis. The duration of the thromboprophylaxis, including post-discharge prescription, was based on hospital protocols. The study outcomes included patient satisfaction with and out-of-pocket costs for their thromboprophylactic medication measured on ordinal scales.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 12,211 patients (mean age and standard deviation [SD], 45 ± 18 years; 62% male), 9725 of whom completed the question regarding their satisfaction with the medication and 6723 of whom reported their out-of-pocket costs. The odds of greater satisfaction were 2.6 times higher for patients assigned to aspirin than those assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39 to 2.80; p < 0.001). Overall, the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs for thromboprophylaxis medication were 51% higher for patients assigned to aspirin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.66; p < 0.001). However, patients assigned to aspirin had substantially lower odds of out-of-pocket costs of at least $25 (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.18; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of aspirin substantially improved patients' satisfaction with their medication after orthopaedic trauma. While aspirin use increased the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs, it protected against costs of ≥$25, potentially improving health equity for thromboprophylaxis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Novel therapeutic medications for venous thromboembolism prevention in trauma patients: Findings from the Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma

ABSTRACT

Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite evidence-based guidelines and concerted efforts in trauma centers to implement optimal chemoprophylaxis strategies, VTE remains a frequent diagnosis in trauma patients. Current chemoprophylaxis strategies largely focus on the subcutaneous injection of low-molecular-weight heparin, which is administered twice daily. Novel approaches to pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis have the potential to reduce VTE rates by improving patient compliance through oral administration or through their ability to target alternative pathways that mediate thrombosis. While novel pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis strategies have been studied in nontrauma patients, there is a paucity of literature in trauma patients where the risk of thrombosis versus hemorrhage must be carefully considered. As a component of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma, this review provides an update of the novel chemoprophylaxis agents for potential use in trauma patients. Here, we will consider the relative risks and benefits related to the use of these drugs, evaluate the current literature in nontrauma patients, and consider future directions that could potentially improve posttrauma VTE prophylaxis.

Aspirin or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis after a Fracture

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients with fractures, but trials of its effectiveness as compared with aspirin are lacking.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we enrolled patients 18 years of age or older who had a fracture of an extremity (anywhere from hip to midfoot or shoulder to wrist) that had been treated operatively or who had any pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) at a dose of 30 mg twice daily or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg twice daily while they were in the hospital. After hospital discharge, the patients continued to receive thromboprophylaxis according to the clinical protocols of each hospital. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, and bleeding complications.

RESULTS

A total of 12,211 patients were randomly assigned to receive aspirin (6101 patients) or low-molecular-weight heparin (6110 patients). Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 44.6±17.8 years, 0.7% had a history of venous thromboembolism, and 2.5% had a history of cancer. Patients received a mean of 8.8±10.6 in-hospital thromboprophylaxis doses and were prescribed a median 21-day supply of thromboprophylaxis at discharge. Death occurred in 47 patients (0.78%) in the aspirin group and in 45 patients (0.73%) in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.05 percentage points; 96.2% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.38; P<0.001 for a noninferiority margin of 0.75 percentage points). Deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 2.51% of patients in the aspirin group and 1.71% in the low-molecular-weight-heparin group (difference, 0.80 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.31). The incidence of pulmonary embolism (1.49% in each group), bleeding complications, and other serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with extremity fractures that had been treated operatively or with any pelvic or acetabular fracture, thromboprophylaxis with aspirin was noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing death and was associated with low incidences of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and low 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; PREVENT CLOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02984384.).

Low Anti-Factor Xa Level Predicts 90-Day Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Patients Receiving Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between enoxaparin dose adequacy, quantified with anti-Factor Xa (aFXa) levels, and 90-day symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and postoperative bleeding.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical patients often develop "breakthrough" VTE events-those which occur despite receiving chemical anticoagulation. We hypothesize that surgical patients with low aFXa levels will be more likely to develop 90-day VTE, and those with high aFXa will be more likely to bleed.

METHODS

Pooled analysis of eight clinical trials (N = 985) from a single institution over a 4 year period. Patients had peak steady state aFXa levels in response to a known initial enoxaparin dose, and were followed for 90 days. Survival analysis log-rank test examined associations between aFXa level category and 90-day symptomatic VTE and bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 985 patients, 2.3% (n = 23) had symptomatic 90-day VTE, 4.2% (n = 41) had 90-day clinically relevant bleeding, and 2.1% (n = 21) had major bleeding. Patients with initial low aFXa were significantly more likely to have 90-day VTE than patients with adequate or high aFXa (4.2% vs 1.3%, P = 0.007). In a stratified analysis, this relationship was significant for patients who received twice daily (6.2% vs 1.5%, P = 0.003), but not once daily (3.0% vs 0.7%, P = 0.10) enoxaparin. No association was seen between high aFXa and 90-day clinically relevant bleeding (4.8% vs 2.9%, P = 0.34) or major bleeding (3.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript establishes inadequate enoxaparin dosing as a plausible mechanism for breakthrough VTE in surgical patients, and identifies anticoagulant dose adequacy as a novel target for process improvement measures.

Alert-Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods and Results In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, all adult non-intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 academic hospital were randomized to either a real-time, electronic alert-triggered, patient-centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre- versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57-0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P<0.001) in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 12.2% versus 7.4% (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48-0.66]), and nurse feedback, 14.7% versus 11.2% (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]). Patient refusal decreased significantly in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 7.3% versus 3.7% (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.58]), and nurse feedback, 9.5% versus 7.1% (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59-0.86]). No differential effect occurred on medical versus surgical units. The patient-centered education bundle was significantly more effective in reducing all nonadministered (P=0.03) and refused doses (P=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0-1.61]; P=0.03 for interaction). Conclusions Information technology strategies like the alert-triggered, targeted patient-centered education bundle, and nurse-focused audit and feedback can improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis administration. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03367364.

