A comparative approach to deep vein thrombosis risk assessment.

Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
Journal of trauma nursing: the official journal of the Society of Trauma Nurses 01/2006; 13(1):28-30. DOI: 10.1097/00043860-200601000-00007
Source: PubMed


Trauma patients are at risk for developing DVT/PE. The Bronson Trauma Model incorporates a DVT scoring system into the daily routine for all injured patients admitted to the Trauma Care Unit. Dr Paul Blostein added the DVT Risk Assessment spreadsheet to his personal digital assistant and made it available to other members of the team to allow calculation of a patient's DVT risk percentage during daily multidisciplinary rounds in the Trauma Care Unit. The Trauma Program has found the incorporation of the scoring systems into the trauma registry to be a value-added component of our performance improvement process. Bronson's unique model of trauma care, where patients are admitted and discharged from the same room, combined with today's technology of wireless laptops and personal digital assistants, promotes a progressive approach to DVT/PE prophylaxis and performance improvement. Our trauma follow-up program has proven to be effective in reintegrating patients back into the trauma system to optimize their functional status and improve their outcome.

0 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to describe practice patterns and outcomes of posttraumatic retrievable inferior vena caval filters (R-IVCF). A retrospective review of R-IVCFs placed during 2004 at 21 participating centers with follow up to July 1, 2005 was performed. Primary outcomes included major complications (migration, pulmonary embolism [PE], and symptomatic caval occlusion) and reasons for failure to retrieve. Of 446 patients (69% male, 92% blunt trauma) receiving R-IVCFs, 76% for prophylactic indications and 79% were placed by interventional radiology. Excluding 33 deaths, 152 were Gunter-Tulip (G-T), 224 Recovery (R), and 37 Optease (Opt). Placement occurred 6 +/- 8 days after admission and retrieval at 50 +/- 61 days. Follow up after discharge (5.7 +/- 4.3 months) was reported in 51%. Only 22% of R-IVCFs were retrieved. Of 115 patients in whom retrieval was attempted, retrieval failed as a result of technical issues in 15 patients (10% of G-T, 14% of R, 27% of Opt) and because of significant residual thrombus within the filter in 10 patients (6% of G-T, 4% of R, 46% Opt). The primary reason R-IVCFs were not removed was because of loss to follow up (31%), which was sixfold higher (6% to 44%, p = 0.001) when the service placing the R-IVCF was not directly responsible for follow up. Complications did not correlate with mechanism, injury severity, service placing the R-IVCF, trauma volume, use of anticoagulation, age, or sex. Three cases of migration were recorded (all among R, 1.3%), two breakthrough PE (G-T 0.6% and R 0.4%) and six symptomatic caval occlusions (G-T 0, R 1%, Opt 11%) (p < 0.05 Opt versus both G-T and R). Most R-IVCFs are not retrieved. The service placing the R-IVCF should be responsible for follow up. The Optease was associated with the greatest incidence of residual thrombus and symptomatic caval occlusion. The practice patterns of R-IVCF placement and retrieval should be re-examined.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2007 · The Journal of trauma