Skip to main content
Download PDF

Modern thromboprophylaxis protocol based on guidelines applied in a respiratory intensive care unit: a single-center prospective cohort study

Thrombosis Journal volume 20, Article number: 76 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to explore the prophylaxis effect under a guideline-based thromboprophylaxis protocol among critically ill patients in a respiratory ICU.

Methods

For this single-center prospective cohort study, we followed the thromboprophylaxis protocol, which was drawn up based on relevant guidelines and Chinese experts’ advice. Clinical data were entered into an electronic case report form and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore independent risk factors of VTE event under this protocol.

Results

From August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, 884 patients underwent thromboprophylaxis according to this protocol; 10.5% of them received mechanical prophylaxis, 43.8% received pharmacological prophylaxis, and 45.7% received pharmacological combined with mechanical prophylaxis. The proportion of VTE events was 14.3% for patients who received the thromboprophylaxis protocol, of which 0.1% had pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE), 2.0% had proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and 12.1% had isolated distal DVT. There was no significant difference between different thromboprophylaxis measures. Cirrhosis (OR 5.789, 95% CI [1.402, 23.894], P = 0.015), acute asthma exacerbation (OR 39.999, 95% CI [4.704, 340.083], P = 0.001), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment (OR 22.237, 95%CI [4.824, 102.502], P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for proximal DVT under thromboprophylaxis.

Conclusions

The thromboprophylaxis protocol based on guidelines applied in the ICU was practicable and could help decrease the proportion of PTE and proximal DVT events. The risk factors of VTE events happening under the thromboprophylaxis protocol require more attention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02213978.

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) comprises pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), with an annual proportion ranging from 0.75 to 2.69 per 1000 people among the populations of Europe and North America [1]. Previous research reported that the age and sex-adjusted proportion of VTE among China’s population increased from 3.2 to 17.5 per 100,000 people from 2007 to 2016 [2]. Under appropriate prophylaxis measures, the proportion of VTE for inpatients has been found to decrease from about 4.9–14.9% to 2.7–5.5% [3, 4]. Patients with critical illness are at high risk of VTE [5, 6]. A previous study showed that the rates of DVT ranged from 13 to 31% in critically ill patients without prophylaxis measures [7]. Moreover, the frequency of VTE in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) receiving thromboprophylaxis ranged from 5.1 to 15.5% [8]. Many studies have also proposed that VTE events are associated with a poor prognosis in critically ill patients [9, 10].

According to the present guidelines, thromboprophylaxis practice should be done on the basis of a VTE risk evaluation [5, 6]. However, a multinational cross-sectional study reported that 51.8% of hospitalized patients were at risk of VTE, with only one half of those receiving prophylaxis complying with related guidelines [11]. A previous study showed that the overall rate of guidelines-recommended prophylactic method was 10.3% in surgical and medical patients [12]. Meanwhile, the current status of VTE prophylaxis in ICUs is also not optimistic [9, 13]. Our previous study suggested that the awareness rate of VTE prophylaxis among the medical staff of ICUs in North China remains limited, which may lead to a lack of standardized VTE prophylaxis [14]. However, the proportion of major bleeding in critically ill patients under heparin thromboprophylaxis has been found to be about 4–6% [15, 16], which may limit VTE prophylaxis practice in ICUs.

Since August 2014, a thromboprophylaxis protocol has been applied in the respiratory ICU of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital. This protocol was drawn up based on the relevant guideline and experts’ advice [5, 6] and considers the specialty of the respiratory ICU. This study aimed to explore the effects of VTE prophylaxis on the proportion of VTE, and the risk factors of VTE among critically ill patients in the ICU after receiving the thromboprophylaxis protocol.

Methods

Study design and patients

This study was a single-center, prospective cohort study. Patients admitted to the respiratory ICU from August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, were enrolled in this study. Patients aged 18 or older with a length of stay (LOS) in the ICU of more than 48 hours were included in this study. The exclusion criteria were admission to the ICU because of acute PTE and/or proximal DVT event, readmission in 48 hours after transferring out of the ICU, and refusal to participate in the study. This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital (2014-Ke-142). Informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal guardian.

