Appropriateness of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis use among medical inpatients: a DVT risk alert tool (DRAT) study

• Published in: Medical journal of Malaysia Vol. 74; no. 1; pp. 45 - 50
• Main Authors: Diana Yap, F S, Ng, Z Y, Wong, C Y, Muhamad Saifuzzaman, M K, Yang, L B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malaysia 01.02.2019
• Subjects: Adult; Anticoagulants - therapeutic use; Female; Hantavirus; Humans; Inpatients - statistics & numerical data; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Statistical; Risk Assessment - methods; Venous Thrombosis - prevention & control
• ISSN: 0300-5283

Increasing incidence of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) has complicated treatment courses for hospitalised patients. Despite recommendation to support deep vein thrombosis (DVT) risk assessment and appropriate use of prophylaxis in medical inpatients, it is either neglected or prescribed unnecessarily by the clinicians. This study aimed to assess and compare the appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis prescribing between usual care versus a pharmacist-driven DVT Risk Alert Tool (DRAT) intervention among hospitalised medical patients. A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted among medical inpatients in a Malaysian secondary care hospital. DVT and bleeding risks were stratified using validated Padua Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Bleeding Risk Assessment Model. Pharmacist-driven DRAT was developed and implemented post-interventional phase. DVT prophylaxis use was determined and its appropriateness was compared between pre and post study using multivariate logistic regression with IBM SPSS software version 21.0. Overall, 286 patients (n=142 pre-intervention versus n=144 post-intervention) were conveniently recruited. The prevalence of DVT prophylaxis use was 10.8%. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribing increased from 64.8% to 68.1% post-DRAT implementation. Of note, among high DVT risk patients, DRAT intervention was observed to be a significant predictor of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use (14.3% versus 31.3%; adjusted odds ratio=2.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.80; p<0.05). The appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis use was suboptimal but doubled after implementation of DRAT intervention. Thus, an integrated risk stratification checklist is an effective approach for the improvement of rational DVT prophylaxis use.