Article Text

Download PDFPDF

How reliable is perioperative anticoagulant management? Determining guideline compliance and practice variation by a retrospective patient record review
  1. Marco J Moesker1,
  2. Janke F de Groot2,
  3. Nikki L Damen3,
  4. Menno V Huisman4,
  5. Martine C de Bruijne1,
  6. Cordula Wagner1,2
  1. 1 Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Departmentof Quality and Safety, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Department of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Mr Marco J Moesker; m.moesker{at}amsterdamumc.nl

Abstract

Objectives 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.

Design A multicentre retrospective patient record review.

Setting and participants 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.

Primary and secondary outcome measures 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.

Results 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.

Conclusions 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.

  • anticoagulation
  • quality in health care
  • surgery
  • thromboembolism
  • clinical audit

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MJM, NLD, MVH, MdB and CW designed the study and developed the study protocol. MVH chaired the expert panel and contributed to the study design. MJM and NLD organised the data collection. MJM collected the data. MJM performed statistical analyses. MJM and JFdG interpreted the results. MJM wrote the manuscript. All authors made critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Healthcare Welfare and Sport.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.