Thromboprophylaxis protocol

The thromboprophylaxis protocol was conducted in a 16-bed respiratory ICU. All critically ill patients in the respiratory ICU were considered as being at high risk of VTE and should receive VTE prophylaxis. Bleeding risk was evaluated first. If the patients had a high bleeding risk or already had active bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis measures were applied. Pharmacological prophylaxis measures were used on patients with a low bleeding risk. If these patients were immobile, such as in deep sedation, on a neuromuscular blocker, or paralyzed, they were stratified as being at extremely high risk of VTE, and pharmacological prophylaxis combined with mechanical measures were conducted. While the patients acquired active bleeding or bleeding risk increased during pharmacological prophylaxis, mechanical measures would be switched instead of pharmacological measures. The risk of bleeding or active bleeding needed dynamic evaluation, and pharmacological prophylaxis had to replace mechanical prophylaxis once the bleeding risk was relieved or active bleeding stopped. Before mechanical prophylaxis was implemented, compression ultrasonography (CUS) of lower extremity had to be conducted. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) was not used while DVT existed; otherwise, IPC combined with graduated compression stocking (GSC) was used. The thromboprophylaxis protocol was maintained until the VTE risk was relieved or there was a new occurrence of VTE events that required therapeutic anticoagulation or thrombolysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Thromboprophylaxis protocol. CUS, compression ultrasonography; GCS, graduated compression stocking; IPC, intermittent pneumatic compression; VTE, venous thromboembolism

Full size image

For the aspect of pharmacological prophylaxis, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with a prophylactic dose was the first choice in patients without contraindications. Enoxaparine with the dose of 40 mg subcutaneous injection per day was chosen for pharmacological prophylaxis. The dosage would be adjusted if the patients with extreme weight. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was used as 5000 IU subcutaneous injection twice per day or continuous intravenous infusion with range of APTT about 1.2 times baseline was the alternative anticoagulant in patients with a non-bleeding contraindication of LMWH. If patients had a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or antithrombin deficiency, a prophylactic dose of a non-heparin anticoagulant was used, such as fondaparinux with 2.5 mg subcutaneous injection per day. If the patients had specific medical histories such as atrial fibrillation, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, or post-cardiac surgery, the dosage of anticoagulation had to be according to the disease-specific treatment need. The patients underwent extracorporeal support including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and the anticoagulation management had to be in line with the relevant protocol.

If patients with an active gastroduodenal ulcer, prior bleeding history in the 3 months before admission, low platelet count (less than 5 × 109/L), hepatic failure (international normalized ratio higher than 1.5), and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) increased (10 s increased) without an anticoagulation agent, they were assessed as being at high risk of hemorrhage [16, 17].

The CUS examination was conducted as a screening of DVT in the first 24 hours after admission to ICU. During ICU hospitalization, if the patients presented with suspicious clinical manifestations of PTE or DVT, diagnosis and treatment process had to be according to the related guidelines [18]. If patients did not show any suspicious clinical symptoms, CUS was re-examined to avoid missing asymptomatic DVT before discharge from the ICU or death. DVT events referred to newly formed sites of lower extremity DVT.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was newly developed VTE events during the ICU stay. Secondary outcomes comprised bleeding events, thrombocytopenia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, and length of ICU stay. Bleeding events included gastrointestinal bleeding, urinary tract bleeding, oral or nasal bleeding, lower respiratory tract bleeding, retroperitoneal bleeding, skin bleeding, intracranial bleeding, surgical incision bleeding, and vaginal bleeding. Major bleeding events were defined as hemoglobin decline ≥2 g/L, hemorrhage treated by blood transfusion of more than 2 units of red blood cells, retroperitoneal hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, hemorrhagic shock, and fatal hemorrhage [19]. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a 30–50% reduction in the baseline platelet level [20]. Thrombocytopenia was recorded at any time during thromboprophylaxis and was analyzed to ascertain the causes by physicians [21,22,23]. If any anticoagulant-related thrombocytopenia occurred, the suspicious drug was ceased.

