Venous thromboembolism and the utility of the Padua Prediction Score in patients with sepsis admitted to internal medicine departments

Gynecological Cancer and Venous Thromboembolism: A Narrative Review to Increase Awareness and Improve Risk Assessment and Prevention

The prevention and appropriate management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is of paramount importance. However, the literature data report an underestimation of this major problem in patients with gynecological cancers, with an inconsistent venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis in this patient setting. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence regarding the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, focusing on the specific context of gynecological tumors, exploring the literature discussing risk factors, risk assessment, and pharmacological prophylaxis. We found that the current understanding and management of venous thromboembolism in gynecological malignancy is largely based on studies on solid cancers in general. Hence, further, larger, and well-designed research in this area is needed.

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis

Background

Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs.

Objectives

We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research.

Design

We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines.

Setting

NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites.

Participants

Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions.

Interventions

Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models.

Main outcome measures

Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models.

Results

We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%.

Limitations

Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias.

Conclusions

Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research.

Future work

Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Thrombosis and Bleeding Risk Scores Are Strongly Associated with Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Background: Internationally established guidelines mention pharmacological prophylaxis for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, there are concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants. This study investigated the associations between thrombosis/bleeding risk scores and clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to two hospitals between 2021 and 2022. We analyzed clinical data, laboratory results, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) use, thrombosis, bleeding, and 30-day survival. Results: Of the 160 patients, 69.4% were female, and the median age was 59 years. The rates of thrombotic complications and mortality were 12.5% and 36.3%, respectively. LMWH prophylaxis was administered to 73 of the patients (45.6%). The patients with high Padua prediction scores (PPS) and high IMPROVEVTE scores had a significantly higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to those with low scores (30.8% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.006 and 25.6% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.006). Similarly, elevated IMPROVEVTE and IMPROVEBRS scores were associated with increased mortality (hazard ratios of 7.49 and 6.27, respectively; p < 0.001). Interestingly, LMWH use was not associated with a decreased incidence of VTE when stratified by risk groups. Conclusions: this study suggests that COVID-19 patients with high thrombosis and bleeding risk scores have a higher mortality rate.

The Use of Risk Scores for Thromboprophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients-Rationale and Design of the RICO trial

Background  Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medically ill patients is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Guidelines suggest that VTE and bleeding risk assessment models (RAMs) should be integrated into the clinical decision-making process on thromboprophylaxis. However, poor evidence is available comparing the use of a RAM versus clinical judgement in evaluating VTE and bleeding occurrence. Methods  Reducing Important Clinical Outcomes in hospitalized medical ill patients (RICO) is a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04267718). Acutely ill patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine wards are randomized to the use of RAMs-namely the Padua Prediction Score and the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism Bleeding Score-or to clinical judgement. The primary study outcome is a composite of symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE and major bleeding at 90-day follow-up. Secondary endpoints include the evaluation of clinical outcomes at hospital discharge and the assessment of VTE prophylaxis prescription during the study period. In order to demonstrate a 50% reduction in the primary outcome in the experimental group and assuming an incidence of the primary outcome of 3.5% in the control group at 90-day; 2,844 patients across 32 centers will be included in the study. Discussion  The RICO trial is a randomized study of clinical management assessing the role of RAMs in hospitalized medical ill patients with the aim of reducing VTE and bleeding occurrence. The study has the potential to improve clinical practice since VTE still represents an important cause of morbidity and mortality in this setting.

Padua prediction score may be inappropriate for VTE risk assessment in hospitalized patients with acute respiratory conditions: A Chinese single-center cohort study

Background

The Padua Prediction Score (PPS) recommended by the guidelines lacks effective external validation in a Chinese cohort. This study sought to assess the accuracy of the PPS to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in medical inpatients with acute respiratory conditions.

Methods

This consecutive cohort study included 1,574 inpatients from January to August 2019. The occurrence rate of VTE in patients classified at high-risk and low-risk groups according to PPS and Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) was compared. The discriminatory capability of the RAMs was evaluated in all the patients and the subgroup without pharmacological prophylaxis. Reclassification parameters were also used to assess the clinical utility.

Results

170 (10.8%) patients were objectively confirmed as having VTE during hospitalization. The incidence rate of VTE in low-risk patients was 6.3% by PPS, which was significantly higher than that by Caprini RAM (2.6%, p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for PPS and Caprini RAM was 0.714 (95%CI, 0.672-0.756) and 0.760 (95%CI, 0.724-0.797), respectively (p = 0.003). The AUC of Caprini RAM was larger than PPS even in subgroups without pharmacological prophylaxis (0.774 vs 0.709, p = 0.002). Compared with Caprini RAM, the net reclassification index was estimated at 0.037 (p = 0.436), and integrated discrimination improvement was 0.015 (p = 0.495) by PPS.

Conclusions

According to our cohort study, PPS may not be appropriate to predict VTE risk in hospitalized patients with acute respiratory conditions. An accurate, widely applicable, validated RAM needs to be further constructed in Chinese medical inpatients.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Model for Venous Thromboembolism Following Neurosurgery: A 6-Year, Multicenter, Retrospective and Prospective Diagnostic Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Based on the literature and data on its clinical trials, the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing neurosurgery has been 3.0%~26%. We used advanced machine learning techniques and statistical methods to provide a clinical prediction model for VTE after neurosurgery.

METHODS

All patients (n = 5867) who underwent neurosurgery from the development and retrospective internal validation cohorts were obtained from May 2017 to April 2022 at the Department of Neurosurgery at the Sanbo Brain Hospital. The clinical and biomarker variables were divided into pre-, intra-, and postoperative. A univariate logistic regression (LR) was applied to explore the 67 candidate predictors with VTE. We used a multivariable logistic regression (MLR) to select all significant MLR variables of MLR to build the clinical risk prediction model. We used a random forest to calculate the importance of significant variables of MLR. In addition, we conducted prospective internal (n = 490) and external validation (n = 2301) for the model.

RESULTS

Eight variables were selected for inclusion in the final clinical prediction model: D-dimer before surgery, activated partial thromboplastin time before neurosurgery, age, craniopharyngioma, duration of operation, disturbance of consciousness on the second day after surgery and high dose of mannitol, and highest D-dimer within 72 h after surgery. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the development, retrospective internal validation, and prospective internal validation cohorts were 0.78, 0.77, and 0.79, respectively. The external validation set had the highest AUC value of 0.85.

CONCLUSIONS

This validated clinical prediction model, including eight clinical factors and biomarkers, predicted the risk of VTE following neurosurgery. Looking forward to further research exploring the standardization of clinical decision-making for primary VTE prevention based on this model.

