19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Saudi clinical practice guideline for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medical and critically ill patients

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Venous thromboembolism (VTE) acquired during hospitalization is common, yet preventable by the proper implementation of thromboprophylaxis which remains to be underutilized worldwide. As a result of an initiative by the Saudi Ministry of Health to improve medical practices in the country, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo Embolism (SAVTE; a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) with the methodological guidance of the McMaster University Guideline working group, produced this clinical practice guideline to assist healthcare providers in VTE prevention. The expert part panel issued ten recommendations addressing 10 prioritized questions in the following areas: thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (Recommendations 1-5), thromboprophylaxis in critically ill medical patients (Recommendations 6-9), and thromboprophylaxis in chronically ill patients (Recommendation 10). The corresponding recommendations were generated following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

          This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia. This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B). Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study.

            Information about the variation in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and in prophylaxis practices around the world is scarce. The ENDORSE (Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting) study is a multinational cross-sectional survey designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, and to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who receive effective prophylaxis. All hospital inpatients aged 40 years or over admitted to a medical ward, or those aged 18 years or over admitted to a surgical ward, in 358 hospitals across 32 countries were assessed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines were used to assess VTE risk and to determine whether patients were receiving recommended prophylaxis. 68 183 patients were enrolled; 30 827 (45%) were categorised as surgical, and 37 356 (55%) as medical. On the basis of ACCP criteria, 35 329 (51.8%; 95% CI 51.4-52.2; between-country range 35.6-72.6) patients were judged to be at risk for VTE, including 19 842 (64.4%; 63.8-64.9; 44.1-80.2) surgical patients and 15 487 (41.5%; 41.0-42.0; 21.1-71.2) medical patients. Of the surgical patients at risk, 11 613 (58.5%; 57.8-59.2; 0.2-92.1) received ACCP-recommended VTE prophylaxis, compared with 6119 (39.5%; 38.7-40.3; 3.1-70.4) at-risk medical patients. A large proportion of hospitalised patients are at risk for VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. Our data reinforce the rationale for the use of hospital-wide strategies to assess patients' VTE risk and to implement measures that ensure that at-risk patients receive appropriate prophylaxis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

              Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Saudi Med J
                Saudi Med J
                Saudi Medical Journal
                Saudi Medical Journal (Saudi Arabia )
                0379-5284
                November 2016
                : 37
                : 11
                : 1279-1293
                Affiliations
                [1] From the Intensive Care Department (Al-Hameed), Hematology Department (Abdelaal), College of Medicine, the Department of Medicine (Alaklabi), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, the Intensive Care Department (Al-Dorzi), King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, the Department of Clinical Sciences (Bakhsh), College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, the General Administration of Pharmaceutical Care (Alomi), Ministry of Health, the Department of Family and Community Medicine (Al Baik, Aldahan), Prince Sultan Medical Military City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Department of Medicine (Schünemann, Brozek), the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Schünemann, Brozek, Akl), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, Faculty of Health Sciences (Schünemann, Brozek, Akl, Wiercioch), American University of Beirut, the Department of Internal Medicine (Akl), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, and the Faculty of Medicine (Darzi, Waziry), The Kirby Institute University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                Address correspondence and reprint request to: Dr. Elie A. Akl, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. E-mail: ea32@ 123456aub.edu.lb
                Article
                SaudiMedJ-37-1279
                10.15537/smj.2016.11.15268
                5303811
                27761572
                21dedb4e-5829-4cfb-87d5-5c7e3b7bb625
                Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 May 2016
                : 24 August 2016
                Categories
                Clinical Practice Guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article