In the present real-world study, a total of 25 out of 1524 ischemic stroke patients developed symptomatic DVT/PE. The rate of PE of 0.33% is consistent with the PE rate of 0.4% obtained in the German Stroke Registers study by Heuschmann
et al.[
6]. In our study, 15 inpatients developed DVT/PE, highlighting the DVT/PE risk in-hospital. In addition, 10 patients were readmitted for DVT/PE or treated for DVT/PE in the outpatient setting, demonstrating that the risk of the occurrence of DVT/PE continues post-discharge. The risk of PE is thought to persist for up to 4 weeks after stroke; in patients who died in the second to fourth week after stroke, PE was the dominant cause of death as verified by autopsy [
20].
In the present study, less than half of ischemic stroke patients received any form of prophylaxis in hospital and 6% received pharmacological prophylaxis post-discharge. These findings are consistent with several other studies demonstrating suboptimal prescribing practices in patients with ischemic stroke in-hospital [
13-
17]. The current study did not investigate the appropriateness of the prophylaxis provided but, given the results of other studies in medical patients, it is likely that prophylaxis was not in accordance with current guidelines in some patients. Few studies have investigated outpatient prophylaxis prescribing in patients with ischemic stroke. The present study analyzed anticoagulant prescriptions filled post-discharge, but this may include patients receiving an anticoagulant for reasons other than VTE prevention due the recent hospitalization for stroke, such as for the secondary prevention of non-AF cardioembolic stroke or dissection, or for atrial fibrillation developed after the index hospitalization (patients with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation at the time of the index hospitalization were excluded).
In the present study, inpatient prophylaxis with UFH was received by approximately 30% of the ischemic stroke patients, with one in ten patients receiving a LMWH and an eighth receiving mechanical prophylaxis. ACCP guidelines recommend pharmacological prophylaxis with a LMWH or UFH (Grade 1A) for patients with reduced mobility after ischemic stroke [
12]. Mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression or GCS is only recommended for patients with contraindications to pharmacological prophylaxis (Grade 1B). Thigh-length GCS failed to show a significant reduction in the occurrence of symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal DVT compared with avoidance of GCS after acute stroke in the Clots in Legs Or sTockings after Stroke (CLOTS) Trial 1 (10.0% vs. 10.5%, respectively;
P
=

0.88) [
21]. However, thigh-length GCS were associated with fewer instances of DVT (6.3%) after acute stroke than with below-knee GCS (8.8%;
P
=

0.008), as observed in the CLOTS Trial 2 [
22].In the PREVAIL (PREvention of Venous Thromboembolism After Acute Ischemic Stroke with LMWH and UFH) study of 1762 patients with AIS and restricted mobility, the risk of DVT/PE was 10% following 10 days’ (range 6 to 14 days) prophylaxis with the LMWH enoxaparin, and 18% with UFH (relative risk 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.76;
P
=

0.0001) [
19]. The occurrence of any bleeding complication was similar between groups (both 8%;
P
=

0.83). The composite of symptomatic intracranial and major extracranial hemorrhage was 1% in each group (
P
=

0.23), but there was a slight, clinically significant, excess in major extracranial hemorrhage alone with enoxaparin than UFH (1% vs. 0%;
P
=

0.015).
In the current study, half of the patients who received prophylaxis only received prophylaxis for 1 day—the first day of hospitalization. For those patients who received prophylaxis, the mean

±

s.d. prophylaxis duration was 1.9

±

1.6 days in the inpatient setting and 1.3

±

5.9 days in the outpatient setting (total 3.1

±

6.5 days). Several studies have shown reduced VTE risk with extended-duration prophylaxis [
3,
19,
23,
24]. In the PREVAIL study, 10.5

±

3.2 days’ prophylaxis duration was effective at reducing DVT/PE events [
19]. Although there are currently no guidelines regarding the most appropriate duration of prophylaxis in stroke patients, there is still a need for sustained use of prophylaxis across the continuum of care i.e. not only while hospitalized, but also post-discharge.
National initiatives including performance measure [
25] and financial disincentives [
26] have been developed in the US to increase the use of prophylaxis in hospitals in accordance with evidence-based guidelines, and to reduce the clinical and economic burden of VTE. Individual hospitals can also improve the care of ischemic stroke patients by participating in quality initiatives such as the “Get With The Guidelines-Stroke” program, [
27] or by implementing ‘standardized stroke orders’ [
26]. Standardized stroke orders involve multifaceted interventions based around preprinted discharge orders for stroke patients [
28]. After implementation of the stroke orders in six hospitals, optimal DVT prophylaxis within 48 hours significantly increased from 87% at year 1 to 96% by year 2 (
P
=

0.001) [
28]. Registries have also been used as tools to define deficiencies and improve quality of care. A voluntary web-based AIS registry was instigated and 50 hospitals reported data on patients diagnosed with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack [
29]. Rates of optimal DVT prophylaxis within 48 hours among patients with ischemic stroke were found to increase from 76.4% in year 1 to 94.7% by year 4 (
P
=

0.01).
Although the Premier Perspective™-i3 Pharma Informatics linked databases provide real-world information on approximately 275 000 unique patients across the US, there are several limitations to the use of this database for the current study. The database may not be representative of the US ischemic stroke population as a whole with regards to patient age and length of hospitalization. A recent study suggests a trend for decreasing mean age of stroke as shown from 71.2

±

13.5 years in 1993–1994 to 70.9

±

14.5 years in 1999, and to 68.4

±

15.4 in 2005 [
30]. Nevertheless, the mean age of our population of patients with a hospitalization for stroke was relatively low (62.2

±

12.2 years), which could both underestimate the risk of stroke and imply that the patients included in our analysis experienced less severe strokes. Furthermore, the average length of stay of our population (3.0

±

2.5 days) was shorter than reported previously (5.2 days). This could indicate that patients had recovered mobility quickly following their stroke, and therefore would not have been eligible for thromboprophylaxis after discharge. However, due to the nature of this database analysis, the level of reduced mobility in patients could not be evaluated (either directly or indirectly as a function of length of hospital stay). This limits assessment of actual DVT/PE risk in individual patients, and doesn’t allow the assessment regarding the appropriateness of prophylaxis (considering that the ACCP guidelines only recommend thromboprophylaxis for stroke patients with restricted mobility). Another limitation of this study is that pharmacological prophylaxis alone was assessed in the outpatient setting. Outpatient use of mechanical prophylaxis, such as GCS, was not captured due to over-the-counter availability. Furthermore, the rate of readmission for DVT/PE could be underestimated if patients were readmitted to a hospital that is not included in the database.