Clinical data collection

Demographic and clinical data of the patients were entered into an electronic case report form and included the following: demographic characteristics (age and sex), diagnosis, comorbidities, complications, laboratory tests (e.g., routine blood test, coagulation function, liver function, renal function), and organ support. The Caprini score [24] and Padua score [5] were recorded during admission. The VTE prophylaxis measures, proportion of VTE and bleeding events, ICU mortality, and length of ICU stay were also documented.

Statistics analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS 26.0. Categorical variables were described as frequency (percentage), and differences between groups were tested by the Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were described by the median (interquartile range [IQR]) because of the non-normality distribution. Differences between groups were tested by the Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal–Wallis H test. Univariate and multivariate logistics regression analyses were conducted to explore the risk factors of VTE events despite being under this protocol. The multivariable regression model was adjusted for the following characteristics: age, D-dimer, blood component infusion, shock, LOS in ICU, CRRT, artificial airway, and cessation of thromboprophylaxis. Variables with P < 0.1 in univariate analysis were included in multivariable logistic regression analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients’ characteristics and VTE prophylaxis

From August 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, there were 1057 patients admitted to the respiratory ICU. Overall, a total of 943 cases were ultimately screened in the study (Fig. 2). Of these, 59 (6.3%) cases did not undergo any VTE prophylaxis (Supplementary Table 1). Finally, 884 patients received the thromboprophylaxis protocol, with the rate of VTE prophylaxis being 93.7%. Furthermore, 10.5% of patients received mechanical prophylaxis, 43.8% underwent pharmacological prophylaxis, and 45.7% received pharmacological prophylaxis combined with mechanical prophylaxis (Table 1).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow chart. DVT, deep vein thrombosis; LOS, length of stay; IDDVT, isolated distal deep vein thrombosis; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; RICU, respiratory intensive care unit; VTE, venous thromboembolism

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of patients in different prophylaxis groups
Full size table

For patients who underwent VTE prophylaxis, the median age was 61 (IQR 48,70) years, the median BMI was 23.7 (IQR 20.8, 26.7) kg/m2, and 66.9% patients were male. The pharmacological combined with mechanical prophylaxis group had a higher proportion of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pneumonia than the other groups (P < 0.05). The number of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group was more than that in the other two groups (P < 0.05).

Patients in the mechanical prophylaxis group had lower hemoglobin, platelet, and fibrinogen levels and a higher urea nitrogen level than patients in the other two groups (P < 0.05). Patients in the pharmacological combined mechanical prophylaxis group had a shorter activated partial thromboplastin time and a higher C-reactive protein level than those in the pharmacological prophylaxis group patients (P < 0.05). The d-dimer level of the pharmacological prophylaxis group was significantly higher than that in the other two groups (P < 0.001) (Table 2). The number of patients with an intravascular tube and underwent invasive mechanical ventilation was greater in the pharmacological combined mechanical prophylaxis compared to other measures (P < 0.001) (Table 3).

Table 2 Laboratory tests of patients in different prophylaxis measures
Full size table
Table 3 Treatments for different prophylaxis groups during thromboprophylaxis
Full size table

VTE event of different prophylaxis measures

The total proportion of VTE events was 14.3% (126/884) for patients who underwent VTE prophylaxis, of which 0.1% (1/884) had PTE, 2.0% (18/884) had proximal DVT, and 12.1% (107/884) had isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT). The proportions of proximal DVT or IDDVT among different prophylaxis groups were not significantly different (Table 4).

Table 4 Outcomes for different prophylaxis
Full size table

Bleeding and thrombocytopenia event of different prophylaxis measures

About 16.2% (143/884) patients had bleeding events under the VTE prophylaxis protocol during the ICU stay, and 9.4% (83/884) of them were major bleeding events (Table 4). There were no significant differences in the proportion of bleeding events in different prophylaxis groups (P = 0.683). During thromboprophylaxis, five patients had anticoagulant-related thrombocytopenia, with no significant difference among different prophylaxis groups.

