Improvement of appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients with a multiscreen e-alert system: a single-centre experience

• Published in: Clinical & translational oncology 2019-06, Vol.21 (6), p.805-809
• Main Authors: Figueroa, R., Alfonso, A., López-Picazo, J., Gil-Bazo, I., García-Mouriz, A., Hermida, J., Páramo, J. A., Lecumberri, R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anticoagulants - therapeutic use; Brief Research Article; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hemorrhage - diagnosis; Hemorrhage - etiology; Hemorrhage - prevention & control; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Male; Medical Order Entry Systems - statistics & numerical data; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neoplasms - complications; Oncology; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Embolism - diagnosis; Pulmonary Embolism - etiology; Pulmonary Embolism - prevention & control; Risk Assessment; Software; Survival Rate; Venous Thromboembolism - diagnosis; Venous Thromboembolism - etiology; Venous Thromboembolism - prevention & control; Venous Thrombosis - diagnosis; Venous Thrombosis - etiology; Venous Thrombosis - prevention & control
• ISSN: 1699-048X; 1699-3055
• DOI: 10.1007/s12094-018-1986-1

Purpose Thromboprophylaxis use among medical inpatients, including cancer patients, is suboptimal. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel multiscreen version (v2.0) of an e-alert system for VTE prevention in hospitalised cancer medical patients compared to the original software. Methods Prospective study including 989 consecutive adult cancer patients with high-risk of VTE. Patients were followed-up 30 days post-discharge. Two periods were defined, according to the operative software. Results E-alert v2.0 was associated with an increase in the use of LMWH prophylaxis (65.5% vs. 72.0%); risk difference (95% CI) 0.064 (0.0043–0.12). Only 16% of patients in whom LMWH prophylaxis was not prescribed lacked a contraindication. No significant differences in the rates of VTE (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and major bleeding (2.7% vs. 4.0%) were observed. Conclusions E-alert v2.0 further increased the use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients, although was not associated with a reduction in VTE incidence.