Simple yet (more?) effective. Venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for germ cell tumour patients receiving first-line chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Germ cell tumours (GCT) are highly curable malignancies. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication, needing better risk assessment models (RAM).

AIM

Identification of VTE incidence and risk factors in metastatic GCT patients starting first-line chemotherapy. Developing a RAM and comparing it to Khorana risk score (KRS) and Padua Prediction Score (PPS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed GCT patients staged IS-IIIC. VTE risk factors were identified with logistic regression. Area under curve of receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC), Akaike and Bayesian Information Criteria (AIC, BIC) were calculated for the developed RAM, KRS and PPS.

RESULTS

Among 495 eligible patients, VTE occurred in 69 (13.9%), including 40 prior to chemotherapy. Vein compression (OR: 8.96; 95% CI: 2.85-28.13; p < 0.001), clinical stage IIIB-IIIC (OR: 5.68; 95% CI: 1.82-17.70; p = 0.003) and haemoglobin concentration (OR for 1 g/dL decrease: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.03-1.67; p = 0.026) were significant in our RAM. KRS ≥ 3 (OR: 3.31; 95% CI: 1.77-6.20; p < 0.001), PPS 4-5 (OR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.49-6.29; p = 0.002) and PPS > 5 (OR 8.05; 95% CI 3.79-17.13; p < 0.001) correlated with VTE risk. Diagnostic criteria (AUC-ROC, AIC, BIC) for the developed RAM, KRS and PPS were (0.885; 0.567; -1641), (0.588; 0.839; -1576) and (0.700; 0.799; -1585), respectively. In the numerical score, the optimal cut-off point for high-risk was ≥9, with sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 0.78, 0.77, 0.35 and 0.96, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our RAM, based on vein compression, clinical stage and haemoglobin concentration proved superior to both KRS and PPS. VTE is frequent in GCT patients.

[Application of Padua prediction score and serum albumin level in evaluating venous thromboembolism in rheumatic inpatients]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the status of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in rheumatic inpatients, and to explore the efficiency of Padua prediction score (PPS) in the patient population. In addition, to analyze the relationship between serum albumin and VTE in rheumatic inpatients.

METHODS

Data of inpatients with rheumatology were retrospectively collected and analyzed at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from September 2018 to September 2019. Occurrence of VTE was compared between high (PPS≥4) and low (PPS < 4) risk groups. PPS were analyzed in the VTE and non-VTE patients. Multivariate Logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors in PPS and the relationship between serum albumin and VTE.

RESULTS

A total of 1 547 patients were included in this study, and 27 (1.7%) had symptomatic VTE. Among the symptomatic VTE cases, 19 (1.2%) had deep vein thrombosis (DVT) only, 6 (0.4%) had pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) only, and 2 (0.1%) were diagnosed with DVT and PTE. PPS in the VTE and non-VTE groups were 3.33±1.78 and 1.80±0.97 respectively (P < 0.05).The number of patients with PPS≥4 in the VTE group and non-VTE group was 37.0% and 4.3% respectively (P < 0.01). The average serum albumin level in the VTE group was lower than that in non-VTE group [(29.79±6.36) g/L vs. (35.17±6.31) g/L, P < 0.001]. Seventy-six cases was divided into high-risk group of VTE, while 1 471 cases were in the low-risk group, and the incidence of VTE was 13.2% and 1.2% respectively (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that ongoing hormonal treatment, age≥70 years, trauma and/or surgery ≤30 d, reduced mobility and previous VTE were risk factors of VTE in the rheumatology patients, OR values were 7.11, 7.07, 3.40, 2.40 and 2.00, respectively. Lower serum albumin level was the risk factor of VTE in the rheumatology patients [OR=0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.94)].

CONCLUSION

The incidence of VTE was relatively higher in the hospitalized patients in Department of Rheumatology and Immunology. Glucocorticoid therapy was the highest risk factor of VTE and lower serum albumin level also was the risk factor. Although the PPS can reflect the risk of VTE in rheumatic inpatients to some extent, its effectiveness is limited. PPS can be optimized for quantitative VTE risk assessment of rheumatic inpatients in the future.

Estimating Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Inpatients: Validation of Existing Risk Scores and Development of New Risk Scores

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are predisposed to venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to (1) evaluate the efficacy of 4 existing cancer-specific VTE models in predicting VTE incidence among hospitalized mCRC patients, and (2) examine the influence of incorporating mCRC molecular subtypes into these models. We conducted an evaluation of 4 cancer-specific VTE models, including Khorana, Vienna CATS, Protecht, and CONKO in a dataset involving 1392 mCRC patients. To evaluate the predictive performance, we utilized receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both the original models and the modified models that incorporated microsatellite instability status or KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations. Moreover, we computed the net reclassification improvement (NRI) to quantify the enhancements made to the modified VTE risk models. All models demonstrated a moderate area under the ROC curve (ROC-AUC) when predicting the occurrence of VTE: Khorana (0.550), Vienna CATS (0.671), Protecht (0.652), and CONKO (0.578). The incorporation of KRAS and BRAF mutations significantly improved the ROC-AUC of all 4 existing models (modified Khorana: 0.796, modified Vienna CATS: 0.832, modified Protecht: 0.834, and modified CONKO: 0.809). After dichotomizing the risk using a threshold of 3 points and comparing them with the original models, NRI values for the 4 modified models were 0.97, 0.95, 1.11, and 0.98, respectively. All 4 cancer-specific VTE models exhibit moderate performance when identifying mCRC patients at high risk of VTE. Incorporating KRAS and BRAF mutations may enhance the prediction of VTE in hospitalized mCRC patients.

Superior Predictive Value of D-Dimer to the Padua Prediction Score for Venous Thromboembolism in Inpatients with AECOPD: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Background

The optimal tool for risk prediction of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate whether D-dimer could predict the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD compared to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS).

Methods

Inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers in China between December 2018 and June 2020. On admission, D-dimer was detected, PPS was calculated for each patient, and the incidence of 2-month VTE was investigated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of D-dimer and PPS on VTE development, and the best cut-off value for both methods was evaluated through the Youden index.

