Advertisement

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 502–506 | Cite as

Utilization rates of enoxaparin and heparin in deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis after education and electronic order change at a single institution: a quality improvement study

  • Linda Hoang
  • Shahidul Islam
  • Alexander Hindenburg
Article

Abstract

Despite advantages of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), enoxaparin over heparin (UFH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a hospital’s prescribing trends analysis showed use of each was about equal. In an attempt to increase LMWH over UFH use, electronic medical record (EMR) changes for medical service patients and education via multidisciplinary grand rounds was provided to all services. This was a unique opportunity to study LMWH and UFH use pre and post interventions at our institution. Citrix Pharmacy data was extracted for 3 months pre and post intervention (August 2016–February 2017). Inclusion criteria were age > 18 and LMWH or UFH VTE prophylaxis. Exclusion criteria were one time or duplicate orders and VTE treatment doses. Primary endpoint was hospital services VTE use with focus on medicine service which had both interventions compared to single intervention among all other services. LMWH use increased from 51 to 57.3% (p < 0.001) and UFH use decreased from 49 to 42.7% (p < 0.001) for all services. For medicine service, LMWH use increased 52.5–59.6% (p < 0.001) and UFH use decreased 47.5–40.4% (p < 0.001). For other services, LMWH use increased 48.8–53.6% (p = 0.005) and UFH use decreased 51.2–46.4% (p = 0.005). EMR changes and prescribers’ grand rounds education resulted in 7.1% increase of LMWH use for medicine and 4.8% increase for all other services. The net increase (95% CI) in LMWH use in medicine service is 2.3% (− 1.91%, 6.56%) compared to the other services p = 0.281. Future studies are needed to reassess the effects of continued education and outcome of interventions.

Keywords

Education Thromboprophylaxis VTE 

Supplementary material

11239_2018_1727_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) Venous thromboembolism: impact of blood clots on the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/infographic-impact.html. Accessed 6 June 2018
  2. 2.
    Stratton MA, Anderson FA, Bussey HI et al (2000) Prevention of venous thromboembolism: adherence to the 1995 American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Guidelines for Surgical Patients. Arch Intern Med 160(3):334–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson FA Jr, Wheeler HB, Goldberg RJ et al (1994) Changing clinical practice. Prospective study of the impact of continuing medical education and quality assurance programs on use of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 154(6):669–677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker A, Campbell S, Grimshaw J (1999) Implementation of a national guideline on prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism: a survey of acute services in Scotland. Thromboembolism prevention evaluation study group. Health Bull (Edinb) 57(2):141–147Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson FA, Spencer FA (2003) Risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Circulation 107(23 supplement 1):I9–I16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) CDC grand rounds: preventing hospital-associated venous thromboembolism. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 63(9):190–193Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wardrop D, Keeling D (2008) The story of the discovery of heparin and warfarin. Br J Haematol 141(6):757–763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirsh J, Anand SS, Halperin JL et al (2001) Mechanism of action and pharmacology of unfractionated heparin. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 21(7):1094–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray E, Mulloy BB, Barrowcliffe TW et al (2008) Theme issue article. Thromb Haemost 99(5):807–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Battistelli S, Genovese A, Gori T (2010) Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in surgical patients. Am J Surgery 199:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davoren A, Aster RH (2006) Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. Am J Hematol 81:36–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mariampillai A, Pineda Dela Cruz J, Staszewski H et al (2016) Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibody testing and its cost effectiveness: taking a financial HIT. Blood 128(22):2343Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forrest JB, Clemens JQ, Finamore P et al (2009) AUA best practice statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urologic surgery. J Urol 181(3):1170–1177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amin A, Spyropoulous AC, Dobesh P et al (2010) Are hospitals delivering appropriate VTE prevention? The venous thromboembolism study to assess the rate of thromboprophylaxis (VTE start). J Thromb Thrombolysis 29:326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fanikos J (2008) Guidelines and performance measures for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. J Manag Care Pharm 14(6 suppl S-a):S14–S23Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Louis SG, Sato M, Geraci T et al (2014) Correlation of missed doses of enoxaparin with increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis in trauma and general surgery patients. JAMA Surg 149(4):365–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Healthcare-associated venous thromboembolism. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/ha-vte.html. Accessed 6 June 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Hoang
    • 1
  • Shahidul Islam
    • 2
  • Alexander Hindenburg
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hematology and OncologyNYU Winthrop HospitalMineolaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsNYU Winthrop HospitalMineolaUSA

Personalised recommendations