METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among general surgeons attending the annual Malaysian College of Surgeons meeting in 2002. A total of 110 questionnaires were distributed to specialist-grade general surgeons with varying subspecialty interests.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven (70%) surgeons returned the questionnaire. Of these, 43% were of the opinion that VTE was as common in Asian patients as in the West. Selective VTE prophylaxis was used by 99% in their practice. The indications for use, in order of frequency, were: previous VTE disease, risk grading, prolonged surgery, obesity, malignancy and age. Low molecular weight heparin was the most common type of prophylaxis used. VTE-related morbidity was reported by 44 surgeons (57%) over the past year, and 39% of these cases were fatal.
CONCLUSION: The high incidence of VTE-related complications indicates that the use of thromboprophylaxis is either insufficient or not matched to the level of risk. Updated guidelines on VTE prophylaxis should be used so that a standardized approach can ensure that patients receive adequate prophylaxis where indicated.
METHODS: A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted among medical inpatients in a Malaysian secondary care hospital. DVT and bleeding risks were stratified using validated Padua Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Bleeding Risk Assessment Model. Pharmacist-driven DRAT was developed and implemented post-interventional phase. DVT prophylaxis use was determined and its appropriateness was compared between pre and post study using multivariate logistic regression with IBM SPSS software version 21.0.
RESULTS: Overall, 286 patients (n=142 pre-intervention versus n=144 post-intervention) were conveniently recruited. The prevalence of DVT prophylaxis use was 10.8%. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribing increased from 64.8% to 68.1% post-DRAT implementation. Of note, among high DVT risk patients, DRAT intervention was observed to be a significant predictor of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use (14.3% versus 31.3%; adjusted odds ratio=2.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.80; p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis use was suboptimal but doubled after implementation of DRAT intervention. Thus, an integrated risk stratification checklist is an effective approach for the improvement of rational DVT prophylaxis use.
METHODS: Patient-level data from two all-comers observational studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled and analyzed in terms of their primary endpoint. During the data verification process, we observed substantial deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations. To illuminate this gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations, we conducted a post hoc analysis of DAPT regimens and clinical event rates for which we defined the net adverse event rate (NACE) consisting of target lesion revascularization (TLR, primary endpoint of all-comers observational studies) all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and bleeding events. A logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors why ticagrelor was used in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients instead of the guideline-recommended clopidogrel.
RESULTS: For stable CAD, the composite endpoint of clinical, bleeding, and stent thrombosis, i.e., NACE, between the clopidogrel and ticagrelor treatment groups was not different (5.4% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.745). Likewise, in the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort, the NACE rates were not different between both DAPT strategies (9.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.927). There were also no differences in the accumulated rates for TLR, myocardial infarction ([MI], mortality, bleeding events, and stent thrombosis in elective and ACS patients. The main predictors for ticagrelor use in stable CAD patients were age
HYPOTHESIS: There is wide variability in AMP use for ACS management in Asia.
METHODS: EPICOR Asia (NCT01361386) is a prospective observational study of patients discharged after hospitalization for an ACS in eight countries/regions in Asia, followed up for 2 years. Here, we describe AMPs used and present an exploratory analysis of characteristics and outcomes in patients who received DAPT for ≤12 months post discharge compared with >12 months.
RESULTS: Data were available for 12 922 patients; of 11 639 patients discharged on DAPT, 2364 (20.3%) received DAPT for ≤12 months and 9275 (79.7%) for >12 months, with approximately 60% still on DAPT at 2 years. Patients who received DAPT for >12 months were more likely to be younger, obese, lower Killip class, resident in India (vs China), and to have received invasive reperfusion. Clinical event rates during year 2 of follow-up were lower in patients with DAPT >12 vs ≤12 months, but no causal association can be implied in this non-randomized study.
CONCLUSIONS: Most ACS patients remained on DAPT up to 1 year, in accordance with current guidelines, and over half remained on DAPT at 2 years post discharge. Patients not on DAPT at 12 months are a higher risk group requiring careful monitoring.