Results

Among the 4468 eligible patients with AECOPD, 90 patients (2.01%) developed VTE within 2 months after admission. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of D-dimer for predicting VTE were significantly higher than those of the PPS both in the overall cohort (0.724, 95% CI 0.672–0.776 vs 0.620, 95% CI 0.562–0.679; P<0.05) and the subgroup of patients without thromboprophylaxis (0.747, 95% CI 0.695–0.799 vs 0.640, 95% CI 0.582–0.698; P<0.05). By calculating the Youden Index, the best cut-off value of D-dimer was determined to be 0.96 mg/L with an AUC of 0.689, which was also significantly better than that of the PPS with the best cut-off value of 2 (AUC 0.581, P=0.007). After the combination of D-dimer with PPS, the AUC (0.621) failed to surpass D-dimer alone (P=0.104).

Conclusion

D-dimer has a superior predictive value for VTE over PPS in inpatients with AECOPD, which might be a better choice to guide thromboprophylaxis in inpatients with AECOPD due to its effectiveness and convenience.

Clinical Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trail Registry NO. ChiCTR2100044625; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=121626.

Current use of D-dimer for the exclusion of venous thrombosis in hospitalized patients

D-dimer assay’s utility for excluding venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients is debatable. We aimed to assess the current use of D-dimer as a diagnostic tool for excluding VTE in hospitalized patients and examine a mandatory age-adjusted D-dimer (AADD) threshold for diagnostic imaging. Retrospective cohort study between 2014 to 2019 that included patients from medical and surgical wards with a positive AADD result drawn during their hospitalization. The outcomes were determining a D-dimer threshold requiring further evaluation and assessing the prognostic value of D-dimer in predicting clinically relevant VTE in hospitalized patients. The cohort included 354 patients, 56% of them underwent definitive diagnostic imaging, and 7.6% were diagnosed with VTE after a positive AADD within 90 days of follow-up. Mortality rates were higher in patients diagnosed with VTE (33.3% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.03). Patients with pneumonia and other infectious etiologies were less likely to be further evaluated by definitive imaging (p = 0.001). Patients with a respiratory complaint (p = 0.02), chest pain (p < 0.001), or leg swelling (p = 0.01) were more likely to undergo diagnostic imaging. Patients with D-dimer levels > X2 the AADD were at increased risk of VTE [OR 3.87 (1.45–10.27)]. At 90 days of follow-up, no excess mortality was observed for patients without diagnostic evaluation following elevated AADD. D-dimer may be used in hospitalized patients to exclude VTE using the traditional AADD thresholds, with a high negative predictive value. D-dimer levels > X2 the AADD usually mandates further diagnostic imaging, while lower levels, probably do not require additional workup, with a sensitivity of almost 80% and no excess mortality.

Venous Thromboembolism in Sepsis: From Bench to Bedside

Septic patients were commonly affected by coagulation disorders; thus, they are at high risk of thrombotic complications. In the last decades, novel knowledge has emerged about the interconnected and reciprocal influence of immune and coagulation systems. This phenomenon is called immunothrombosis, and it indicates an effective response whereby immune cells and the coagulation cascade cooperate to limit pathogen invasion and endothelial damage. When this network becomes dysregulated due to a systemic inflammatory activation, as occurs during sepsis, it can result in pathological thrombosis. Endothelium, platelets and neutrophils are the main characters involved in this process, together with the TF and coagulation cascade, playing a critical role in both the host defense and in thrombogenesis. A deeper understanding of this relationship may allow us to answer the growing need for clinical instruments to establish the thrombotic risk and treatments that consider more the connection between coagulation and inflammation. Heparin remains the principal therapeutical response to this phenomenon, although not sufficiently effective. To date, no other significant alternatives have been found yet. In this review, we discuss the role of sepsis-related inflammation in the development and resolution of venous thromboembolism and its clinical implications, from bench to bedside.

Evaluation of the Padua Prediction Score ability to predict venous thromboembolism in Israeli non-surgical hospitalized patients using electronic medical records

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is considered a leading safety concern during hospitalization. The Padua Predication Score (PPS) is a risk model conceived to predict VTE among non-surgical hospitalized patients. The study aim was to evaluate the PPS ability to predict VTE in Israeli non-surgical hospitalized patients using data from electronic medical records. A single center, large-scale, historic cohort study of hospitalized non-surgical patients was conducted. Outcomes included clinically diagnosed symptomatic VTE events, bleeding events, and mortality during hospitalization and up to 90 days thereafter, and readmission up to 90 days after discharge. 5117 patient records were analyzed after screening and validation. 1120 (22%) patients were defined per PPS as high-risk, of which 277 (24.7%) were prophylactically treated. The low-risk group included 3997 (78%) patients. Prevalence of symptomatic VTE was low. Overall, 14 (0.27%) VTE events were diagnosed: 3 cases in the high-risk group (0.27%) and 11 (0.28%) in the low-risk group, with no significant difference, p = 0.768. Prophylactic treatment among the high-risk patients did not significantly improve VTE incidence: 1/277 (0.36%) treated vs. 2/843 (0.24%), p = 0.343. There was no significant difference between the study groups regarding the rates of bleeding, unexplained mortality or readmission. PPS was not found to be an efficient tool for identification of non-surgical hospitalized patients with high risk for clinically significant VTE.

Coagulopathies in Intensive Care Medicine: Balancing Act between Thrombosis and Bleeding

Patient Blood Management advocates an individualized treatment approach, tailored to each patient's needs, in order to reduce unnecessary exposure to allogeneic blood products. The optimization of hemostasis and minimization of blood loss is of high importance when it comes to critical care patients, as coagulopathies are a common phenomenon among them and may significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Treating coagulopathies is complex as thrombotic and hemorrhagic conditions may coexist and the medications at hand to modulate hemostasis can be powerful. The cornerstones of coagulation management are an appropriate patient evaluation, including the individual risk of bleeding weighed against the risk of thrombosis, a proper diagnostic work-up of the coagulopathy's etiology, treatment with targeted therapies, and transfusion of blood product components when clinically indicated in a goal-directed manner. In this article, we will outline various reasons for coagulopathy in critical care patients to highlight the aspects that need special consideration. The treatment options outlined in this article include anticoagulation, anticoagulant reversal, clotting factor concentrates, antifibrinolytic agents, desmopressin, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets. This article outlines concepts with the aim of the minimization of complications associated with coagulopathies in critically ill patients. Hereditary coagulopathies will be omitted in this review.

Validation of risk assessment models predicting venous thromboembolism in inpatients with AECOPD: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

As inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), identifying high-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis is critical to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with VTE. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the validities of the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD.

METHODS

The inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers of China between September 2017 and January 2020. Caprini and Padua scores were calculated on admission, and the incidence of 3-month VTE was investigated.