ICU mortality and length of ICU stay

Mortality for patients who underwent VTE prophylaxis protocol was 29.0% (256/884), but there was no significant difference between different prophylaxis groups (P = 0.167) (Table 4). For patients with VTE, the mortality rate was 34.1% (43/126). There was no difference in mortality between patients whether or not they experienced VTE events during their ICU stay (P = 0.169). The LOS in the ICU of patients in the pharmacological combined mechanical prophylaxis group was 14 (9, 25) days, which is significantly longer than that in the other two groups (P < 0.001). The duration of the ICU stay of patients with VTE events was 20 (12, 35) days, which is significantly longer than in patients without VTE events of 14 (8, 26) days, P < 0.001.

Risk factors for VTE under the prophylaxis protocol

Multivariate logistic regression revealed hepatic failure due to cirrhosis (OR 5.789, 95% CI [1.402, 23.894], P = 0.015), acute asthma exacerbation (OR 39.999, 95% CI [4.704, 340.083], P = 0.001), and ECMO (OR 22.237, 95% CI [4.824, 102.502], P < 0.001) were independent risk factors of proximal DVT of patients in the ICU under the VTE prophylaxis protocol (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 2). For the aspect of IDDVT, artificial airway (OR 2.886, 95%CI [1.551, 5.372], P = 0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (OR 1.020, 95%CI [1.010, 1.029], P < 0.001) were the independent risk factors of patients under VTE prophylaxis (Supplementary Table 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of multivariate regression of proximal DVT. AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CRRT, continued renal replacement therapy; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Full size image

Discussion

The present study was the largest cohort study in mainland China focused on the VTE event proportion under a thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients in ICU. The thromboprophylaxis rate in this study was extremely high. However, there was still a certain occurrence of VTE events under this thromboprophylaxis protocol, albeit with a relatively lower proportion rate of PTE and proximal DVT. In this study, we found that the VTE events that happened were not associated with the increased risk of mortality among critically ill patients with thromboprophylaxis. Hepatic failure due to cirrhosis, acute exacerbation of asthma, and ECMO were the independent risk factors of proximal DVT despite being under the thromboprophylaxis protocol. Nevertheless, about 16.2% of the patients had bleeding events under this prophylaxis protocol, which should be paid more attention to during implementation.

Critically ill patients generally have more than one VTE risk factor [25]; therefore, thromboprophylaxis is recommended for such patients in many sets of guidelines [5, 6, 26]. The PROF-ETEV study from Spain found that about 41% of critically ill patients were receiving an inappropriate prophylaxis [13]. Research from Australia showed that early thromboprophylaxis was used in 74% patients within 24 h of ICU admission [9]. An observation study has reported that with the increase of the medical staff’s awareness of VTE prophylaxis in China, the VTE prophylaxis rate in ICUs was about 90.1% [27]. In the present study, the thromboprophylaxis rate in the ICU was 93.7%, which is relatively higher than that mentioned in previous literature.

A multi-center study showed that proximal DVT occurred in 5.1% of critically ill patients receiving LMWH [28]. Hamada et al. found that the prevalence of VTE was still 30.7% despite the well-driven thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill trauma patients [29]. A pooled analysis of two prospective cohort studies discovered that 2.2% of the critically ill patients receiving contemporary thrombosis prophylaxis developed PTE with or without DVT [10]. In this study, all the critically ill patients received thromboprophylaxis protocol once admitted to the ICU. The specific thromboprophylaxis measure selection should be done according to the bleeding risk and whether there exists an extremely high risk of VTE. We found that the proportion of proximal DVT and PTE was lower than that in the existing literature reported under this protocol. Therefore, this thromboprophylaxis protocol seemed to be more effective, which may indicate its good application prospects.

