• Paul D Stein, Russell D Hull, Fadi Matta, and Gary L Willyerd.
• Department of Internal Medicine and Research and Advanced Studies Program, Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, East Lansing, USA. steinp@trinity-health.org
• Am. J. Med. 2010 Dec 1; 123 (12): 1107-13.

Backgroundyears may elapse between the publication of results of rigorous randomized trials and changes in clinical practice. It is not often that a definitive time interval can be identified that shows the time taken for published clinical trials to affect clinical practice. In the present study, we track the timelines of evidence for home treatment of deep venous thrombosis and its eventual impact on hospitalizations and early discharge.Methodsthe number of patients discharged from short-stay hospitals throughout the United States between 1979 and 2006 with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and the proportion discharged in ≤ 2 days was determined from The National Hospital Discharge Survey. We also attempted to identify all published articles that reported home treatment of deep venous thrombosis in unselected populations.Resultseleven years after demonstration of the safety and efficacy of home treatment, there was only a 21% decrease in the population-based incidence of hospitalizations of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. The proportion of patients with a principal diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis who were discharged in ≤ 2 days began to increase prominently after the 1996 publication of trials showing the safety and efficacy of home treatment, and continued to increase through 2006. However, the proportion discharged early remained modest (21% to 25%).Conclusionswhether the slow implementation of home treatment reflects a cautious approach accompanied by a gradual testing of shortened hospitalization for deep venous thrombosis or other factors is uncertain.2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…