NGC-8057 - Venous thromboembolism: reducing the risk. Redu...
Guideline:Venous thromboembolism: reducing the risk. Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in patients admitted to hospital. Measure Summary
NOTE: This guideline summary content is published by the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), in cooperation with the guideline authoring organization(s). For additional guideline resources, visit www.NGC.gov. Neither NGC or the original guideline authoring organization(s) approve of or endorse any product or service offered on this website. These NGC guideline summaries reside in the public domain and are displayed by GuidelineCentral.com as a convenient reference service for our customers visiting this website.
|
Guideline Title
Venous thromboembolism: reducing the risk. Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in patients admitted to hospital.
Bibliographic Source(s)
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline. This guideline updates a previous version: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care. Venous thromboembolism. Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in inpatients undergoing surgery. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2007. 163 p. [587 references] |
||
Scope
Disease/Condition(s)
Venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism)
Guideline Category
Management
Prevention
Risk Assessment
Treatment
Clinical Specialty
Anesthesiology
Cardiology
Colon and Rectal Surgery
Critical Care
Family Practice
Hematology
Internal Medicine
Neurological Surgery
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Oncology
Orthopedic Surgery
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Preventive Medicine
Pulmonary Medicine
Surgery
Thoracic Surgery
Urology
Intended Users
Advanced Practice Nurses
Hospitals
Nurses
Patients
Pharmacists
Physical Therapists
Physician Assistants
Physicians
Respiratory Care Practitioners
Guideline Objective(s)
To provide evidence-based recommendations on reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients admitted to hospital
Target Population
Note: The following groups that will not be covered in this guideline:
Interventions and Practices Considered
Major Outcomes Considered
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
|
||
Methodology
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This guideline was developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions (NCC-ACC) on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). See the "Availability of Companion Documents" field for the full version of this guidance. Developing the Clinical Questions Clinical questions were developed to guide the literature searching process and to facilitate the development of recommendations by the guideline development group. The clinical questions were initially drafted by the review team and were refined and validated by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). The questions were based on the scope (see Appendix A in the full version of the guideline). Clinical Literature Search The aim of the literature search was to find evidence within the published literature in order to answer the clinical questions identified. Clinical databases were searched using filters (or hedges), using relevant medical subject headings and free-text terms. Non-English studies and abstracts were not reviewed. Searches were conducted to update the previous guideline. Each database was searched up to 10 December 2008. One initial search was performed and then two update searches nearer the end of guideline development period. No papers after this date were considered. The search strategies can be found in Appendix C in the full guideline document. The following databases were searched:
There was no systematic attempt to search for grey literature or unpublished literature although all stakeholder references were followed up. We searched for guidelines and reports via relevant websites including those listed below.
Literature Review for Health Economics We obtained published economic evidence from a systematic search of the following databases:
The information specialists used the same search strategy as for the clinical questions, using an economics filter in the place of a systematic review or randomised controlled trial filter. Each database was searched from its start date up to December 2008. Papers identified after this date were not considered. Search strategies can be found in Appendix C of the full version of the guideline. Each search strategy was designed to find any applied study estimating the cost or cost-effectiveness of an included prophylaxis intervention. A health economist reviewed the abstracts. Relevant references in the bibliographies of reviewed papers were also identified and reviewed.Papers were excluded from the review and evidence tables if:
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Levels of Evidence for Intervention Studies 1++ High-quality meta-analyses, systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or RCTs with a very low risk of bias 1+ Well-conducted meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a low risk of bias 1– Meta-analyses, systematic reviews of RCTs, or RCTs with a high risk of bias 2++ High-quality systematic reviews of case–control or cohort studies. High-quality case–control or cohort studies with a very low risk of confounding, bias or chance and a high probability that the relationship is causal 2+ Well-conducted case–control or cohort studies with a low risk of confounding, bias or chance and a moderate probability that the relationship is causal 2– Case–control or cohort studies with a high risk of confounding, bias, or chance and a significant risk that the relationship is not causal 3 Non-analytical studies (e.g., case reports, case series) 4 Expert opinion, formal consensus
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Meta-Analysis
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Review of Published Meta-Analyses
Systematic Review with Evidence Tables
