Table 7 delineates the DVT proportions for patients where 1) chemoprophylaxis was never considered appropriate [ 11, 12, 20, 22, 27, 29], 2) chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury days 1 to 3 [ 12- 17, 17- 20, 22, 23, 26, 27], 3) chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury day 4 or 5 [ 19, 26, 29], and 4) chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury day 8 [ 28].
For studies that included some patients with pre-chemoprophylaxis ICH expansion, the post-chemoprophylaxis ICH proportion was 5.6% (70/1,258) when chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury days 1 to 3 [ 11, 12, 15, 17- 20].
For studies that excluded all patients with pre-chemoprophylaxis ICH expansion, the post-chemoprophylaxis ICH proportion was 3.1% (49/1,570) when chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury days 1 to 3 [ 11, 13, 14, 21- 27].
The investigations that excluded patients with pre chemoprophylaxis ICH expansion indicated that the post-chemoprophylaxis ICH proportion was similar when chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury days 1 to 3 (3.1%) compared with chemoprophylaxis given after day 3 (2.8%).
The DVT proportions were 2.4% for patients where chemoprophylaxis was inappropriate, 2.6% with chemoprophylaxis given on post-injury days 1 to 3, and 3.4% with chemoprophylaxis given after post-injury day 3. Since these proportions are neither statistically nor clinically different, we can infer that a delay in chemoprophylaxis administration until after post-injury day 3 is not detrimental.
For the 10 cohorts described in seven studies that included some patients with pre-chemoprophylaxis ICH expansion, the post-chemoprophylaxis ICH proportion was significantly greater when chemoprophylaxis was given on post-injury days 1 to 3 (5.6%) compared with chemoprophylaxis given after day 3 (1.5%).
These were known as Star Routes because an asterisk was given on official Post Office documents.
More importantly, these items do not adequately measure the degree to which students have fully accepted the scientific concept when given on a posttest, because students are not influenced by their misconceptions.
However, it had no significant effect when given on day 6-14 post-MI (Indo L 9 D).
Initially, Mr. Nussbaum said, no thought was given to posting the film on the Internet.
While patients generally felt that they received an appropriate amount of information on the nature of their injury and the actual operative procedure, little information was given on possible complications and post-operative care.
