alexa The Utility of Thrombophilia Testing in the Acute Care Setting | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2329-8790
Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

The Utility of Thrombophilia Testing in the Acute Care Setting

Raquel Millet and Barry Meisenberg*
Michigan State University School of Medicine
*Corresponding Author : Barry Meisenberg
Anne Arundel Health System Research Institute
Anne Arundel Medical Center
2001 Medical Parkway
Annapolis MD 2140
Tel: 4434815923
Fax: 4434815890
Rec date: March 7, 2016; Acc date: March 25, 2016; Pub date: April 1, 2016
Citation: Millet R, Meisenberg B (2016) The Utility of Thrombophilia Testing in the Acute Care Setting. J Hematol Thrombo Dis 4:237. doi:10.4172/2329-8790.1000237
Copyright: © 2016 Millet R, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases


Background: Acquired or congenital thrombophilia increases the risk of thrombosis but routine testing of all patients with thrombosis is not recommended. Inpatient ordering of thrombophilia testing is additionally problematic because the tests are moderately costly, hard to interpret and do not alter the inpatient course. Despite this, inpatient ordering still occurs. We studied the utility of thrombophilia testing in a community hospital. Methods: The electronic medical records of consecutive patients having thrombophilia testing were reviewed for demographics, diagnoses, specialty of the ordering physician, role of hematology or other consultants, and the extent of duplicate testing. Results: Most testing was ordered by hospitalists with no documented input from hematologists or laboratory medicine specialists. Testing met professional society guidelines in only one patient. Some testing duplicated what was already present in the electronic medical record. One patient was harmed by thrombophilia testing, being incorrectly diagnosed with lupus-like anticoagulant syndrome. After data analysis, routine thrombophilia test options were removed from the ordering panel of the electronic medical records and became available only upon special request. In the 9 months after this intervention, only one request for the thrombophilia testing was received. Restricting thrombophilia testing resulted in estimated cost savings of $45,000 annually. Conclusions: Thrombophilia testing in the acute care setting was almost always ordered outside of clinical guidelines and provided no benefit. None of the “abnormal” tests were clinically significant. Over interpretation of one abnormal test lead to incorrect recommendations for long term anticoagulation in one patient. Hospitals, both teaching and non-teaching, should review their own experiences and consider locally appropriate ways to reduced overutilization.

