ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious, frequent, and preventable medical complication in hospitalized patients. Although the efficacy of prophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) has been demonstrated, compliance with prophylaxis is poor at international and national levels. AIM: To determine the indication and use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients in Uruguay. METHODS: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentre study involving 31 nationwide healthcare facilities was conducted. Baseline characteristics associated with hospital admission, the percentage of the population with an indication for thromboprophylaxis, and the percentage of patients receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were assessed. The VTE risk was determined using the Padua score for medical patients; the Caprini score for surgical patients; the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guidelines for pregnant-postpartum patients. RESULTS: 1925 patients were included, representing 26% of hospitalized patients in Uruguay. 71.9% of all patients were at risk of VTE. Of all patients at risk of VTE, 58.6% received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The reasons for not receiving thromboprophylaxis were prescribing omissions in 16.1% of cases, contraindication in 15.9% and 9.4% of patients were already anticoagulated for other reasons. Overall, just 68% of patients were "protected" against VTE. Recommendations of major thromboprophylaxis guidelines were followed in 70.1% of patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the progress made in adherence to thromboprophylaxis indications, nonadherence remains a problem, affecting one in six patients at risk of VTE in Uruguay.
Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Uruguay , Female , Male , Cross-Sectional Studies , Middle Aged , Adult , Risk Factors , Aged , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy , Anticoagulants/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Resumen: Introducción: La enfermedad tromboembólica venosa en el período grávido - puerperal es una de las primeras causas de morbi-mortalidad materna. No existe un consenso acerca de las directivas para su abordaje, por lo que el objetivo de esta investigación fue conocer cómo se desempeñan los Ginecólogos y Residentes de Ginecología del Uruguay, con respecto a distintos factores de riesgo, la indicación de tromboprofilaxis y las herramientas disponibles. Metodología: Se realizó de julio a octubre del 2020, un estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal donde se incluyeron a Ginecólogos y Residentes de Ginecología del Uruguay, mediante una encuesta electrónica anónima a través de la plataforma Survey Monkey. Resultados: Se obtuvo un n de 159 encuestados. El 57,3% refirió pensar sistemáticamente en factores de riesgo para enfermedad tromboembólica venosa. Las guías más utilizadas para la clasificación del riesgo e indicación de tromboprofilaxis fueron la American College of Obstestricians and Gynecologists con un 81,0% y la Royal College of Obstestricians and Gynaecologists con un 13,0%. La herramienta terapéutica con mayor disponibilidad es la heparina de bajo peso molecular y la menos utilizada es la compresión neumática intermitente. Conclusiones: Existen inconsistencias entre la clasificación de riesgo e indicación de tromboprofilaxis en diferentes situaciones clínicas. Existe un porcentaje no despreciable de profesiones que no piensan sistemáticamente en factores de riesgo para eventos tromboembólicos durante el período grávido - puerperal.
Abstract: Introduction: One of the main causes of maternal morbity and mortality in the pregnant - puerperal period is venous thromboembolic disease. There is no consensus on the guidelines to address this illness. The main objective of this research was to know how Gynecologists and Gynecology Residents of Uruguay perform, in reference to considering potential risk factors, indication for thromboprophylaxis and the tools available. Methodology: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study carried out from July to October 2020, including Gynecologists and Gynecology Residents of Uruguay, through an anonymous online survey using the Survey Monkey platform. Results: A final n of 159 respondents was obtained. 57.3% of which referred to think systematically about risk factors for venous thromboembolic disease. The most popular guidelines for risk classification and indication of thromboprophylaxis were the American College of Obstestricians and Gynaecologists with 81.0% and the Royal College of Obstestricians and Gynaecologists with 13.0%. The most chosen therapeutic tool was low molecular weight heparin, and the least preferred one was intermittent pneumatic compression. Conclusions: There are incoherences between the risk classification and the actual indication of thromboprophylaxis in different clinical situations. There´s still a non-negligible percentage of professionals that do not systematically consider risk factors for thromboembolic events during the pregnant-puerperal period.
Resumo: Introdução: A doença tromboembólica venosa no período gestação - puerpério é uma das principais causasde morbidadee mortalidade materna. Nãohá consenso sobre as diretrizes para o seu abordagem, por issoo objetivo desta pesquisa foi saber como encarao os ginecologistas e os residentes em ginecologia do Uruguai, no que dizrespeito à fatores de risco, indicação de tromboprofilaxia e as ferramentas disponíveis. Metodologia: Estudo observacional, descritivo e transveral realizado de julho a outubro de 2020, que incluiu ginecologistas e residentes em ginecologia do Uruguai. Um levantamento eletrônico anónimo foi desenvuelto através da plataforma SurveyMonkey. Resultados: Foram estudados 159 entrevistados. 57,3% relataram pensarsobre fatores de risco para doença tromboembólica venosa. As diretrizesmais utilizadas para classificação de risco e indicação de tromboprofilaxia foram o American College of Obstestricians and Gynecologists com 81,0% e o Royal College of Obstestricians and Gynaecologists com 13,0%. A ferramenta mais selecionada é heparina de baixo peso molecular e a menos utilizada é a compressão pneumática intermitente. Conclusões: Há inconsistências entre a classificação de risco e a indicação de tromboprofilaxia em diferentes situações clínicas. Ainda há um numero consideravel de profisionais que não pensam sistematicamente em fatores de risco para eventos tromboembólicos durante o período gravidez - puerperal.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dengue is an arbovirus that has rapidly spread worldwide, and the incidence of dengue has greatly increased in recent decades. The actual numbers of dengue cases are underreported, and many cases are not classified correctly. Recent estimates indicate that 390 million dengue infections occur per year (95% CI, 284-528 million), of which 96 million (67-136 million) are symptomatic infections of any severity. One of the goals of the World Health Organization is to reduce dengue mortality by 50% by the year 2020. The use of a vaccine can be an important strategy to achieve this goal. Vaccines for dengue are in various stages of development; in Brazil, only one commercial formulation is available (CYD-TDV), which was developed by Sanofi Pasteur. METHODS: To evaluate the efficacy of Dengue vaccine, a systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using randomized controlled clinical trials published between 2000 and 2017 that were identified in the MEDLINE databases via PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The selection was performed by two reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Seven clinical trials were included, with a total of 36,371 participants (66,511 person-years) between the ages of 2 and 45 years. The meta-analysis using the random-effects model estimated the efficacy of the vaccine at 44%, with a range from 25 to 59% and high heterogeneity (I2 = 80.1%). The serotype-stratified meta-analysis was homogeneous, except for serotype 2, with the heterogeneity of 64.5%. Most of the vaccinated individuals had previous immunity for at least one serotype, which generated safety concerns in individuals without previous immunity. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other commercially available vaccines, the dengue vaccine showed poor efficacy.