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This guideline was developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions (NCC-ACC) on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). See the "Availability of Companion Documents" field for the full version of this guidance. Literature Reviewing Process References identified by the systematic literature search were screened for appropriateness by title and abstract by an information scientist and systematic reviewer. Studies were selected that reported one or more venous thromboembolism (VTE) outcome (deep venous thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE]) determined by objective/reliable methods. We did not select studies that reported only major bleeding outcomes, but where an included systematic review reported such studies, they were not removed. The guideline development group also suggested further references and we assessed these in the same way. Selected studies were ordered and assessed in full by a systematic reviewer using agreed inclusion/exclusion criteria specific to the guideline topic, and using NICE methodology quality assessment checklists appropriate to the study design. These are described in the NICE guidelines manual. Literature Review for Patient View Studies Information of patient views regarding thromboprophylaxis and adherence are often more appropriately studied using non-randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs (i.e., qualitative studies, surveys of patients in observational studies). Unlike interventional studies, there is no established hierarchy of evidence to answer questions on patient views; observational or qualitative designs are not necessarily of lower quality than RCTs. Therefore, no study design limitation was included in the search and review of evidence. Relevant studies where the methods were clearly reported, appropriately designed to answer the study questions and met the quality assessment were included. Qualitative studies were quality assessed using checklists from the NICE guideline manual and only studies rated as '+' or '++' were included. The questionnaires used in the various patient view studies found in our searches did not report on how they were designed and validated. This is a major methodological limitation for all studies using questionnaires in this guideline. It is also important to note that both RCTs and observational studies of patient adherence come with potential biases and limitations. For example, the informed consent process and strict inclusion criteria of RCTs may contribute to better informed or motivated patients. In addition, participation in RCTs is usually associated with closer monitoring and better level of support. This may result in higher adherence than may be expected in routine practise. Adherence may also be higher in studies where patients were checked hourly for adherence or where self-reports were used. However, when a range of results are observed in different study designs and settings, these provide a useful indication of the types of issues that might be expected from the interventions in usual practice. Methods for Combining Direct Evidence Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted to combine the results of studies addressing the same clinical question using Cochrane's Review Manager Software. Random effects method (Der Simonian and Laird model) was used to calculate risk ratios (relative risk) of an event occurring, that is, all cause mortality, DVT, PE or major bleeding. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the chi-squared and the I-squared test. Significant heterogeneity was noted for any study where the I-squared value was >50%, or the I-squared value was between 25% and 50% and the chi-squared value was p <0.1. We carried out sensitivity analyses to identify studies whose results were heterogeneous to the overall result. Any such studies were further assessed to identify any clinical or methodological causes. We avoided removing these studies from the meta-analyses unless we identified a serious methodological flaw, as removal would introduce bias into the systematic review. Where combining results of trials in a meta-analysis was not appropriate a narrative synthesis of studies was undertaken. Methods for Combining Direct and Indirect Evidence It is difficult to determine the most effective prophylaxis strategy from the results of conventional meta-analyses of direct evidence for three reasons:
To overcome these problems, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted that simultaneously pools together all the data. This allowed us to rank the different prophylaxis interventions in order of efficacy at reducing DVTs and PEs and in order of risk of major bleeding. For each of these two outcomes, it gives us a single estimate of effect (with confidence intervals) for each intervention compared with no prophylaxis.
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Expert Consensus (Nominal Group Technique)
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This guideline was developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions (NCC-ACC) on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). See the "Availability of Companion Documents" field for the full version of this guidance. A multidisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprising professional group members and consumer representatives of the main stakeholders developed this guideline (see section on Guideline Development Group Membership and acknowledgements in the full version of the guideline). NICE funds the National Clinical Guideline Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions, NCGC (formerly the National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care, NCC-AC) and thus supported the development of this guideline. The Guideline Development Group was convened by the NCC-AC and chaired by Professor Tom Treasure in accordance with guidance from NICE. The group met every 6-8 weeks during the development of the guideline. Staff from the NCGC provided methodological support and guidance for the development process. They undertook systematic searches, retrieval and appraisal of the evidence and drafted the guideline. The glossary to the guideline contains definitions of terms used by staff and the GDG. Development of Recommendations Over the course of the guideline development process the GDG was presented with the following:
Although evidence was reviewed for every population, network meta-analysis and cost effectiveness analysis were only conducted for 5 populations, general medical patients, general surgical patients, hip fracture surgery, total hip replacement and total knee replacement. For these populations the recommendations were derived directly from the results of the analyses. If the decision was taken not to recommend the most cost effective strategy the GDG clearly explained their reasoning for this. For populations which did not have cost effectiveness models conducted, recommendations were based on the direct evidence available for that population and from extrapolating the results from cost-effectiveness models in other populations. The link between evidence and the subsequent recommendations is explained in the relevant sections.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Not applicable