Call to Action to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major preventable disease that affects hospitalized inpatients. Risk stratification and prophylactic measures have good evidence supporting their use, but multiple reasons exist that prevent full adoption, compliance, and efficacy that may underlie the persistence of VTE over the past several decades. This policy statement provides a focused review of VTE, risk scoring systems, prophylaxis, and tracking methods. From this summary, 5 major areas of policy guidance are presented that the American Heart Association believes will lead to better implementation, tracking, and prevention of VTE events. They include performing VTE risk assessment and reporting the level of VTE risk in all hospitalized patients, integrating preventable VTE as a benchmark for hospital comparison and pay-for-performance programs, supporting appropriations to improve public awareness of VTE, tracking VTE nationwide with the use of standardized definitions, and developing a centralized data steward for data tracking on VTE risk assessment, prophylaxis, and rates.

Should You Treat This Acutely Ill Medical Inpatient With Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes both deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a common and potentially fatal condition. Medical inpatients are at high risk for VTE because of immobility as well as acute and chronic illness. Several randomized trials demonstrated that chemoprophylaxis, or low-dose anticoagulation, prevents VTE in selected medical inpatients. The 2018 American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline on prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients conditionally recommends chemoprophylaxis for non-critically ill medical inpatients, leaving much to the discretion of the treating physician. Here, 2 experts, a hematologist and a hospitalist, reflect on the care of a woman hospitalized with a rheumatologic disorder. They consider the risks and benefits of chemoprophylaxis, discuss VTE risk stratification, and recommend which patients should receive chemoprophylaxis and with which agents.

Role network measures to assess healthcare team adaptation to complex situations: the case of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Hospitals are complex environments that rely on clinicians working together to provide appropriate care to patients. These clinical teams adapt their interactions to meet changing situational needs. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is a complex process that occurs throughout a patient's hospitalisation, presenting five stages with different levels of complexity: admission, interruption, re-initiation, initiation, and transfer. The objective of our study is to understand how the VTE prophylaxis team adapts as the complexity in the process changes; we do this by using social network analysis (SNA) measures. We interviewed 45 clinicians representing 9 different cases, creating 43 role networks. The role networks were analysed using SNA measures to understand team changes between low and high complexity stages. When comparing low and high complexity stages, we found two team adaptation mechanisms: (1) relative increase in the number of people, team activities, and interactions within the team, or (2) relative increase in discussion among the team, reflected by an increase in reciprocity.   Practitioner Summary: The reason for this study was to quantify team adaptation to complexity in a process using social network analysis (SNA). The VTE prophylaxis team adapted to complexity by two different mechanisms, by increasing the roles, activities, and interactions among the team or by increasing the two-way communication and discussion throughout the team. We demonstrated the ability for SNA to identify adaptation within a team.

Cost-Effectiveness of Betrixaban Compared with Enoxaparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Nonsurgical Patients with Acute Medical Illness in the United States

BACKGROUND

Studies show that the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues post-discharge in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness. Betrixaban is the first anticoagulant approved in the United States (US) for VTE prophylaxis extending beyond hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to establish whether betrixaban for VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE in the US is cost-effective compared with enoxaparin.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with betrixaban (35-42 days) compared with enoxaparin (6-14 days) from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A decision tree (DT) estimated primary VTE events, thrombotic events, and treatment complications in the first 3 months based on data from the phase III Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention with Extended Duration Betrixaban study. A Markov model estimated recurrent events and long-term complication risks from published literature. EuroQoL-5 Dimensions utility data and costs inflated to 2017 US dollars (US$) were from published literature. Results were discounted at 3.0% per annum. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty.

RESULTS

Betrixaban dominated enoxaparin, with savings of US$784 and increased QALYs of 0.017 per patient. In addition, betrixaban dominated enoxaparin across all sensitivity analyses, but was most sensitive to utilities and DT probabilities. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that betrixaban was more cost-effective than enoxaparin at all willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Betrixaban can be considered cost-effective for nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE, requiring longer VTE prophylaxis from hospitalization through post-discharge.

Adherence to Inpatient Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis: A Single Institution’s Concurrent Review

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects morbidity and mortality and increases health care costs. Poor adherence to recommended prophylaxis may be a potential cause of ongoing events. This study aims to identify institutional adherence rates and barriers to optimal VTE prophylaxis. The authors performed patient and nurse interviews and a concurrent review of clinical documentation, utilizing a cloud-based, HIPAA-compliant tool, on a convenience sample of hospitalized patients. Adherence and agreement between different assessment modalities were calculated. Seventy-six patients consented for participation. Nurse documented adherence was 66% (29/44), 44% (27/61), and 89% (50/56) for mechanical, ambulatory, and chemoprophylactic prophylaxis, respectively. Patient report and nurse documentation showed moderate agreement for mechanical and no agreement for ambulatory adherence (κ = 0.51 and 0.07, respectively). Concurrent review using a cloud-based tool can provide robust, timely, and relevant information on adherence to recommended VTE prophylaxis. Iterative concurrent reviews can guide efforts to improve adherence and reduce rates of hospital-acquired VTE.