EVALUATION OF THE OUTCOME OF DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS PROPHYLAXIS USING LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT HEPARIN IN PATIENTS AT THE INTENSIVE CARE – TOXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF BINH THUAN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Ba Ngô Văn, Khương Nguyễn Duy

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background: Patients in the Intensive Care – Toxicology Department are at high risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the lower extremities, leading to life-threatening complications. However, the prophylactic use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) requires further investigation regarding its efficacy and safety due to the potential risk of bleeding. Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of DVT prophylaxis and investigate associated factors in patients in the Intensive Care – Toxicology Department. Materials and methods: An uncontrolled interventional study was conducted on 45 patients treated at the Intensive Care – Toxicology Department of Binh Thuan General Hospital from September 2024 to March 2025. Results: The female-to-male ratio was 1.5, and the average age was 65.00 ± 15.66 years, with the majority being over 60 years old. The mean body mass index was 20.87 ± 2.75, with an obesity rate of 13.3%. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 60%, ischemic stroke 28.9%, respiratory failure 88.9%, and infection 82.2%. Additionally, 64.4% of patients had central venous catheterization, 57.8% received vasopressor therapy, and 35.6% were administered sedatives. After seven days of treatment, 22.2% of patients developed DVT, while 11.1% experienced adverse effects, including 6.7% with bleeding complications. Diabetes mellitus was associated with an increased incidence of DVT, with an odds ratio (OR) of 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0–74.4; p = 0.034). The PADUA score was significantly higher in the DVT group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Initial findings suggest that LMWH prophylaxis for DVT in intensive care patients demonstrates favorable outcomes and high safety.

Article Details

References

1. Benes J, Skulec R, Jobanek J, Cerny V. Fixed-dose enoxaparin provides efficient DVT prophylaxis in mixed ICU patients despite low anti-Xa levels: A prospective observational cohort study. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub.2022;166(2):204-210. Doi: 10.5507/ bp.2021.031.
2. Samuel S, Li W, Dunn K, et al. Unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in intensive care units: a propensity score adjusted analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis.2023;55(4):617-625. Doi: 10.1007/s11239-023-02795-w.
3. Degala RP, Kamala GR, Vydani K. A Prospective Study of Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis and Management in ICU Patients. Journal of Pharma Insights and Research. 2024;2(6):158-164. Doi: 10.69613/3sw7tq98.
4. Li H, Wu Z, Zhang H, Qiu B, Wang Y. Low-molecular-weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism among patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage: A meta-analysis. PloS one.2024;19(10):e0311858. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311858.
5. Miri M, Goharani R, Sistanizad M. Deep vein thrombosis among intensive care unit patients; an epidemiologic study. Emergency.2017;5(1):e13.
6. Alhazzani W, Lim W, Jaeschke RZ, Murad MH, Cade J, Cook DJ. Heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Critical care medicine. 2013; 41(9): 2088-2098. Doi: 10.1097/ccm. 0b013e31828cf104.
7. Chen X, Huang J, Liu J, Deng H, Pan L. Venous thromboembolism risk factors and prophylaxis of elderly intensive care unit patients in a Chinese general hospital. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2021;10(4): 4453-4462. Doi: 10.21037/ apm-21-464.