From the thromboprophylaxis measure distribution characteristics reported in this study, it could be found that nearly 90% of critically ill patients in a non-surgical ICU should receive at least pharmacological prophylaxis. There was no difference in the proportion of VTE events of patients between different thromboprophylaxis measures in this study. Thromboprophylaxis by mechanical alone is recommended for critical care patients at high risk of bleeding or active bleeding with contraindications to prophylactic anticoagulant agents because of the uncertain benefit of mechanical prophylaxis measures [5]. However, there has still been a lack of research on the thromboprophylaxis effect between pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis measures. Although there were fewer patients in the mechanical prophylaxis group than in the other groups, this may hint at the equal effect of thromboprophylaxis according to the bleeding risk stratification in this protocol. It also indicates the rationality of this protocol.

Except for existing VTE risk assessment models, it is important to recognize the risk factor of VTE despite being under specific thromboprophylaxis. In this study, cirrhosis, asthma, and ECMO were the independent risk factors of proximal DVT under the thromboprophylaxis protocol. Some literature suggests that patients with cirrhosis have an increased risk of VTE [30]. The possible mechanisms are the reduction of anticoagulant factors, hyperactivation of thrombin, procoagulant activity caused by structural changes of fibrin, and platelet hyperreactivity in patients with cirrhosis. Impaired fibrinolysis might also be a mechanism for the increased risk of VTE in asthma patients [31], and this risk was higher in younger and more severe asthmatic patients [32]. With the increasing application of ECMO in clinical settings, ECMO-related VTE event has been found to range from 18.1 to 74% [33, 34]. The mechanism of thrombosis in ECMO may be not only with the local endothelial injury but also the difficulty in management of anticoagulation of ECMO.

In the present study, thromboprophylaxis protocol could effectively decrease the occurrence of proximal DVT and PTE, but 12.1% of the patients still acquired asymptomatic IDDVT. Currently, there is still controversy regarding the clinical benefit of treatment and long-term prognosis of IDDVT [35, 36], because there are very little data available on critically ill patients. We found that the presence of an artificial airway and the duration of mechanical ventilation were independent risk factors of IDDVT. This might be because early mobilization was limited by long time mechanical ventilation, which caused the muscle group of distal lower limb contraction weaken with slow venous reflux. Decreasing the proportion of IDDVT in ICU patients might be another important research topic in the future.

In this study, 9.4% of the patients received anticoagulation agents for thromboprophylaxis and suffered major bleeding events. The proportion of major bleeding events did not differ between different thromboprophylaxis measures. However, the prevalence of major bleeding in this study was higher than that in other LMWH-related studies [16]. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that major bleeding did not appear to be significantly influenced by heparin thromboprophylaxis in the ICU setting [15]. Another high-risk factor for bleeding seems to be patients on ECMO [37]. Indeed, patients who underwent ECMO are with high risk of bleeding and thrombosis at same time. Meanwhile, when patients on ECMO were excluded from analysis in this study, the proportion of major bleeding decreased to 6.2%, which is in line with existing reports.

There were some limitations in this study. First, this was a single-center cohort study, which might induce an unavoidable selection bias. Second, independent risk factors of major bleeding under this thromboprophylaxis protocol were not analyzed, which should be the next important work of this cohort study. Third, during the present study, thromboprophylaxis measures transitioned in different arms according to the risk of bleeding and VTE changes during ICU stay. It had been difficulty in grouping patients exactly, which might affect the power of the result. We tried to minimize these interfere by grouped the patients with the longest duration of the prophylaxis measures before end-point events. Lastly, this study was conducted in a respiratory ICU, and the result could only be spread among non-surgical critically ill patients. Although this thromboprophylaxis protocol was carried out based on the assessment of bleeding and VTE risks, its safety and effect should be further explored, not only in an enlarged sample size study but also in different ICUs and regions.

