Outpatient treatment of non-complicated deep venous thrombosis:is it still questionable?

ABSTRACT

At our medical community, we persist on treating all cases of acute deep venous throm boris in the hospital for fear of pulmonary embolism [PE] antobe-able to give unfractionated hearin [UFH] infusion, misguided by the apparent high cost of the low molecular weight heparin [LMWH]. The purpose of this study was to prove that out patient treatment [OPT] is not only safe and effective, but also more reasonable and economic in treating non complicated DVT. Out patient treatment [OPT] was given for patients with proven non-complicated DVT in the period between January 2004 and January 2005. Data regarding complications, vein clearance and recurrence were collected at one week, 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months. The cost of this regimen was compared to the cost of receiving UFH infusion at a general and private hospitals. Patient compliance was also assessed. Fifty-three patients received OPT for DVT between January 2004 and 2005. Only one patient [1.8%] had minor PE. Two patients [3.7%] had remnant of the clot at the end of follow up period. Three patients [5.6%] had deep venous reflux and no one had recurrence during the follow up period. This type of treatment costs the same price when compared to the in-patient treatment using the UFH at a general hospital and less than half the price for treatment at a private one. All patients were compliant to the injections and 37 of them [70%] were compliant to the elastic stockings [ES] This study confirmed that OPT of non-ocomplioance is high and the treatment is presumably satisfying. Admitting patients with non-complicated DVT is no more justified or accepted