Cost Analysis
Health Economic Methods It is important to investigate whether health services are cost-effective (that is, value for money). If a particular prophylaxis or treatment strategy were found to yield little health gain relative to the resources used, then it would be advantageous to re-deploy resources to other activities that yield greater health gain. In the previous National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline great inconsistency was found in the economic evaluations in the published literature. This was mainly because the evaluations varied in the clinical studies they included and because they used crude methods to deal with indirect evidence. Furthermore most of the published studies did not evaluate cost-effectiveness using NICE's reference case. Therefore in this guideline an original cost-effectiveness analysis was performed which compared a variety of different prophylactic strategies for a number of different hospital population subgroups. In addition, a systematic review of the economic literature was conducted for populations or interventions not covered by the original cost-effectiveness analysis. The criteria applied for an intervention to be considered cost-effective were either:
The full economic evaluation of any strategy has to be in comparison with another strategy. Hence we refer to:
In our own cost-effectiveness analysis (Chapter 4 of the full version of the guideline), we use the following formula to estimate the INB of each strategy: INB = (QALYs gained compared with no prophylaxis x 20,000 pounds) minus the incremental cost compared with no prophylaxis. This indicates that we will invest up to 20,000 pounds to gain one additional QALY. The strategy that has the highest INB is the optimal (that is, most cost-effective) strategy. Strategies that have a negative INB are not cost-effective even compared with no prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness Modelling The following general principles were adhered to:
Method of Guideline Validation
External Peer Review
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
The guideline was validated through two consultations.
The final draft was submitted to the Guideline Review Panel for review prior to publication. |
||
Recommendations
Major Recommendations
Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC): This guideline was developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions (NCC-ACC) on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). See the "Availability of Companion Documents" field for the full version of this guidance. Assessing the Risks of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and Bleeding Assess all patients on admission to identify those who are at increased risk of VTE. Regard medical patients as being at increased risk of VTE if they:
Regard surgical patients and patients with trauma as being at increased risk of VTE if they meet one of the following criteria:
Assess all patients for risk of bleeding before offering pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. Do not offer pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients with any of the risk factors for bleeding shown in Box 2, unless the risk of VTE outweighs the risk of bleeding. Reassess patients' risks of bleeding and VTE within 24 hours of admission and whenever the clinical situation changes, to:
Reducing the Risk of VTE
Using VTE Prophylaxis Mechanical VTE Prophylaxis Base the choice of mechanical VTE prophylaxis on individual patient factors including clinical condition, surgical procedure and patient preference. Choose any one of:
Anti-Embolism Stockings Do not offer anti-embolism stockings to patients who have:
Use caution and clinical judgement when applying anti-embolism stockings over venous ulcers or wounds. Ensure that patients who need anti-embolism stockings have their legs measured and that the correct size of stocking is provided. Anti-embolism stockings should be fitted and patients shown how to use them by staff trained in their use. Ensure that patients who develop oedema or postoperative swelling have their legs re-measured and anti-embolism stockings refitted. If arterial disease is suspected, seek expert opinion before fitting anti-embolism stockings. Use anti-embolism stockings that provide graduated compression and produce a calf pressure of 14–15 mmHg. Encourage patients to wear their anti-embolism stockings day and night until they no longer have significantly reduced mobility. Remove anti-embolism stockings daily for hygiene purposes and to inspect skin condition. In patients with a significant reduction in mobility, poor skin integrity or any sensory loss, inspect the skin two or three times per day, particularly over the heels and bony prominences. Discontinue the use of anti-embolism stockings if there is marking, blistering or discolouration of the skin, particularly over the heels and bony prominences, or if the patient experiences pain or discomfort. If suitable, offer a foot impulse or intermittent pneumatic compression device as an alternative. Show patients how to use anti-embolism stockings correctly and ensure they understand that this will reduce their risk of developing VTE. Monitor the use of anti-embolism stockings and offer assistance if they are not being worn correctly. Foot Impulse Devices and Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices Do not offer foot impulse or intermittent pneumatic compression devices to patients with a known allergy to the material of manufacture. Encourage patients on the ward who have foot impulse or intermittent pneumatic compression devices to use them for as much of the time as is possible and practical, both when in bed and when sitting in a chair. Pharmacological VTE Prophylaxis Base the choice of pharmacological VTE agents on local policies and individual patient factors, including clinical condition (such as renal failure) and patient preferences. Medical Patients General Medical Patients Offer pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to general medical patients assessed to be at increased risk of VTE. Choose any one of:
Start pharmacological VTE prophylaxis as soon as possible after risk assessment has been completed. Continue until the patient is no longer at increased risk of VTE. Patients with Stroke Do not offer anti-embolism stockings for VTE prophylaxis to patients who are admitted for stroke. Consider offering prophylactic-dose LMWH* (or UFH for patients with renal failure) if:
