How reliable is perioperative anticoagulant management? Determining guideline compliance and practice variation by a retrospective patient record review.

Clicks: 319
ID: 5068
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #186 of 442 articles by views in BMJ open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 442 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Surgery in patients on anticoagulants requires careful monitoring and risk assessment to prevent harm. Required interruptions of anticoagulants and deciding whether to use bridging anticoagulation add further complexity. This process, known as perioperative anticoagulant management (PAM), is optimised by using guidelines. Optimal PAM prevents thromboembolic and bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of PAM practice in Dutch hospitals. Additionally, the variations between hospitals and different bridging dosages were studied.A multicentre retrospective patient record review.Records from 268 patients using vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulants who underwent surgery in a representative random sample of 13 Dutch hospitals were reviewed, 259 were analysed.Our primary outcome measure was the reliability of PAM expressed as the percentage of patients receiving guideline compliant care. Seven PAM steps were included. Secondary outcome measures included different bridging dosages used and an analysis of practice variation on the hospital level.Preoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA interruptions: 58.8% (95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) and highest for timely preoperative assessments: 81% (95% CI 75.0% to 86.5%). Postoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA restarts: 39.9% (95% CI 33.1% to 46.7%) and highest for the decision to apply bridging: 68.5% (95% CI 62.3% to 74.8%). Variation in compliance between hospitals was present for the timely preoperative assessment (range 41%-100%), international normalised ratio testing (range 21%-94%) and postoperative bridging (range 20%-88%). Subtherapeutic bridging was used in 50.5% of patients and increased with patients' weight.Unsatisfying compliance for most PAM steps, reflect suboptimal reliability of PAM. Furthermore, the hospital performance varied. This increases the risk for adverse events, warranting quality improvement. The development of process measures can help but will be complicated by the availability of a strong supporting evidence base and integrated care delivery regarding PAM.
Reference Key
moesker2019howbmj Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Moesker, Marco J;de Groot, Janke F;Damen, Nikki L;Huisman, Menno V;de Bruijne, Martine C;Wagner, Cordula;
Journal BMJ open
Year 2019
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029879
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.