Suppr超能文献

探讨给药途径对住院患者药物接受度的影响:对静脉血栓栓塞预防的启示。

Exploring the impact of route of administration on medication acceptance in hospitalized patients: Implications for venous thromboembolism prevention.

机构信息

Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

School of Pharmacy, The University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, United States.

出版信息

Thromb Res. 2017 Dec;160:109-113. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.10.012. Epub 2017 Oct 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Non-administration of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis contributes to preventable patient harm. We hypothesized that non-administration would be more common for parenteral VTE prophylaxis than oral infectious disease or cardiac prophylaxis or for treatment medications. The primary study goal was to determine if non-administration of parenteral VTE prophylaxis is more frequent than other prophylactic or treatment medications.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of consecutive admissions we used descriptive statistics and risk ratios (RR) to compare the number of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis, oral infectious disease and cardiovascular prophylaxis and treatment medications. To quantify the influence of demographic and clinical characteristics on non-administration, we estimated incidence rate ratios from Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

645 patients were admitted from July 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. Median age was 52years (Interquartile range 43-57) and 365 (56.6%) were male. Subcutaneous VTE prophylaxis doses were not administered nearly 4-fold more frequently than oral infectious disease and cardiovascular prophylaxis (RR=3.93; 95% CI 3.36-4.59) and 3-fold more frequently than treatment medications (RR=3.06; 95% CI 2.91-3.22). Ninety percent of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis were refused. Risk factors for non-administration included younger age (age 18-35years), male sex, uninsured status, HIV-positivity and high VTE risk status.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous VTE prophylaxis is not administered more frequently than oral infectious diseases or cardiac prophylaxis and treatment medications. These data suggest that availability of an oral medication could improve the effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis in real world settings.

摘要

背景

未给予静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)预防措施会导致可预防的患者伤害。我们假设,与口服抗感染或心脏预防药物或治疗药物相比,更常见的是未给予静脉血栓栓塞症预防药物。主要研究目的是确定未给予静脉血栓栓塞症预防药物是否比其他预防或治疗药物更常见。

方法

在这项连续入院的回顾性队列研究中,我们使用描述性统计和风险比(RR)来比较静脉血栓栓塞症预防药物、口服抗感染和心血管预防药物和治疗药物未给予的剂量数。为了量化人口统计学和临床特征对未给予药物的影响,我们使用泊松回归模型估计发生率比。

结果

2014 年 7 月 1 日至 2015 年 3 月 31 日期间共收治 645 例患者。中位年龄为 52 岁(四分位距 43-57),365 例(56.6%)为男性。皮下 VTE 预防剂量未给予的频率几乎是口服抗感染和心血管预防药物的 4 倍(RR=3.93;95%CI 3.36-4.59),是治疗药物的 3 倍(RR=3.06;95%CI 2.91-3.22)。90%的 VTE 预防药物未给予剂量被拒绝。未给予药物的危险因素包括年龄较小(18-35 岁)、男性、无保险状态、HIV 阳性和高 VTE 风险状态。

结论

皮下 VTE 预防药物未给予的频率并不高于口服抗感染或心脏预防药物和治疗药物。这些数据表明,在真实环境中,口服药物的可用性可能会提高 VTE 预防的效果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验