Thrombophilia; VTE; Overutilization
Inherited or acquired thrombophilia describes states of increased tendency toward venous thromboembolism (VTE). Despite the increased risk, only a minority of people with thrombophilia manifest VTE and there is controversy about which clinical situations, if any, warrant thrombophilia testing (TT). American Society of Hematology Choosing Wisely© recommendations endorse limited use of TT [1]. Other guidelines suggest testing only patients with high risk features: age Ë40 or 45 years and with strong family history of VTE [2,3].
TT, often ordered as a broad panel composed of up to 10 distinct tests, is moderately costly (up to $1,000 in mail out costs to reference labs) and requires experience to interpret properly. Among inpatients, additional caution is warranted because results may not be received until after a patient’s discharge and because some tests can be affected by concurrent anticoagulant medications.
More importantly, results of TT do not change short term clinical management and may not change long term management [4]. In this study, we retrospectively examined the utility of TT in the inpatient setting in a community hospital. The results of that analysis and subsequent action steps are described.
Anne Arundel Medical Center is a 383 bed acute care hospital serving a population of over one million. The predominant mode of inpatient care is internal medicine hospitalist coverage supplemented by physician assistants to care for medical, neurologic and postsurgical patients. No residents cared for patients described in this study.
Patient identification
Laboratory-billing records identified consecutive adult in patients who received TT from 10/1/14 through 5/20/15. Data on patients’ age, diagnoses, specialty of the ordering physician, role of hematology or other consultants in the TT, the extent of duplicate testing and if medical management changed based on results were obtained from the electronic medical record (Epic Verona Wisconsin, USA).
220 separate tests were ordered on 48 patients, mostly by hospitalists. Table 1 displays the results of the data review. Only eight patients (17%) were ≤40 years and 12 (25%) had diagnoses that did not involve thrombosis. Wasteful duplicate genetic testing was documented in the electronic medical records of six patients. Only 11(5%) of test results were abnormal; but none of these abnormalities were considered clinically significant upon subsequent review.
The ordering did not fit any pattern. It was not routine for any hospitalist not for any disease such as VTE, but rather appeared to be idiosyncratic: not restricted to a few hospitalists but not ordered on all VTE patients. One patient, a 67 year old man with first episode of VTE and concurrent pulmonary embolism had a minimally abnormal lupus like anticoagulant assay erroneously interpreted as lupus like anticoagulant syndrome by hospitalist medical staff. This diagnosis as relayed to the outpatient primary care physician who prescribed and supervised long-term anticoagulation. The patient subsequently suffered a subdural hematoma after a fall while on anticoagulation. Repeat TT was completely normal.
In no case was there evidence of Hematology or Laboratory Medicine consultations in either the ordering or interpretation of results. Among the 12 patients who did not have thrombosis as a diagnosis but who had TT ordered, there was no discussion in the medical record of what considerations lead to the ordering of TT.
The data suggested that the existing pattern of ordering TT was most often clinically inappropriate, without the benefit of expert opinion and potentially harmful. These results argued for restriction on ordering by non-specialists, or only with guidance by computer decision support which should also include duplicate test warnings for genetic tests.
An educational effort was undertaken for hospitalist medical staff in the context of a morbidity and mortality conference centered upon the patient who was injured from unnecessary anti-coagulation. There was a knowledge deficit about the role TT plays in short-and long-term anticoagulation recommendations. Subsequently, meetings were held with the medical specialty groups most often involved with thrombophilic patients: hospitalists, vascular medicine, hematology and clinical pathology. A consensus decision was reached not to create additional best practice advisories, but rather to remove TT panels and the individual tests from the visible ordering menu of the electronic medical record though still making them available upon request to the clinical laboratory. A duplicate test warning was created as it would also be of benefit in alerting ambulatory physicians of existing genetic test results. In the nine months following removal of the test from the ordering menus, only one request for TT has been made, by a hematologist for a patient with suspected anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome. The change in ordering pattern represents an annualized savings of $45,000 in mail out lab costs.
TT is controversial in patient with VTE because it seldom changes recommendations regarding anticoagulation for either the patient or family members [4]. This is because the risk of a subsequent thrombosis among those with common types of thrombophilia is not necessarily elevated beyond the already heightened risk of subsequent VTE that follows all first VTE [4]. A recent review revealed no benefit of TT to reduce subsequent thrombosis after first VTE [5]. Circumspection about inpatient TT is especially warranted because TT does not alter the hospital management of VTE, and the patient may be taking medications which alter levels of commonly ordered TT. Furthermore results can be hard to interpret due to the broad range of “normal” and the lack of clinical significance of abnormal results unless they are substantially lower than normal [6]. Thus results that are only slightly below the “normal range” can be misinterpreted as described herein especially by unfamiliar clinicians.
In this study we found that TT was inexpertly ordered outside of clinical guidelines in patients with both VTE and non-VTE. The ordering was predominantly by hospitalists and in no case was the rationale for TT discussed in the chart. Neither hematologists nor laboratory medicine specialists were involved in ordering or interpreting TT. As a result, the yield of clinical useful information was nil. Ordering was diffuse among hospitalists, idiosyncratic and not limited to only a few individuals for which targeted education might have been an effective remedy.
Our data indicating inexpert use of TT is similar to a previous study of 1314 patients with acute VTE in which 24% of all acute VTE pts had TT, but was considered retrospectively appropriate in only 10% [7]. That study did not report any follow up action steps. Our study focused not on VTE diagnosis, but rather on the use of the TT in order to get a fuller picture of TT use patterns. Indeed we found that 25% of patients who underwent TT did not have VTE as the diagnosis. Our data is also similar to that from an urban tertiary care hospital which showed a pattern of inappropriate use in both VTE and non-VTE patients, including TT patients already on anticoagulation which gave false positive results for protein C and protein S tests 20% of the time [8].
Our discussions with ordering physicians and service groups indicated a lack of appreciation for the intricacies of appropriate ordering and interpretations of what is considered a clinically significant abnormal value. While we considered best practice advisories, other ‘soft stops’ and advisories have not been uniformly effective at our institution or at hospitals in general [9,10]. Thus with the consent of hospitalist leadership, we removed TT from the visible ordering menu, requiring a phone consult with clinical pathology prior to ordering. This still allowed it to be ordered for emergencies after consultation with laboratory medicine experts. This was highly effective in reducing the over-utilization. To our knowledge, no patient was harmed by this effective method of discouraging inappropriate use.
These data highlight the potential for misapplying and misinterpreting TT. In an era of renewed emphasis on teaching and practicing the principles of ‘high value’ medicine and harms reduction, all acute care hospitals, both teaching and non-teaching, should examine their own TT patterns and consider locally appropriate techniques for TT demand management.

Tables and Figures at a glance

Table icon
Table 1
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 8021
  • [From(publication date):
    April-2016 - Sep 24, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7945
  • PDF downloads :76

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version