Until the patient can have pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, consider offering a foot impulse or intermittent pneumatic compression device. Patients with Cancer Offer pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients with cancer who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE. Choose any one of:
Do not routinely offer pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients with cancer having oncological treatment who are ambulant. Patients with Central Venous Catheters
Patients in Palliative Care Consider offering pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients in palliative care who have potentially reversible acute pathology. Take into account potential risks and benefits and the views of patients and their families and/or carers. Choose any one of:
Do not routinely offer pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients admitted for terminal care or those commenced on an end-of-life care pathway. Review decisions about VTE prophylaxis for patients in palliative care daily, taking into account the views of patients, their families and/or carers and the multidisciplinary team. *At the time of publication (January 2010) some types of LMWH do not have UK marketing authorisation for VTE prophylaxis in medical patients. Prescribers should consult the summary of product characteristics for the individual LMWH. Informed consent for off label use should be obtained and documented. Medical Patients in Whom Pharmacological VTE Prophylaxis Is Contraindicated Consider offering mechanical VTE prophylaxis to medical patients in whom pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is contraindicated. Choose any one of:
Surgical Patients All Surgery Advise patients to consider stopping oestrogen-containing oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy 4 weeks before elective surgery. If stopped, provide advice on alternative contraceptive methods. Assess the risks and benefits of stopping pre-existing established antiplatelet therapy 1 week before surgery. Consider involving the multidisciplinary team in the assessment. Consider regional anaesthesia for individual patients, in addition to other methods of VTE prophylaxis, as it carries a lower risk of VTE than general anaesthesia. Take into account patients' preferences, their suitability for regional anaesthesia and any other planned method of VTE prophylaxis. If regional anaesthesia is used, plan the timing of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to minimise the risk of epidural haematoma. If antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents are being used, or their use is planned, refer to the summary of product characteristics for guidance about the safety and timing of these agents in relation to the use of regional anaesthesia. Do not routinely offer pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing a surgical procedure with local anaesthesia by local infiltration with no limitation of mobility. Cardiac Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing cardiac surgery who are not having other anticoagulation therapy and are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Gastrointestinal, Gynaecological, Thoracic and Urological Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing bariatric surgery.
Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing gynaecological, thoracic or urological surgery who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Extend pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to 28 days postoperatively for patients who have had major cancer surgery in the abdomen or pelvis. Neurological (Cranial or Spinal) Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing cranial or spinal surgery who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Do not offer pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients with ruptured cranial or spinal vascular malformations (for example, brain aneurysms) or acute traumatic or non-traumatic haemorrhage until the lesion has been secured or the condition is stable. Orthopaedic Surgery – Elective Hip Replacement, Elective Knee Replacement and Hip Fracture The summaries of product characteristics state postoperative start times for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and fondaparinux, and preoperative start times for most LMWHs, although individual start times vary depending on the specific LMWH. In this guideline it is recommended that LMWH is started postoperatively, which is off-label use, because of concerns about the risk of bleeding into the joint. Patients would be protected preoperatively by mechanical VTE prophylaxis. Elective Hip Replacement Offer combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients undergoing elective hip replacement surgery.
Elective Knee Replacement Offer combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients undergoing elective knee replacement surgery.
*In line with Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement surgery in adults (see the National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC] summary of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE] technology appraisal guidance 157), dabigatran etexilate, within its marketing authorisation, is recommended as an option for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolic events in adults who have undergone elective total hip replacement surgery or elective total knee replacement surgery. **In line with Rivaroxaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or total knee replacement in adults (see the NGC summary of NICE technology appraisal guidance 170), rivaroxaban, within its marketing authorisation, is recommended as an option for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults having elective total hip replacement surgery or elective total knee replacement surgery. Hip Fracture Offer combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
Fondaparinux sodium is not recommended for use preoperatively for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. If it has been used preoperatively it should be stopped 24 hours before surgery and restarted 6 hours after surgical closure, provided haemostasis has been established and there is no risk of bleeding (see Box 2, above). Other Orthopaedic Surgery Consider offering combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients having orthopaedic surgery (other than hip replacement, knee replacement or hip fracture surgery) based on an assessment of risks (see section 1.1 in the full version of the guideline) and after discussion with the patient.
