Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in oncology patients. Prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE by 60% but many patients are not prescribed risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. We developed mandatory computerized clinical decision support-enabled, service-specific (CCDS) order sets to improve our institution’s VTE prophylaxis performance. The order sets require providers to complete short check lists to assess VTE risk factors and contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Based upon the answers to these questions, the order sets display the risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis regimen for each individual patient. The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate VTE prophylaxis and events rates in hospitalized cancer patients admitted using a CCDS medical oncology VTE order set.

Methods: Using electronic administrative records, we retrospectively collected prescription and clinical data on patients admitted to the solid tumor and hematologic malignancy services at the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (JHSKCCC) from October 17, 2010 (date of order set implementation) through June 30, 2014. A two-sided student’s t test or chi-square test were used for statistical analyses, as appropriate.

Results: 7920 patients were admitted from 10/17/2010 to 6/30/14. The mean age was 57 years and 46% were female. The median length of stay was 4 days. Solid tumor service providers were more likely to prescribe risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis (Table 1) and patients on the solid tumor service were more likely to be assessed as being at high risk for VTE (Table 2). Pharmacologic prophylaxis was more common on the solid tumor service while ambulation was the most common form of prophylaxis on the hematologic malignancy service. (Table 3) Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis was high on both services (Figure 1). Data on objectively-confirmed hospital-acquired VTE will be presented at the meeting.

Conclusion: We report the largest analysis to date of VTE prophylaxis practices in hospitalized cancer patients. Significant differences in perceived VTE risk and prescribed prophylaxis were noted between services. Use of a computerized decision support-enabled VTE prophylaxis order set was associated with high rates of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis.

Table 1:

Patient Population Characteristics

Solid TumorHeme MalignancyP-Value
Total – no. 4995 2925  
Mean Age – no. (SD) 58.0 (13.2) 56.1 (14.7) <0.001 
Female – no. 2290 (46%) 1303 (45%)  
Median length of stay (IQR) 4 (3-6) 5 (3-10.5)  
Risk Appropriate Prophylaxis 4410 (88%) 2474 (85%) <0.001 
Solid TumorHeme MalignancyP-Value
Total – no. 4995 2925  
Mean Age – no. (SD) 58.0 (13.2) 56.1 (14.7) <0.001 
Female – no. 2290 (46%) 1303 (45%)  
Median length of stay (IQR) 4 (3-6) 5 (3-10.5)  
Risk Appropriate Prophylaxis 4410 (88%) 2474 (85%) <0.001 

Table 2:

VTE Risk Assessment of Patient Population

VTE Risk CategorySolid TumorHeme MalignancyP-value
High Risk – no. (%) 4782 (96%) 2338 (80%) <0.001 
High Risk w/ CI –no. (%) 1222 (25%) 1789 (61%) <0.001 
High Risk w/o CI - no. (%) 3560 (71%) 549 (19%) <0.001 
Moderate Risk – no. (%) 213 (4%) 587 (20%) <0.001 
Mod. Risk w/ CI – no. (%) 41 (1%) 506 (17%) <0.001 
Mod. Risk w/o CI – no. (%) 172 (3%) 81 (3%) <0.001 
VTE Risk CategorySolid TumorHeme MalignancyP-value
High Risk – no. (%) 4782 (96%) 2338 (80%) <0.001 
High Risk w/ CI –no. (%) 1222 (25%) 1789 (61%) <0.001 
High Risk w/o CI - no. (%) 3560 (71%) 549 (19%) <0.001 
Moderate Risk – no. (%) 213 (4%) 587 (20%) <0.001 
Mod. Risk w/ CI – no. (%) 41 (1%) 506 (17%) <0.001 
Mod. Risk w/o CI – no. (%) 172 (3%) 81 (3%) <0.001 

CI= Contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis

Table 3:

VTE Prophylaxis Orders

Medical OncologyHeme MalignancyP-value
Pharm Only – no. (%) 2992 (69%) 412 (15%) <0.001 
Mech Only – no. (%) 700 (16%) 563 (20%)  
Pharm + Mech – no. (%) 388 (9%) 87 (3%)  
Ambulation Only – no. (%) 230 (5%) 1699 (61%) <0.001 
Medical OncologyHeme MalignancyP-value
Pharm Only – no. (%) 2992 (69%) 412 (15%) <0.001 
Mech Only – no. (%) 700 (16%) 563 (20%)  
Pharm + Mech – no. (%) 388 (9%) 87 (3%)  
Ambulation Only – no. (%) 230 (5%) 1699 (61%) <0.001 

Pharm= pharmacologic prophylaxis (i.e. unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux), Mech= graduate compression stockings or sequential compression devices or both

Disclosures

Streiff:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen Healthcare: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding.

Author notes

*

Asterisk with author names denotes non-ASH members.

This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract

Sign in via your Institution