Conclusion

The thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients drawn up based on guidelines was practicable in the ICU, which with the potential to help reduce the proximal VTE and PTE event proportions. However, this protocol may have an unsatisfactory effect in some special patients. Therefore, it is important to recognize the risk factors of VTE events happening under the thromboprophylaxis protocol. Early intervention or strengthening of prophylaxis measures may help to reduce the risk of VTE in such patients. Meanwhile, anticoagulation agents related to major bleeding should be monitored while implementing this protocol. Further study should focus on these factors to perfect the thromboprophylaxis protocol in the future.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AECOPD:

Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

APTT:

Activated partial thromboplastin time

ARDS:

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

CRRT:

Continuous renal replacement therapy

CUS:

Compression ultrasonography

DVT:

Deep vein thrombosis

ECMO:

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

GSC:

Graduated compression stocking

HIT:

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IDDVT:

Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis

IPA:

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis

IPC:

Intermittent pneumatic compression

IQR:

Interquartile range

LOS:

Length of stay

LMWH:

Low molecular weight heparin

PTE:

Pulmonary thromboembolism

UFH:

Unfractionated heparin

VTE:

Venous thromboembolism

References

  1. Raskob GE, Angchaisuksiri P, Blanco AN, Buller H, Gallus A, Hunt BJ, et al. Thrombosis: a major contributor to global disease burden. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34(11):2363–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang Z, Lei J, Shao X, Dong F, Wang J, Wang D, et al. Trends in hospitalization and in-hospital mortality from VTE, 2007 to 2016, in China. Chest. 2019;155(2):342–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Leizorovicz A, Cohen AT, Turpie AG, Olsson CG, Vaitkus PT, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation. 2004;110(7):874–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY, Desjardins L, Eldor A, Janbon C, et al. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in medical patients with enoxaparin study group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(11):793–800.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, Cushman M, Dentali F, Akl EA, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e195S–226S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Society CT. Expert advice on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis of internal medicine inpatients (2015). Chinese J Tuberc Respir Dis. 2015;38(7):484–91.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Geerts W, Cook D, Selby R, Etchells E. Venous thromboembolism and its prevention in critical care. J Crit Care. 2002;17(2):95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ribic C, Lim W, Cook D, Crowther M. Low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Crit Care. 2009;24(2):197–205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ho KM, Chavan S, Pilcher D. Omission of early thromboprophylaxis and mortality in critically ill patients: a multicenter registry study. Chest. 2011;140(6):1436–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eck RJ, Hulshof L, Wiersema R, Thio CHL, Hiemstra B, van den Oever NCG, et al. Incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: data from two prospective cohort studies. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Goldhaber SZ, Kakkar AK, Deslandes B, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2008;371(9610):387–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhai Z, Kan Q, Li W, Qin X, Qu J, Shi Y, et al. VTE risk profiles and prophylaxis in medical and surgical inpatients: the identification of Chinese hospitalized Patients' risk profile for venous thromboembolism (DissolVE-2)-a cross-sectional study. Chest. 2019;155(1):114–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Garcia-Olivares P, Guerrero JE, Keough E, Galdos P, Carriedo D, Murillo F, et al. Clinical factors associated with inappropriate prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease in critically ill patients. A single day cross-sectional study. Thromb Res. 2016;143:111–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tang X, Sun B, Yang Y, Tong Z. A survey of the knowledge of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among the medical staff of intensive care units in North China. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0139162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(9):2088–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lauzier F, Arnold DM, Rabbat C, Heels-Ansdell D, Zarychanski R, Dodek P, et al. Risk factors and impact of major bleeding in critically ill patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(12):2135–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Decousus H, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Chong BH, Froehlich JB, Kakkar AK, et al. Factors at admission associated with bleeding risk in medical patients: findings from the IMPROVE investigators. Chest. 2011;139(1):69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, Danchin N, Fitzmaurice D, Galie N, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(43):3033–69, 69a-69k.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulman S, Kearon C. Subcommittee on control of anticoagulation of the S, standardization Committee of the International Society on T, Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Arepally GM, Ortel TL. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Annu Rev Med. 2010;61:77–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakchoul T, Marini I. Drug-associated thrombocytopenia. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2018;2018(1):576–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Levi M. Pathogenesis and diagnosis of disseminated intravascular coagulation. Int J Lab Hematol. 2018;40(Suppl 1):15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chinese Society of Internal Medicine CMA, Wang JX, Zhang FC, Liu XQ, Tang CW, Chen LA, et al. Expert consensus for diagnosis and treatment of thrombocytopenia in China. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2020;59(7):498–510.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Caprini JA. Risk assessment as a guide for the prevention of the many faces of venous thromboembolism. Am J Surg. 2010;199(1 Suppl):S3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, Bueno H, Geersing GJ, Harjola VP, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nyquist P, Bautista C, Jichici D, Burns J, Chhangani S, DeFilippis M, et al. Prophylaxis of venous thrombosis in Neurocritical care patients: an evidence-based guideline: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical care society. Neurocrit Care. 2016;24(1):47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li L, Zhou J, Huang L, Zhen J, Yao L, Xu L, et al. Prevention, treatment, and risk factors of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients in Zhejiang province, China: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Ann Med. 2021;53(1):2234–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G, Walter SD, Heels-Ansdell D, Geerts W, et al. PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in critical care trial protocol and analysis plan. J Crit Care. 2011;26(2):223 e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamada SR, Espina C, Guedj T, Buaron R, Harrois A, Figueiredo S, et al. High level of venous thromboembolism in critically ill trauma patients despite early and well-driven thromboprophylaxis protocol. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ambrosino P, Tarantino L, Di Minno G, Paternoster M, Graziano V, Petitto M, et al. The risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with cirrhosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(1):139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tomasiak-Lozowska MM, Misztal T, Rusak T, Branska-Januszewska J, Bodzenta-Lukaszyk A, Tomasiak M. Asthma is associated with reduced fibrinolytic activity, abnormal clot architecture, and decreased clot retraction rate. Allergy. 2017;72(2):314–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zoller B, Pirouzifard M, Memon AA, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Risk of pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis in patients with asthma: a nationwide case-control study from Sweden. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(2):1601014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cooper E, Burns J, Retter A, Salt G, Camporota L, Meadows CI, et al. Prevalence of venous thrombosis following Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):e581–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Parzy G, Daviet F, Persico N, Rambaud R, Scemama U, Adda M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for thrombotic complications following Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a CT scan study. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(2):192–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schellong SM, Goldhaber SZ, Weitz JI, Ageno W, Bounameaux H, Turpie AGG, et al. Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: perspectives from the GARFIELD-VTE registry. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119(10):1675–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vlazny DT, Pasha AK, Kuczmik W, Wysokinski WE, Bartlett M, Houghton D, et al. Outcome of anticoagulation in isolated distal deep vein thrombosis compared to proximal deep venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(9):2206–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Moller MH, Skrifvars MB, Azoulay E. ICM focus on thrombosis and bleeding. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(12):1910–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the Clinical medicine development project of Beijing Hospital Authority (XMLX202105) and clinical diagnosis and treatment technology and translational research project of Beijing (Z201100005520030).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xiao Tang, Wen-Rui Lyu and Yu Jin contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 8 Gongtinan Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100020, China