RESULTS

Among the 3277 eligible patients with AECOPD, 128 patients (3.9%) developed VTE within 3 months after admission. The distribution of the study population by the Caprini risk level was as follows: high, 53.6%; moderate, 43.0%; and low, 3.5%. The incidence of VTE increased by risk level as high, 6.1%; moderate, 1.5%; and low, 0%. According to the Padua RAM, only 10.9% of the study population was classified as high risk and 89.1% as low risk, with the corresponding incidence of VTE 7.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The Caprini RAM had higher area under curve (AUC) compared with the Padua RAM (0.713  0.021 vs 0.644 ± 0.023, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The Caprini RAM was superior to the Padua RAM in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD and might better guide thromboprophylaxis in these patients.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.

RESULTS

Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

Association between risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality in patients with COVID-19

Objectives

To investigate the association of risk of venous thromboembolism with 30-day mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A total of 1030 COVID-19 patients were retrospectively collected, with baseline data on demographics, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and VTE risk assessment models (RAMs), including Padua prediction score (PPS), International Medical Prevention Registry (IMPROVE), and Caprini.

Results

Thirty-day mortality increased progressively from 2% in patients at low VTE risk to 63% in those at high risk defined by PPS. Similar findings were observed in IMPROVE and Caprini scores. Progressive increases in VTE risk were also associated with higher SOFA score. High risk of VTE was independently associated with mortality regardless of adjusted gender, smoking status and some comorbidities, with hazard ratios of 29.19, 37.37 and 20.60 for PPS, IMPROVE and Caprini RAM, respectively (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The predictive accuracy of PPS (area under curve (AUC) 0.900), IMPROVE (AUC 0.917), or Caprini (AUC 0.861) RAM for risk of hospitalized mortality was unexpectedly strong.

Conclusions

We established that the presence of a high risk of VTE identifies a group of COVID-19 patients at higher risk for mortality. Furthermore, there is a high accuracy of VTE RAMs to predict mortality in these patients.

Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews

Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.

Relevance of immobility as a risk factor for symptomatic proximal and isolated distal deep vein thrombosis in acutely ill medical inpatients

Immobility is a well-recognized risk factor for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients, whereas the level of DVT risk conferred by immobility is less defined in patients on medical wards. The aim of this study was to establish whether immobility and its duration are associated with the risk of DVT in acutely ill medical inpatients. We conducted a cohort study in acutely ill medical inpatients. Patients underwent whole leg ultrasound for suspected lower extremity DVT and were divided into two groups according to presence or absence of immobility, defined as total bed rest or sedentary without bathroom privileges. The endpoint was the detection of proximal DVT or isolated distal DVT (IDDVT). Among the 252 acutely ill medical inpatients with immobility (age 82.6 ± 10.3 years, female 63.9%), ultrasound showed 36 (14.3%) proximal DVTs and 39 (15.5%) IDDVTs, while there were 11 (4.4%) proximal DVTs and 26 (10.5%) IDDVTs among the 248 inpatients without immobility (age 73.6 ± 14.2 years, female 54.8%). The risk of proximal DVT was higher in immobile than in mobile patients (OR 3.59, 95% CI: 1.78-7.23, p = 0.0001), whereas the risk of IDDVT was similar between the two groups (OR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.92-2.66, p = 0.111). During the first 3 days of hospitalization, the frequency of all DVTs was similar in patients with and without immobility, but it was 0.26 ± 0.03 vs 0.18 ± 0.03, respectively, after 4 days. In conclusion, immobility for more than 3 days is a risk factor for proximal DVT in acutely ill medical inpatients.

Padua prediction score and IMPROVE score do predict in-hospital mortality in Internal Medicine patients

Padua prediction score (PPS) and IMPROVE bleeding score are validated tools for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment recommended by guidelines, albeit not frequently used. Some data suggest that a positive PPS and IMPROVE score may be were associated with early mortality in Internal Medicine patients. Aim of the study was to characterize the predictive ability on mortality of the two scores using two different populations, respectively, as derivation and validation cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 1956 Internal Medicine patients admitted to La Spezia Hospital in 2013. 399 Internal Medicine patients admitted to Carate Brianza Hospital in 2016 constituted the validation cohort. PPS and IMPROVE scores were applied to each patient using their validated cutoffs. Frequency of positive PPS and mortality were significantly higher in La Spezia patients. In the derivation cohort, the positivity of at least one of the two scores was associated with a significantly higher mortality compared to both negative scores. Similar results were observed in the validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, the sensitivity of a positive PPS score in predicting mortality was 0.97 (0.94, 0.98) but the specificity was 0.21 (0.19, 0.23), the negative likelihood ratio being 0.15. Sensitivity and specificity of a positive IMPROVE gave specular findings but the positive likelihood ratio was 2.19. The accuracy data in the validation cohort were in the same direction. Both PPS and IMPROVE are associated with in-hospital mortality but their additional predictive accuracy is modest. It is unlikely that both scores could be useful in clinical practice to predict death in hospitalized Internal Medicine patients.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of VTE in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated by a significant coagulopathy, that likely manifests in the form of both microthrombosis and VTE. This recognition has led to the urgent need for practical guidance regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE.

METHODS

A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format that addressed urgent clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were systematically searched for relevant literature, and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, guidance was developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on 13 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions resulted in 22 statements. Very little evidence exists in the COVID-19 population. The panel thus used expert consensus and existing evidence-based guidelines to craft the guidance statements.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on the optimal strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat VTE in patients with COVID-19 is sparse but rapidly evolving.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in 2020 and Beyond

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cause of vascular mortality worldwide and comprises deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). In this review, we discuss how an understanding of VTE epidemiology and the results of thromboprophylaxis trials have shaped the current approach to VTE prevention. We will discuss modern thromboprophylaxis as it pertains to genetic risk factors, exogenous hormonal therapies, pregnancy, surgery, medical hospitalization, cancer, and what is known thus far about VTE in COVID-19 infection.

Validation of risk assessment models predicting venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical inpatients: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Because hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a frequent cause of preventable deaths in medical inpatients, identifying at-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis is critical. We aimed to externally assess the Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua VTE risk scores and to compare their performance to advanced age as a stand-alone predictor.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the PREVENU trial. Patients aged 40 years and older, hospitalized for at least 2 days on a medical ward were consecutively enrolled and followed for 3 months. Critical ill patients were not recruited. Patients diagnosed with VTE within 48 hours from admission, or receiving full dose anticoagulant treatment or who underwent surgery were excluded. All suspected VTE and deaths occurring during the 3-month follow-up were adjudicated by an independent committee. The three scores were retrospectively assessed. Body mass index, needed for the Padua and Caprini scores, was missing in 44% of patients.

RESULTS

Among 14 910 eligible patients, 14 660 were evaluable, of which 1.8% experienced symptomatic VTE or sudden unexplained death during the 3-month follow-up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.63), 0.63 (95% CI 0.60-0.66) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.61-0.67) for Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua scores, respectively. None of these scores performed significantly better than advanced age as a single predictor (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64).

CONCLUSION

In our study, Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua VTE risk scores have poor discriminative ability to identify not critically ill medical inpatients at risk of VTE, and do not perform better than a risk evaluation based on patient's age alone.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification in general medical patients at an academic medical center

Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is still a concern for general medical patients. Pharmacologic prophylaxis can reduce VTE incidence, but there is the potential for adverse effects. Therefore, determining which patients should receive VTE prophylaxis via risk scoring tools is essential. Limited evidence exists for the ideal venous thromboembolism risk assessment model (RAM) in hospitalized medical patients, as compared to other hospitalized patient subgroups such as surgical patients. The primary objective was to investigate the utilization and appropriateness of our institution-based VTE RAM and comparison to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). This would allow for a gauge of provider risk assessment accuracy as well as appropriate predictive potential of the PPS or whether an alternative to the PPS should be considered. A total of 330 adult general medicine patients were included in this retrospective chart review. When compared to our institution-based VTE RAM, providers predominately stratified patients at a higher VTE risk than the institution-based VTE RAM. VTE incidence was 0.3%, which was lower than predicted. Significant discordance exists between providers' VTE risk assessment and that predicted by RAMs. Our institution-based VTE RAM appears comparable to PPS; however, it was not being utilized by providers, resulting in potentially unnecessary use of pharmacologic prophylaxis. The most appropriate venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for general medicine patients is undetermined. Our providers generally assess patients as moderate or high VTE risk, despite our institution-based RAM which typically recommends a lower risk category than provider selection. Because of provider risk assessment, more patients received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis than would have been recommended by the RAM, which might correlate to the low incidence of VTE which was < 0.5%, although bleeding complications were not assessed in this study. A prospective study utilizing the Padua Prediction Score (or similar RAM) in general medicine patients is warranted in order to decipher the best method of predicting VTE risk.

Reassessment of venous thromboembolism and bleeding risk in medical patients receiving VTE prophylaxis

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The majority of hospitalized nonsurgical medical patients receive pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and reassessment of changes in thrombosis and bleeding risk factors during hospital admission may represent an opportunity to discontinue unnecessary or unsafe therapy. The use of validated, clinically derived risk assessment models (RAMs) represents a shift towards an individualized, patient-centred approach to VTE prophylaxis. We are interested in using these tools to assess whether risk categories for VTE and bleeding change during admission and to assess whether such changes result in discontinuation of prophylaxis. Our primary objective was to determine whether VTE and bleed risk categories changed during the course of admission to warrant discontinuation of VTE prophylaxis, using the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE and Bleed RAMs, respectively. Secondary objectives were to determine the number of patients whose risk categorizations for VTE and bleeding warranted discontinuation of VTE prophylaxis and to survey whether prophylaxis was continued or discontinued.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken for a cross-sectional, randomly selected sample of patients who received VTE prophylaxis while admitted to medical wards in a collection of regional hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the 351 medical records reviewed, only eight patients (2.3%) changed their VTE risk category and six (1.7%) changed their bleed risk category to warrant discontinuation of VTE prophylaxis. Ninety patients (26%) were at high risk of VTE and low risk of bleed throughout admission, warranting continued VTE prophylaxis. The majority of patients remained at low risk of VTE throughout admission but remained on VTE prophylaxis until discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk categories for VTE and bleeding for medical patients did not appreciably change throughout hospital admission. Use of VTE RAMs at admission and prior to initiation of therapy should reduce unnecessary prophylaxis in the majority of medical patients who are at low risk of VTE.

Machine learning to predict venous thrombosis in acutely ill medical patients

BACKGROUND

The identification of acutely ill patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) may be determined clinically or by use of integer-based scoring systems. These scores demonstrated modest performance in external data sets.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of machine learning models compared to the IMPROVE score.

METHODS

The APEX trial randomized 7513 acutely medically ill patients to extended duration betrixaban vs. enoxaparin. Including 68 variables, a super learner model (ML) was built to predict VTE by combining estimates from 5 families of candidate models. A "reduced" model (rML) was also developed using 16 variables that were thought, a priori, to be associated with VTE. The IMPROVE score was calculated for each patient. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration to predict a composite VTE end point. The frequency of predicted risks of VTE were plotted and divided into tertiles. VTE risks were compared across tertiles.

RESULTS

The ML and rML algorithms outperformed the IMPROVE score in predicting VTE (c-statistic: 0.69, 0.68 and 0.59, respectively). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P-value was 0.06 for ML, 0.44 for rML, and <0.001 for the IMPROVE score. The observed event rate in the lowest tertile was 2.5%, 4.8% in tertile 2, and 11.4% in the highest tertile. Patients in the highest tertile of VTE risk had a 5-fold increase in odds of VTE compared to the lowest tertile.

CONCLUSION

The super learner algorithms improved discrimination and calibration compared to the IMPROVE score for predicting VTE in acute medically ill patients.

A Prospective Observational Cohort of Clinical Outcomes in Medical Inpatients prescribed Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models(COMPT RAMs)

The Caprini and Padua venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to assess VTE risk in surgical and in medical patients respectively. This study aims to compare the proportion of medical inpatients eligible for VTE prophylaxis using the hospital Caprini-based RAM to using the Caprini and Padua RAMs and to assess the associated clinical outcomes. In a prospective observational study, we assessed 297 adult medical inpatients for whom VTE thromboprophylaxis was initiated according to the hospital Caprini-based RAM, referred to as the Lebanese American University Medical Center RAM (LAUMC-RAM). The Padua, Caprini and IMPROVE bleeding risk scores were also assessed for all patients. Bleeding and thromboembolism were evaluated at 14 and 30 days post VTE risk assessment. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was warranted in 97.6%, 99.7%, and 52.9% of patients using the Caprini-based, Caprini, and Padua RAMs respectively. The Caprini-based and Caprini RAMs were highly correlated (r = 0.873 p < 0.001) and were significantly less correlated with the Padua RAM. Major and overall bleeding occurred in 1.4% and 9.2% respectively. VTE was reported in 0.4% with no VTE related mortality. In hospitalized medical patients, the Caprini-based RAM can accurately distinguish low and high VTE risk without resulting in increased risk of bleeding.

The venous thromboembolic risk and the clot wave analysis: a useful relationship?

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with acute medical conditions have higher venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. A patient with a final Padua Prediction Score (PPS) of ≥4 is considered to be at high risk for VTE. The aim of this study was to investigate on a possible relationship between PPS, the dynamics of the clot formation, i.e. the clot waveform analysis (CWA) of aPTT, fibrinogen and D-Dimer in a large group of medical patients.

METHODS

CWA in terms of velocity (first derivative), acceleration (second derivative), density (Delta) of aPTT, fibrinogen, D-Dimer and PPS for VTE were determined in 801 medical patients divided in three groups (without antithrombotic prophylaxis and high PPS, without antithrombotic prophylaxis and low PPS, with antithrombotic prophylaxis and high PPS) and a group of healthy subjects.

RESULTS

CWA, fibrinogen and D-Dimer values were higher in the medical patients with high PPS with or without antithrombotic prophylaxis when compared with patients without antithrombotic prophylaxis with low PPS and healthy subjects. The second derivative, fibrinogen and D-Dimer were significantly associated with a high PPS score (≥4): odds ratio (OR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-2.28; OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.3-2.79; OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 2.29-4.36, respectively. Interactions between first derivative and D-Dimer (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.23-3.72) and first derivative and fibrinogen (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-2.98) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

CWA could give useful information to recognize a hypercoagulable state in patients admitted to a medical ward with high and low PPS. First and second derivative aPTT, D-Dimer and fibrinogen levels could be added to PPS to better assess the global thromboembolic risk of these patients.

Venous thromboembolic events during warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia

Thrombotic manifestations are a hallmark of many auto-immune diseases (AID), specially of warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA), as 15 to 33% of adults with wAIHA experience venous thromboembolic events (VTE). However, beyond the presence of positive antiphospholipid antibodies and splenectomy, risk factors for developing a VTE during wAIHA have not been clearly identified. The aim of this retrospective study was to characterize VTEs during wAIHA and to identify risk factors for VTE. Forty-eight patients with wAIHA were included, among whom 26 (54%) had secondary wAIHA. Eleven (23%) patients presented at least one VTE, that occurred during an active phase of the disease for 10/11 patients (90%). The frequency of VTE was not different between primary and secondary AIHA (23.7 vs. 19.2%; p = 0.5). The Padua prediction score based on traditional risk factors was not different between patients with and without VTE. On multivariate analysis, total bilirubin ≥ 40 μmol/L [odds ratio (OR) = 7.4; p = 0.02] and leucocyte count above 7x10⁹/L (OR = 15.7; p = 0.02) were significantly associated with a higher risk of thrombosis. Antiphospholipid antibodies were screened in 9 out the 11 patients who presented a VTE and were negative. Thus, the frequency of VTE is high (23%) during wAIHA and VTE preferentially occur within the first weeks of diagnosis. As no clinically relevant predictive factors of VTE could be identified, the systematic use of a prophylactic anticoagulation should be recommended in case of active hemolysis and its maintenance after hospital discharge should be considered. The benefit of a systematic screening for VTE and its procedure remain to be determined.

Risk Assessment in Chinese Hospitalized Patients Comparing the Padua and Caprini Scoring Algorithms

The current venous thromboembolism (VTE) guidelines recommend all patients to be assessed for the risk of VTE using risk assessment models (RAMs). The study was to evaluate the performance of the Caprini and Padua RAMs among Chinese hospitalized patients. We reviewed data from 189 patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and 201 non-DVT patients. Deep venous thrombosis risk factors were obtained from all patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the Caprini and Padua scores for all patients were calculated. The receiver operating curve (ROC) and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of each score. We documented that age, acute infection, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, blood platelets, and anticoagulation were significantly associated with the occurrence of DVT (P < .05). These results were true for all medical and surgical patients group (G1), as well as the analysis of medical versus surgical patients (G2). Finally, analysis of the scores in patients with and without cancer was also done (G3). The Caprini has a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than the Padua (P < .05). Caprini has a better predictive ability for the first 2 groups (P < .05). We found Caprini and Padua scores have a similar predictive value for patients with cancer (P > .05), while Caprini has a higher predictive ability for no cancer patients in G3 than Padua (P < .05). For Chinese hospitalized patients, Caprini has a higher sensitivity but a lower specificity than Padua. Overall, Caprini RAM has a better predictive ability than Padua RAM.

Bleeding and venous thromboembolic events in patients with active cancer hospitalized for an acute medical illness

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients hospitalized for an acute medical illness are considered to be at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Information on bleeding and symptomatic VTE in these patients remains scant. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence of bleeding and VTE during hospitalization and after discharge in a prospective cohort of hospitalized medically-ill cancer patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with active cancer admitted for an acute medical illness. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic and incidentally detected VTE. Outcomes were recorded during hospitalization up to three months after discharge.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 330 patients with a mean age of 73.2 (±12.1) years. During a median hospitalization of eight days, six patients (1.8%) developed a clinically relevant bleeding. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was administered to four of these six patients (66.6%), and 108 of 324 (33.3%) patients without bleeding. Twelve (3.6%) were diagnosed with VTE, of whom two had received thromboprophylaxis. In ten patients, VTE was detected incidentally. After discharge, 11 patients experienced major bleeding and two developed symptomatic VTE during a median follow-up of 92 days (range 19-110). Two thirds of all major bleeding events were gastrointestinal, and 87% occurred in patients with gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active cancer admitted for an acute medical illness, the risk of bleeding and symptomatic VTE appeared to be low during hospitalization. After discharge, the risk of bleeding was higher and significantly outweighed that of VTE.

Progress in research of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with digestive system diseases

Hospitalized patients with digestive system diseases are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to a variety of factors such as advanced age, prolonged bed rest, medication and so on. VTE can affect the quality of life of patients, the number of days of hospitalization, and the cost of treatment and even threaten their life. This article gives a brief overview of the pathogenesis, risk factors, assessment tools, and preventive methods for VTE to promote better prevention of this disease.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients using the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini Risk Assessment Model

Aim: The optimal risk assessment model (RAM) to stratify the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients is not known. We examined and compared how well the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) and the Caprini RAM stratify VTE risk in medical inpatients.

Methods: We undertook a retrospective case-control study among medical inpatients admitted to a large general hospital in China during a 4-year period. In total, 902 cases were confirmed to have VTE during hospitalization and 902 controls were selected randomly to match cases by medical service.

Results: The VTE risk increased significantly with an increase of the cumulative PPS or Caprini RAM score. A PPS and Caprini RAM “high risk” classification was, respectively, associated with a 5.01-fold and 4.10-fold increased VTE risk. However, the Caprini RAM could identify 84.3% of the VTE cases to receive prophylaxis according to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, whereas the PPS could only identify 49.1% of the VTE cases. In the medical inpatients studied, five risk factors seen more frequently in VTE cases than in controls in the Caprini RAM were not included in the PPS. The Caprini RAM risk levels were linked almost perfectly to in-hospital and 6-month mortality.

Conclusions: Both the PPS and Caprini RAM can be used to stratify the VTE risk in medical inpatients effectively, but the Caprini RAM may be considered as the first choice in a general hospital because of its incorporation of comprehensive risk factors, higher sensitivity to identify patients who may benefit from prophylaxis, and potential for prediction of mortality.

A systematic review of mobility/immobility in thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized patients

Hospitalized patients are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prophylaxis is often suboptimal due to difficulty in identifying at-risk patients. Simple and validated risk-assessment models (RAMs) are available to assist clinicians in identifying patients who have a high risk for developing VTE. Despite the well-documented association of immobility with increased risk of thrombosis, immobility is not consistently defined in clinical studies. We conducted a systematic review of published VTE RAMs and used objective criteria to determine how the term immobility is defined in RAMs. We identified 17 RAMs with six being externally validated. The concept of immobility is vaguely described in different RAMs, impacting the validity of these models in clinical practice. The wide variability in defining mobility in RAMs precluded its accurate clinical application, further limiting generalization of published RAMs. Externally validated RAMs with clearly defined qualitative or quantitative terms of immobility are needed to assess VTE risk in real-time at the point-of-care.

Is Infection an Independent Risk Factor for Venous Thromboembolism? A Population-Based, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

The independent association of recent infection with venous thromboembolism is uncertain. The study aims were to test both overall infection (site unspecified) and specific infection sites as potential risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism adjusting for other known venous thromboembolism factors.

METHODS

By using Rochester Epidemiology Project resources, we identified all Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with objectively diagnosed incident deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism over the 13-year period 1988 to 2000 (cases; n = 1303) and 1 to 2 residents without venous thromboembolism matched to each case on age, sex, and incident venous thromboembolism date (controls; n = 1494). Using conditional logistic regression, we tested recent infection and infection site(s) for an association with venous thromboembolism, adjusting for body mass index, smoking, current/recent hospitalization with/without surgery, nursing home confinement, active cancer, trauma/fracture, leg paresis, prior superficial vein thrombosis, transvenous catheter/pacemaker, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, chronic lung or renal disease, serious liver disease, asthma, diabetes mellitus, hormone therapy, and pregnancy/postpartum.

RESULTS

A total of 513 cases (39.4%) and 189 controls (12.7%) had an infection in the previous 92 days (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.5; P < .0001). In a multivariable analysis adjusting for common venous thromboembolism risk factors, pneumonia and symptomatic urinary tract, oral, intra-abdominal, and systemic bloodstream infections were associated with significantly increased odds of venous thromboembolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Infection as a whole and specific infection sites in particular are independent risk factors for venous thromboembolism and should be considered as potential indications for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis: Inadequate and Overprophylaxis When Comparing Perceived Versus Calculated Risk

Guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis recommend appropriate risk stratification using risk estimation models as high risk or low risk followed by initiation of chemical or mechanical prophylaxis, respectively. We explored adherence to guidelines on the basis of the documentation of VTE prophylaxis. A retrospective medical record review of 437 consecutive adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to general medical wards under medicine service between January 1, 2015, and March 1, 2015, was performed. The primary outcome was appropriateness of risk stratification using the Padua Prediction Score. Secondary outcomes were appropriateness of type of prophylaxis (chemical vs mechanical) and cost-benefit analysis. We observed appropriate stratification based on the documented risk (compared with the calculated risk) in 54.9% of the patients (40.8% with low risk vs 72.1% with high risk; P<.001). Overall, 182 of 240 low-risk patients received unnecessary chemical prophylaxis, whereas 23 of 197 high-risk patients without contraindications for chemical prophylaxis received mechanical or no prophylaxis. No clinical VTE events were noted in the patients inappropriately assigned to mechanical or no prophylaxis. Also, 67.3% of patients with both low documented and low calculated risk and 74.5% of patients with low documented and high calculated risk received chemical prophylaxis, consistent with a tendency toward overtreatment. A total of 4068 annualized patient-days ($77,652/y) of inappropriate chemical prophylaxis were administered. In conclusion, estimation of the risk of VTE based on clinical impression was not congruent with the risk calculated using risk prediction models and was associated with a tendency toward overtreatment. These data support the inclusion of VTE risk calculators in electronic health record systems.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients

Although the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended for acutely ill medical patients at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), it remains unclear which risk assessment model (RAM) should be routinely used to identify at-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. We therefore aimed to describe existing RAMs, and to compare these tools in terms of validity and applicability for clinical decisionmaking. We performed a comprehensive systematic search in MEDLINE from the date of initiation until May 2016 for studies in acutely ill medical patients investigating validity of RAMs for VTE. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text, and evaluated the characteristics of studies, and the composition, evidence of validation, and results on validity of the RAMs. We included 11 studies assessing eight RAMs: 4-Element RAM, Caprini RAM, a full logistic model, Geneva risk score, IMPROVE-RAM, Kucher Model, a “Multivariable Model”, and Padua Prediction Score. The 4-Element RAM, IMPROVE-RAM, Multivariable Model, and full logistic model had derivation by identifying factors with predictive power. The other four RAMs were empirically generated based on consensus guidelines, published data, and clinical expertise. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, the Geneva Risk Score and the IMPROVE-RAM underwent multicenter external validation. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, and the Geneva Risk Score improved rates of thromboprophylaxis or clinical outcomes. In conclusion, existing RAMs to evaluate the need of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients are difficult to compare and none fulfills the criteria of an ideal RAM. Nevertheless, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis may be improved by implementing one of the validated RAMs.

Coagulopathy Before and After Liver Transplantation: From the Hepatic to the Systemic Circulatory Systems

The hemostatic environment in patients with cirrhosis is a delicate balance between prohemostatic and antihemostatic factors. There is a lack of effective laboratory measures of the hemostatic system in patients with cirrhosis. Many are predisposed to pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, and portal vein thrombosis in the pretransplantation setting. This pretransplantation hypercoagulable milieu seems to extend for at least several months post-transplantation. Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, inherited thrombophilia, portal hypertension in the absence of cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma often require individualized approach to anticoagulation. Early reports suggest a potential role for low-molecular-weight heparins and direct-acting anticoagulants.

