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
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
Keywords
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), prophylaxis, intensive care – toxicology
References
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.