Heparin, Enoxaparin and Mechanical Prophylaxis Utilization Evaluation in DVT prophylaxy in Imam Reza hospital’s inpatients during 1397 Tabriz-Iran

Abstract

Considering the high prevalence and risk of DVT and PTE in hospitalized patients and the existence of different prophylaxis methods in these patients, the necessity of evaluating the rational administration of heparin or enoxoparin, and mechanical prophylaxis is one of the important priorities. Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the consistency of the Heparin/Enoxoparin administration in comparison to guidelines in patients admitted to Imam Reza Hospital. Method and Material: In this prospective study, 300 hospitalized patients receiving venous thrombosis prophylaxis were enrolled, of which 150 patients were selected from surgical wards and 150 patients from internal wards. We used the checklists based on the Geneva system in patients admitted to internal wards and the Caprini Questionnaire for patients in surgical wards, to evaluate whether patients had received heparin / enoxoparin prophylaxis and mechanical DVT prevention according to guidelines. Results: In the surgical ward, prophylactic treatment for venous thrombosis was administered in 85 (56.6%) patients admitted to surgical wards in accordance with the clinical guideline and in the internal ward, in 42 (28%) patients, with a significant difference between two sections (P: 0.0001). Mechanical prophzlaxis including compressive socks, were performed in 99 (66%) patients in surgical ward and in the internal ward only in 56 (37.4%) patients according to Guideline. Drug prophylaxis was administered in surgical wards in 116 (77.3%) patients and in internal wards, in 79 (52.6%) patients according to Guidedline. Conclusion: Intravenous thrombosis prophylaxis, according to the guidelines, is more common in patients admitted to surgical wards than in internal wards. But in both sectors, statistics are far from international standards.