...
首页> 外文期刊>Patient Safety in Surgery >Compliance with American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: a level I trauma center experience
【24h】

Compliance with American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: a level I trauma center experience

机译:遵守美国胸部医师学院(ACCP)强化护理单位血栓预防的建议:I级Trauma中心经验

获取原文
           

摘要

Recommendations are for nearly universal venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill hospitalized patients because of their well-recognized risks. In those intensive care units (ICUs) where patient care is more uniformly directed, it may be expected that VTE prophylaxis would more closely follow this standard over units that are less uniform, such as open-model ICUs. This was a retrospective cohort study on all patients aged 18 admitted to an open ICU between 6/1/2017 and 5/31/2018. Patients were excluded if they had instructions to receive comfort measures only or required therapeutic anticoagulant administration. Prophylaxis administration practices, including administration of mechanical and/or pharmacologic prophylaxis and delayed (≥48?h post-ICU admission) initiation of pharmacologic prophylaxis, were compared between patients admitted to the ICU by the trauma service versus other departments. Root causes for opting out of pharmacological prophylaxis were documented and compared between the two study groups. One-hundred two study participants were admitted by the trauma service, and 98 were from a non-trauma service. Mechanical (98% trauma vs. 99% non-trauma, P?=?0.99) and pharmacologic (54% vs. 44%, P?=?0.16) prophylaxis rates were similar between the two admission groups. The median time from ICU admission to pharmacologic prophylaxis initiation was 53?h for the trauma service and 10?h for the non–trauma services (P?≤?0.01). In regression analyses, trauma-service admission (odds ratio (OR)?=?2.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–6.83) and increasing ICU length of stay (OR?=?1.13, 95% CI 1.05–1.21) were independently associated with pharmacologic prophylaxis use. Trauma-service admission (OR?=?8.30, 95% CI 2.18–31.56) and increasing hospital length of stay (OR?=?1.15, 95% CI 1.03–1.28) were independently associated with delayed prophylaxis initiation. Overall, the receipt of VTE prophylaxis of any type was close to 100%, due to the nearly universal use of mechanical compression devices among ICU patients in this study. However, when examining pharmacologic prophylaxis specifically, the rate was considerably lower than is currently recommended: 54% among the trauma services and 44% among non-trauma services.
机译:由于其公认的风险,建议是在批评性住院患者的近乎普遍的静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)预防。在这些重症监护单位(ICU)中,患者护理更致以均匀的指导,可能会预期VTE预防将更加紧密地遵循该标准,这些标准对不太统一的单位,例如开放式ICU。这是对18岁的患者的回顾性队列研究,于2017年至2017年至2018年至2018年至2018年至2018年至2018年至31/31 / 31/31/3018之间承认了公开的ICU。如果他们有指示只接受舒适措施或所需的治疗性抗凝血给药的说明,则被排除在外。在通过创伤服务与其他部门接纳ICU的患者,将预防施用实践包括机械和/或药理学预防和延迟(ICU后ICU后ICU后ICU后的ICU后纳米入院)的启动。记录了用于选择药理学预防的根本原因,并在两种研究组之间进行了比较。 Trauma Service录取了一百名研究参与者,98名来自非创伤服务。机械(98%创伤与99%非创伤,P?= 0.99)和药理学(54%与44%,p≤0.14%,p≤0.16)预防率在两个进入基团之间相似。从ICU入院对药理学预防启动的中值时间为创伤服务为53ΩH,为非创伤服务提供10?H(P?≤≤0.01)。在回归分析中,创伤 - 服务入学(OTA比率(或)?=?2.88,95%置信区间(CI)1.21-6.83)和增加ICU的逗留时间(或?=?1.13,95%CI 1.05-1.21)与药理学预防用途独立相关。创伤 - 服务入院(或?=?8.30,95%CI 2.18-31.56)和增加医院住院时间(或?=?1.15,95%CI 1.03-1.28)与延迟预防启动有关。总的来说,由于ICU患者在本研究中的ICU患者中的几乎普遍使用机械压缩装置的几乎普遍使用,接收的任何类型的预防接近100%接近100%。然而,当特别检查药理学预防时,速率显着低于目前推荐的:创伤服务中的54%,非创伤服务中44%。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号