    Xiao Tang, Wen-Rui Lyu, Yu Jin, Rui Wang, Xu-Yan Li, Ying Li, Chun-Yan Zhang, Zhao-Hui Tong & Bing Sun

  2. Department of Ultrasonic diagnosis, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Wei Zhao

Authors
  1. Xiao Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wen-Rui Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xu-Yan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chun-Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Zhao-Hui Tong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Bing Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.H.T. and B.S. conceived the idea, designed, and supervised the study. X.T., and W.R.L. drafted the manuscript. B.S. had full access to all of the data and took responsibility for the integrity of the data. X.Y.L, Y.L., and Y.C.Z. collected data. W.Z., X.T., and Y.J. did the ultrasound examination. W.R.L and R.W. analyzed data and performed statistical analysis. All of the authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital (2014-Ke-142). Informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal guardian.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1

. Reasons patients did not undergo the thromboprophylaxis protocol. Supplementary Table 2. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Potential Risk Factors for Proximal DVT. Supplementary Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of potential risk factors for IDDVT.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, X., Lyu, WR., Jin, Y. et al. Modern thromboprophylaxis protocol based on guidelines applied in a respiratory intensive care unit: a single-center prospective cohort study. Thrombosis J 20, 76 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-022-00439-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-022-00439-2

Keywords

Thrombosis Journal

ISSN: 1477-9560

Contact us