Some thought about DVT prophylaxis in ICU.
Part of my presentation on the same topic.

Question 1: What is the incidence of DVT and PE in current era of widespread thrombo-prophylaxis?
#FOAMed

Question 2: How do you diagnose DVT in ICU?
▶️I think, the best evidence is available for CUS with limited scope for Venography.
And no role of D-Dimer.
#FOAMed
Question 3: Is there any evidence supporting Heparin thrombo-prophylaxis in ICU?
#FOAMed

Yes.
1⃣Number needed to prophylax to prevent 1 DVT - 20
2⃣Number needed to prophylax to prevent 1 PE - 52
3⃣Overall no major bleeding. But bleeding risk need to be individualised.
Question 4: Is there any evidence of LMWH over UFH in VTE Prophylaxis?
#FOAMeYes.
1⃣LMWH decreases DVT. But no difference in Proximal DVT.
2⃣No difference in PE.
3⃣No difference in major bleeding.
4⃣Lower incidence of HIT in LMWH (PROTECT Trial).
5⃣Overall advantage LMWH.
Question 5: Is there any role of Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis?
#FOAMed
Question 6: What is the evidence for Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in patients with low CrCL?

1⃣Maximum evidence is for Dabigatran.
2⃣But unfortunately even on Dabigtran with adequate Anti-factor Xa level maintained both DVT and bleeding risk remains high.
#FOAMed
Question 7: Any evidence in TBI?
#FOAMed
Suggestions.
1⃣GCS 13-15. No bleed expansion at 48-H. Start.
2⃣GCS 13-15. Some expansion at 48-H. Start only after 72-H.
3⃣GCS 3-12. Not before 72 H. But before 7-days.
4⃣For DAI. No bleeding. Start after 72-H.
5⃣Consult Neurosurgery.
Question 8: How to treat DVT in ICU?
#FOAMed
1⃣Standard anticoagulation.
2⃣Limited role for Catheter Directed Thrombolysis.
Question 9: How do I provide DVT prophylaxis in my ICU?
#FOAMed

1⃣All ICU patients need DVT prophylaxis.
2⃣Pharmacological preferred over Mechanical.
3⃣If DVT prophylaxis not given for some reason, the reason must be documented.
Question 10: Is there any evidence for DOACs?
#FOAMed
1⃣Yes. For several of them.
2⃣APEX supports Betrixaban for prophylaxis.
3⃣Xalia supports Rivaroxaban for treatment.
4⃣But will be cautious in using them in my patients. Limited evidence in ICU patients. Limited reversal agent.

More from Health

Public Health Scholarships

This may help for those considering MS/PhD in Public Health

1. The Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Public Health in Disasters
https://t.co/1Z5qpstsSu

2. Afya Bora Global Health

3. Carl Duisberg Scholarships

https://t.co/HnNXdbWBxy

4. Commonwealth Scholarships for Developing Countries

https://t.co/3fWGf5b2OH

5. Fellowships in Public Health & Tropical

6. Fellowships to Promote Mental Health Journalism

https://t.co/MVV9PFsBJ1

7. 2021-22 Jeroen Ensink Memorial Fund

8. Paul S. Lietman Global Travel Grant for Residents & Fellows

https://t.co/qK76R495QT

9. Global Health Internships and Funding

https://t.co/FD9Gh2wXvO

10. Kofi Annan Global Health Leadership

11. MA in European Public Health

https://t.co/5x0Vr7b1j8

12. MSc in Public Health Scholarships - Maastricht University,
You gotta think about this one carefully!

Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)

The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.

Your test comes back positive.

Are you really sick? Explain below 👇

The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through


You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.

👇


Here is what we know:

- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative

Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):

- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy

👇

Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:

▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)

▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)

👇

You May Also Like

The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW