From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Immobilization and VTE: Are Long Trips Really Dangerous?

Travel for more than 8 hours did not significantly increase the risk for venous thromboembolism.

Immobilization is a known risk factor for development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), yet the relative effects of different types and durations of immobility are not known. In a prospective noninterventional study, researchers determined the correlation between type of immobility and risk for VTE in 7940 patients who self-presented to 12 emergency departments and were being evaluated for VTE. Categories of immobility were none, generalized (whole-body immobility for >48 hours), limb, travel (immobility for >8 hours because of travel within the previous 7 days), neurological (paralysis), and other.

Overall, 1394 patients (18%) reported immobility, and 545 patients (7%) were diagnosed with VTE (pulmonary embolism in 354, deep venous thrombosis in 72, and PE and DVT in 119). Risk for VTE varied by type of immobility as follows: limb (odds ratio, 2.25), neurological (OR, 2.23), other (OR, 1.97), generalized (OR, 1.76), and travel (OR, 1.19). The increase in risk associated with travel was not statistically significant.

Comment: In this study, risk for VTE varied by type of immobilization and did not increase significantly from travel. Of note, the type of travel (airplane, train, or automobile) was not recorded and might prove significant. Until further study differentiates the risk for VTE associated with different types of travel, consideration of travel history in the work-up of VTE should not change.

Richard D. Zane, MD, FAAEM

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine September 11, 2009

Citation(s):

Beam DM et al. Risk of thromboembolism varies, depending on category of immobility in outpatients. Ann Emerg Med 2009 Aug; 54:147.

Reader Remarks:

Read all Reader Remarks on this article

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

(more...)

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2009. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.