Objective: To identify and classify risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients, as well as to evaluate medical practices regarding prophylaxis for the disease. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study, carried out between January and March of 2006, involving inpatients at three hospitals in the city of Manaus, Brazil. Risk stratification for VTE was based on the criteria established by the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery and by the International Union of Angiology. Clinical, surgical and medication-related risk factors were analyzed. The statistical analysis of the data obtained was conducted, adopting an alpha error of 5% and 95% CI. Qualitative data were analyzed using the chi-square test, whereas quantitative data were analyzed using Student's t-test. Results: Of the 1,036 patients included (total number of admissions, 1,051), 515 (49.7%) were male, and 521 (50.3%) were female. A total of 23 risk factors for VTE were identified (total number of occurrences, 2,319). The stratified risk for VTE was 50.6%, 16.6% and 30.8% among the admissions of high-, moderate- and low-risk cases, respectively. In 73.3% of the admissions, nonpharmacological prophylaxis was not employed at any point during the study period. In 74% of those classified as high- or moderate-risk cases, no prophylactic medications were administered. Conclusions: This study showed that, in the population studied, risk factors were common and that prophylactic measures were not employed in patients prone to developing VTE and its complications.

Keywords: Venous thromboembolism; Risk factors; Venous thrombosis/prevention & control.

Objective: To evaluate the use of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in a general hospital. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort study at the Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, located in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, involving a random sample of patients admitted between October of 2008 and February of 2009. We included patients over 18 years of age and hospitalized for more than 48 h. The exclusion criteria were anticoagulant use, pregnancy, puerperium, and a history of thromboembolic disease. The adequacy of prophylaxis was evaluated in accordance with a protocol created by the Hospital and principally based on the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, eighth edition. Results: We included 262 patients. The mean age was 59.1 ± 16.6 years. The most common risk factors were immobilization (in 70.6%), infection (in 44.3%), cancer (in 27.5%), obesity (in 23.3%), and major surgery (in 14.1%). The risk of VTE was classified as high and moderate in 143 (54.6%) and 117 (44.7%) of the patients, respectively. Overall, 46.2% of the patients received adequate prophylaxis, 25% of those with ≥ three risk factors for VTE and 18% of those with cancer, the differences between these last two groups and their counterparts (patients with < three risk factors and those without cancer) being statistically significant (p < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: Our data reveal that nearly all patients at our hospital were at risk for VTE, and that less than half received adequate VTE prophylaxis, which is in agreement with the literature. It is surprising that inadequate prophylaxis is more common in high-risk patients.

Keywords: Venous thromboembolism/prevention and control; Venous thrombosis/prevention and control; Heparin.