Do not routinely offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing upper limb surgery. If a patient is assessed to be at increased risk of VTE. Vascular Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing vascular surgery who are not having other anticoagulant therapy and are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE (see section 1.1). If peripheral arterial disease is present, seek expert opinion before fitting anti-embolism stockings.
Day Surgery Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing day surgery who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Other Surgical Patients Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients undergoing surgery who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE.
Other Patient Groups Major Trauma Offer combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients with major trauma. Regularly reassess the patient's risks of VTE and bleeding.
Spinal Injury Offer combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacological methods to patients with spinal injury. Regularly reassess the patient's risks of VTE and bleeding.
Lower Limb Plaster Casts Consider offering pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients with lower limb plaster casts after evaluating the risks and benefits based on clinical discussion with the patient. Offer LMWH (or UFH for patients with renal failure) until lower limb plaster cast removal. Pregnancy and Up to 6 Weeks Postpartum Consider offering pharmacological VTE prophylaxis with LMWH (or UFH for patients with renal failure) to women who are pregnant or have given birth within the previous 6 weeks who are admitted to hospital but are not undergoing surgery, and who have one or more of the following risk factors:
Consider offering combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical methods and LMWH (or UFH for patients with renal failure) to women who are pregnant or have given birth within the previous 6 weeks who are undergoing surgery, including caesarean section. Offer mechanical and/or pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to women who are pregnant or have given birth within the previous 6 weeks only after assessing the risks and benefits and discussing these with the woman and with healthcare professionals who have knowledge of the proposed method of VTE prophylaxis during pregnancy and postpartum. Plan when to start and stop pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to minimise the risk of bleeding. Critical Care Assess all patients on admission to the critical care unit for their risks of VTE and bleeding (see Box 2). Reassess patients' risks of VTE and bleeding daily and more frequently if their clinical condition is changing rapidly. Offer VTE prophylaxis to patients admitted to the critical care unit according to the reason for admission, taking into account:
Review decisions about VTE prophylaxis for patients in critical care daily and more frequently if their clinical condition is changing rapidly. Take into account the known views of the patient, comments from their family and/or carers and the multidisciplinary team. Patients Already Having Antiplatelet Agents or Anticoagulation on Admission or Needing Them for Treatment Consider offering additional mechanical or pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to patients who are having antiplatelet agents to treat other conditions and who are assessed to be at increased risk of VTE. Take into account the risk of bleeding (see Box 2) and of comorbidities such as arterial thrombosis.
Do not offer additional pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients who are taking vitamin K antagonists and who are within their therapeutic range, providing anticoagulant therapy is continued. Do not offer additional pharmacological or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to patients who are having full anticoagulant therapy (for example, fondaparinux sodium, LMWH or UFH). Patient Information and Planning for Discharge Patient Information Be aware that heparins are of animal origin and this may be of concern to some patients*. For patients who have concerns about using animal products, consider offering synthetic alternatives based on clinical judgement and after discussing their suitability, advantages and disadvantages with the patient. *See 'Religion or belief: a practical guide for the NHS', available from www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_093133 Before starting VTE prophylaxis, offer patients and/or their families or carers verbal and written information on:
How patients can reduce their risk of VTE (such as keeping well hydrated and, if possible, exercising and becoming more mobile). Planning for Discharge As part of the discharge plan, offer patients and/or their families or carers verbal and written information on:
Ensure that patients who are discharged with anti-embolism stockings:
Ensure that patients who are discharged with pharmacological and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis are able to use it correctly, or have arrangements made for someone to be available who will be able to help them. Notify the patient's general practitioner if the patient has been discharged with pharmacological and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis to be used at home.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
The following algorithms are provided in the quick reference guide (see the "Availability of Companion Documents" field):
|
||
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of evidence supporting the recommendations is not specifically stated. |
||
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Appropriate use of evidence-based interventions to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)
Potential Harms
Adverse events related to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis:
|
||
Contraindications
Contraindications
Anti-embolism stockings are contraindicated in patients with peripheral arterial disease, arteriosclerosis, severe peripheral neuropathy, massive leg oedema or pulmonary oedema, oedema secondary to congestive cardiac failure, local skin/soft tissue diseases such as recent skin graft or dermatitis, extreme deformity of the leg, gangrenous limb and Doppler pressure index <0.8, or cellulitis. |
||
Qualifying Statements
Qualifying Statements
|
||
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
The Healthcare Commission assesses the performance of National health Service (NHS) organizations in meeting core and developmental standards set by the Department of Health in 'Standards for better health' (available from www.dh.gov.uk The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has developed tools to help organizations implement this guidance. These are available on the NICE Web site (http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG92 Key Priorities for Implementation Assessing the Risks of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and Bleeding
Reducing the Risk of VTE
Patient Information and Planning for Discharge Before starting VTE prophylaxis, offer patients and/or their families or carers verbal and written information on:
*Prescribers should consult the summary of product characteristics for the pharmacological VTE prophylaxis being used or planned for further details. **At the time of publication (January 2010) some types of LMWH do not have UK marketing authorisation for VTE prophylaxis in medical patients. Prescribers should consult the summary of product characteristics for the individual LMWH. Informed consent for off-label use should be obtained and documented.
