The article presents an empirical evaluation of the action and effect of the venous thromboembolism (VTE). This is a vital to health and lives of hospitalized individuals and generally remains preventable. As noted in the article, it is critical to note that there is considerably limited research on the action of this drug particularly in the management of those suffering from deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (Khouli & Grosu, 2011).
Reviewing clinical trials concerning the efficiency of thromboprophylaxis within the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) patients is outlined as the basic objective of the empirical research. Additionally, as outlined in the article, the experiment aims to draw critical conclusions and of summary of the basic recommendations. The main methodology that was applied in this study involved the use of systemic review. The literatures reviewed were majorly from the internet search from different acknowledged sites. Some of these included the PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library (Khouli & Grosu, 2011). Additionally, the Google Scholar, as well as other chosen investigations were used as vital sources for review.
The article stresses on the potential lethality of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among the hospitalized clients. It also highlights that the drug remains considerably avoidable and is more likely to cause mortality as well as morbidity amongst these populations. The inadequacy of scientific examinations or investigations on the potential effects of this drug on patients suffering from deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is also indicated.
There is also a general observation in the article that the control of VTE depends on the risk factors identification as well as suitable prophylaxis. These aspects, as indicated within the article, have been adequately established within surgical as well as general medical patients. The article postulates that even though the critically sick patients may depict numerous key risk factors for the VTE before the ICU admission, there are critical care conditions as well as interventions that may also potentiate vital risks (Khouli & Grosu, 2011). Such factors may include mechanical ventilation as well as vein catheterization.
It still remains unclear to note or approximate the extent of such interventions in increasing the severity of risk factors or worsening the patient’s already vulnerable health condition. The article reiterates that even though general guidelines for the prevention of VTE within severely ill medical patients are published by numerous critical care groups, there recommendations stream from scant literature (Khouli & Grosu, 2011).
Such literatures, as indicated in the article, usually entail mixed medical as well as surgical severely sick patients. Additionally, there has always been an extrapolation from the investigations of less severely sick patients suffering from acute medical complications. There is also an argument that the actual recommendations published within the general guidelines are usually not distinct or particular with regard to dosing as well as the period of thromboprophylaxis as well as consumption of the combined VTE prophylaxis modalities. From these observations, it can be noted that the article tends to reveal the existent gap between the focus of the empirical presentation and those of the past times.
The article tends to systematically review the existent medical literature linked to the VTE prophylaxis within critically sick medical patients. In achieving this objective, the article presents a study that particularly analyzes the prevalence as well as the incidence originate from DVT within the medical intensive care unit (MICU) (Khouli & Grosu, 2011). In addition, it reviews the efficiency of thromboprophylaxis within MICU adult patients. It is, thus, from this particular review that there is a consequential or final provision of critical recommendations meant for the DVT prophylaxis within the MICU patients.
Literature reviews are presented to be the main data sources for the investigation. English language data sources with period of January 1980 to September 2101 have been used in the investigation presented in this article. The article also outlines the study selection methodology applied in the investigation. Randomized controlled clinical trials, (RCCT) or cohort examination for the DVT prophylaxis was applied.
The patient population involved in the study included adult patients within the MICU. In addition, the screening methodologies involved the utilization of objective approaches to screen for the DVT complication (Khouli & Grosu, 2011). As outlined in the article, the examination used applied exclusion criteria by avoiding the investigations which enrolled distinctly neurosurgical, surgical, as well as trauma severely compromised patients. Additionally, the study also left out the investigations that had inadequate reporting the DVT rates.
The findings and recommendations within the article present very critical insights into the field of clinical practice. It is important for clinicians to note that the literature reveals vital inadequacies in the capacity to prepare evidence-based recommendations for the DVT. As presented in the study, the clinicians should note the noted restrictions for patient selection as well as the DVT risk factors, alternatives and durations of the screening tests applied in the detection of DVT (Khouli & Grosu, 2011).
Additionally, the clinicians should also note the options as well as dosages of pharmacologic or mechanical thromboprophylaxis applied. The article also presents critical insights for the varied VTE prophylaxis product endpoints. However, the clinicians should also note that apart from the obvious demerits associated with the drug, there are also evident advantages that accrue from this drug.
It is observed that minus the prophylaxis, there is a generally observed elevated DVT incidence within the MICU patients. From the demonstrations in the article, it is evident that pharmacological prophylaxis minimizes the hazard of DVT by approximately 50% (Khouli & Grosu, 2011). The article presents an important solution for assisting the DVT patients. For instance, the article proposes that pharmacological prophylaxis to MICU patients.
This, as it is indicated, should be in form of UFH or LMWH whenever there are no bleeding threats. Clinicians also learn a vital lesson that attaining the merit of thromboprophylaxis in minimizing the occurrence of controllable DVT as well as mortality bases on appropriate risk factor assessment (Welch & Bonner, 2010). Additionally, the clinicians ought to ensure the accomplishment of the prophylaxis. The application of computerized technology in clinical practice for necessary assessments and diagnosis in the process of treating DVT is vital if efficiency is to be enhanced in a proper manner.
The processes described herein to be conducted in the ICU during the therapeutic management of DVT remain critical. This is because they indicate the best practices that clinical interventions should follow when conducting such undertakings. Particularly the importance of real-time patient monitoring and documentation of notable conditions is critical as it is demonstrated in the article’s process descriptions.
There are also precautionary measures to be taken in consideration during clinical practice (Barnett, 2007). These measures drawn from the article includes the prohibition of regular MICU patients screening to detect the asymptomatic DVT during particular instances. Generally, there is an overwhelming indication from the article that DVT prophylaxis amongst the MIU is advisable though additional randomized blinded investigations are necessary.
References
Barnett, G. (2007). High-grade gliomas: Diagnosis and treatment. New Jersey, NJ: Humana Press.
Khouli, H. & Grosu, H. (2011). Efficacy of Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis in the Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Systemic Review. European Journal of Clinical & Medical Oncology, 3 (4), 91-97.
Welch, E., & Bonner, L. (2010). Venous thromboembolism: A nurse’s guide to prevention and management. London: Wiley-Blackwell.