Does the use of sequential compressions devices and anticoagulants together decrease the incidence of deep in vein thrombosis than the use of single modalities in critically ill patients?
There are diverse recommended approaches aimed at addressing the increasing rate of incidence of deep in vein thrombosis. The management of multisystem trauma patients is facilitated by the deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis. However, without the use of thromboprophylaxis, the rate of venous thrombosis and the respective pulmonary embolism is marginal. Through the use of different prophylactic modalities such as; pharmacologic anticoagulation, inferior vena cava filtration and the mechanical compression devices the practitioners still find it difficult. These rates have been assumed to be lowered by such approaches (Bailey et al., 1991).
The study is aimed at exploring how the use of sequential compression devices and also the anticoagulants together can effectively reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis among patients compared to the use of single modalities in the critically ill patients. The specific aims of the study are:
I. Establishing how the use of sequential compressions devices and anticoagulants together offer different outcomes compared to single modalities
II. Examining the effectiveness of the use of single modalities in critically ill patients
III. Examining how the use of sequential compressions devices and anticoagulants together as intervention offer different outcomes in critically ill patients
IV. Comparing the results on the use of sequential compression devices and anticoagulants together to those generated by the use of single modalities in critically ill patients
V. Using the outcomes to implement changes to the most efficient medical practice that can be used to decrease the incidence of deep vein thrombosis
The proffered analysis avails some of the specific questions that the study seeks to explore. The stipulated questions provide a diverse aspect in relation to addressing the problem of the study hence offering feasible intervention approaches.
Bailey P. et al. (1991). Prospective randomized trial of sequential compression device vs. low dose warfin for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty. PubMed Available at. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1774568
Cushman, M. (2007) “Epidemiology and risk factors for venous thrombosis,” Seminars in Hematology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 62–69, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at PubMed
Gagner et al . (2012). Adding chemoprophylaxis to sequential compression might not reduce risk of venous thromboembolism in bariatric surgery patients. PubMed . Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963819
Indraneel et al. (2010). Complications related to deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma: a systemtic review of the literature. Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes 2010 available at http://www.traumamanagement.org/content/4/1/1
Serdar T. et al. (2011). Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Trauma Patents. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/thrombosis/2011/505373/