Implementation Tools
Audit Criteria/Indicators
Clinical Algorithm
Foreign Language Translations
Patient Resources
Quick Reference Guides/Physician Guides
Resources
Slide Presentation
Staff Training/Competency Material
For information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.
|
||
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
Staying Healthy
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Patient-centeredness
Safety
|
||
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2007 Apr (revised 2010 Jan)
Guideline Developer(s)
National Clinical Guideline Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions - National Government Agency [Non-U.S.]
Source(s) of Funding
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Guideline Committee
Guideline Development Group
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Guideline Development Group Members: Professor Tom Treasure (Chair), Honorary Professor and Honorary Consultant, Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London; Mrs Kim Carter, DVT Nurse Specialist, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; Dr Nandan Gautam, Consultant in General Medicine and Critical Care, Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham; Professor Aroon Hingorani, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology, British Heart Foundation Senior Research Fellow, and Honorary Consultant Physician, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Dr Rodney Hughes, Consultant Respiratory Physician, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield; Professor Beverley Hunt, Consultant in Departments of Haematology, Pathology and Rheumatology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Foundation Trust, London; Dr Nigel Langford, Consultant Physician and Clinical Pharmacologist, City Hospital, Birmingham; Mr Paul Mainwaring, Patient representative, Bury; Mr Donald McBride, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, University Hospital North Staffordshire; Gordon McPherson, Patient representative, Renfrewshire; Dr Simon Noble, Clinical Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport; Professor Gerard Stansby, Professor of Vascular Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne; Dr Peter Walton, Patient representative, Cheshire; Ms Annie Young, Nurse Director, 3 Counties Cancer Network, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and South Worcestershire
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Members of the Guideline Development Group declared any interests in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) technical manual. A register is given in Appendix B of the full version of the original guideline (see "Availability of Companion Documents" field).
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline. This guideline updates a previous version: National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care. Venous thromboembolism. Reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in inpatients undergoing surgery. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2007. 163 p. [587 references]
Guideline Availability
Electronic copies: Available in Portable Document Format (PDF) format from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Web site
Availability of Companion Documents
The following are available:
Patient Resources
The following is available:
Please note: This patient information is intended to provide health professionals with information to share with their patients to help them better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. By providing access to this patient information, it is not the intention of NGC to provide specific medical advice for particular patients. Rather we urge patients and their representatives to review this material and then to consult with a licensed health professional for evaluation of treatment options suitable for them as well as for diagnosis and answers to their personal medical questions. This patient information has been derived and prepared from a guideline for health care professionals included on NGC by the authors or publishers of that original guideline. The patient information is not reviewed by NGC to establish whether or not it accurately reflects the original guideline's content.
NGC Status
This summary was completed by ECRI Institute on November 13, 2009. This summary was updated by ECRI Institute on January 13, 2010. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has granted the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) permission to include summaries of their clinical guidelines with the intention of disseminating and facilitating the implementation of that guidance. NICE has not yet verified this content to confirm that it accurately reflects that original NICE guidance and therefore no guarantees are given by NICE in this regard. All NICE clinical guidelines are prepared in relation to the National Health Service in England and Wales. NICE has not been involved in the development or adaptation of NICE guidance for use in any other country. The full versions of all NICE guidance can be found at www.nice.org.uk
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original guideline, which is subject to the guideline developer's copyright restrictions. |
||
Disclaimer
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site. All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities. Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx. NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes. Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer. |





