4.7 Review

Prevalence of Venous Thromboembolism in Intensive Care Units: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11226691

Keywords

venous thromboembolism; intensive care unit; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Science and Technology foundation of Sichuan [2021YJ0430]
  2. Luzhou Municipal People'sGovernment-SouthwestMedicalUniversity Joint Project [2020LZXNYDJ33]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study pooled the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in intensive care patients worldwide and identified several risk factors. The results showed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill patients, emphasizing the need for attention to high-risk populations.
Objective: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life threating complication in intensive care units (ICUs). This study aimed to pool the prevalence of VTE and examined the risk factors of VTE in intensive care patients worldwide. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases was performed. Studies reported that the data on the prevalence of VTE or relevant information were synthesized using a random-effects model. Results: A total of 42 studies reporting on 27,344 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of VTE was 10.0% (95% CI: 7.0-14.0%). Subgroup and metaregression analyses found that thromboprophylaxis strategy, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II), age, study quality, sample size, malignancy, sex, spinal cord injury and injury severity score (ISS) moderated the prevalence of VTE in intensive care patients. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill patients. The risk factors of VTE included thromboprophylaxis strategy, SAPS II, age, malignancy, sex, spinal cord injury and ISS. Therefore, we need to pay more attention to high-risk populations of VTE in intensive care patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available