A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): a review of past, present and future use

PURPOSE: The necessity of effective prevention of DVT is generally accepted. However, attitudes and beliefs concerning prophylaxis vary greatly in terms of the risk groups receiving prophylaxis and the prophylactic methodology. This paper reviews current research on the subject and seeks to provide recommendations. RESULTS: Known clinical risk factors allow the classification of patients according to high, medium and low risk of developing thromboembolism. Basic forms of prophylaxis are physiotherapy and early mobilisation. However, there are no data on the safety and efficacy of these methods. Mechanical devices used include external intermittent pneumatic compression and graduated compression stockings. Used in isolation, these methods reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in low and moderate risk patients by one half or one third. There is no distinction between mechanical and pharmacological methods in terms of safety and efficacy. Furthermore, secondary effects are extremely rare. Moderate and high risk category patients should receive combined modes of mechanical and pharmacological treatment. A direct comparison of safety in moderate risk patients fixed doses of standard heparin vs. low molecular weight heparin revealed no significant differences. In the case of high risk patients, adjusted dose heparin administered subcutaneously or fixed dose low molecular heparin is recommended. A severe secondary effect of heparin-prophylaxis is heparin-induced thrombocytopenie. The optimum duration of pharmacological prophylaxis is not yet clear. CONCLUSION: The methods and duration of prophylaxis remain subject to an individual medical assessment of the clinically significant benefits in relation to the risk secondary effects of the treatment. On major questions there are significant variations in the specialist literature. This means that standards cannot be formulated, although recommendations can be given.