Automating Venous Thromboembolism Risk Calculation Using Electronic Health Record Data upon Hospital Admission: The Automated Padua Prediction Score

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk scores assist providers in determining the relative benefit of prophylaxis for individual patients. While automated risk calculation using simpler electronic health record (EHR) data is feasible, it lacks clinical nuance and may be less predictive. Automated calculation of the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), requiring more complex input such as recent medical events and clinical status, may save providers time and increase risk score use.

OBJECTIVE

We developed the Automated Padua Prediction Score (APPS) to auto-calculate a VTE risk score using EHR data drawn from prior encounters and the first 4 hours of admission. We compared APPS to standard practice of clinicians manually calculating the PPS to assess VTE risk.

DESIGN

Cohort study of 30,726 hospitalized patients. APPS was compared to manual calculation of PPS by chart review from 300 randomly selected patients.

MEASUREMENTS

Prediction of hospital-acquired VTE not present on admission.

RESULTS

Compared to manual PPS calculation, no significant difference in average score was found (5.5 vs. 5.1, P = 0.073), and area under curve (AUC) was similar (0.79 vs. 0.76). Hospital- acquired VTE occurred in 260 (0.8%) of 30,726 patients. Those without VTE averaged APPS of 4.9 (standard deviation [SD], 2.6) and those with VTE averaged 7.7 (SD, 2.6). APPS had AUC = 0.81 (confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.83) in patients receiving no pharmacologic prophylaxis and AUC = 0.78 (CI, 0.76- 0.82) in patients receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated calculation of VTE risk had similar ability to predict hospital-acquired VTE as manual calculation despite differences in how often specific scoring criteria were considered present by the 2 methods. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12: 231- 237.

Characterization of Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Medical Inpatients Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models.

METHODS

A retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013.

RESULTS

Of the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.

Comparison between Caprini and Padua risk assessment models for hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the risk assessment model (RAM) of Caprini and Padua in identifying venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized medical patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed a total of 320 VTE and 320 non-VTE patients. Baseline demographics and clinical data of these patients were all recorded. The Caprini and Padua RAMs were implemented and the individual scores of each risk factor were summed to generate a cumulative risk score. Meanwhile, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of these two models were analysed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and the Youden index.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in risk factors between VTE and non-VTE patients. More VTE patients were classified into the high-superhigh risk level by the Caprini RAM than the Padua RAM (70.9 vs 23.4%, P < 0.01). The sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values in the Caprini RAM were higher than those in the Padua RAM (P < 0.05). However, the specificity of the Caprini RAM was lower than that of the Padua RAM (P < 0.01). The AUC and the Youden index were higher in the Caprini RAM than in the Padua RAM (P < 0.01), whereas the Youden index in the Padua RAM at critical point 4 was lower than that at critical point 3 (0.010 vs 0.140, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Caprini RAM was suggested to be more effective than the Padua RAM for identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with anticoagulation in septic patients: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a feared complication during hospitalization. The practice of administering pharmacological prophylaxis is highly endorsed despite failure of studies to show reduction in mortality.

AIM

: To determine the benefit of VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with sepsis.

METHODS

A prospective cohort, with enrollment between January 2010 and April 2011. Patients were detected in four medicine departments at a university-affiliated hospital and followed for 90 days for pre-specified outcomes. We included all septic patients at high VTE risk defined by Padua score ≥ 4. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Incidence of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or major bleeding episodes at 30 and 90 days, and 90-day mortality were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 patients were identified, of which 720 (55%) were at high risk for VTE and included. A total of 213 (29.6%) patients received prophylaxis. VTE occurred in 6 control patients and 2 treated (0.9 and 1.2%, respectively, RR 0.79, CI: 0.16-3.95). Major bleeding events occurred in 4 (0.8%) control and 7 (3.3%) treated patients (RR 4.1, CI: 1.24-14.08, P = 0.01). After adjusting for covariates, VTE prophylaxis conferred no 30- or 90-day mortality benefit (OR 1.24, CI: 0.79-1.93 and OR 1.47, CI: 0.99-2.17, respectively). Lack of significant benefit with prophylaxis persisted after propensity-score matching (OR for 30-day mortality 1.01, CI: 0.66-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In acutely ill inpatients with sepsis, no significant benefit was demonstrated for VTE prophylaxis, with higher rates of bleeding. The risk-benefit ratio of this intervention should be carefully examined.

Impact of the ENDORSE study results on thromboprophylaxis prescribing patterns in medical patients attending the emergency department

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the ENDORSE study results on thromboprophylaxis prescribing patterns in medical patients attending the Emergency Department (ED) by assessing prescribing appropriateness at admission.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study was designed and included all adult medical patients admitted from an ED between 20 November 2012 and 26 November 2012 at a large tertiary hospital. Patients to whom anticoagulants were prescribed for therapeutic purposes, patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit or maternity wards were excluded. Prescribing appropriateness was assessed using the Padua Prediction Score (ACCP 2012 guideline) for thromboembolic risk assessment and the NICE model to determine risk of bleeding. The primary end-point was the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis prescribed at the ED according to the ACCP 2012 guideline.

RESULTS

A total of 393 patients were examined and 207 patients were included in the study (53.1% were male) with a median age of 75.3 years. The most common diagnosis at admission was related to a respiratory disease (41.1%). In 34.8% of the patients (72 patients), the recommendation of prophylaxis according to ACCP 2012 guideline did not match with the prophylaxis prescribed at admission. Reasons for non-concordance were undertreatment (14.5%) and overtreatment (20.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients for VTE has improved compared with the ENDORSE study. However, the percentage of patients with discordant prescriptions remains high. Despite the existence of treatment omissions, this percentage has been overcome by patients overtreated.

Padua prediction score and thrombin generation in hospitalized medical patients

INTRODUCTION

The Padua prediction score is a risk assessment model used to identify medical patients at high risk for venous thromboembolim (VTE).We aimed to assess the relationship between the severity of Padua score and thrombin generation as a measure of overall thrombotic activity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 253 patients hospitalized in the medical wards, at the Haemek Medical Center, Israel, were enrolled in the study. Patients treated with anticoagulation, and those admitted for VTE were excluded. Padua score was classified into two categories; low-risk for VTE (<4 points), and high-risk for VTE (≥4 points). Thrombin generation was assessed by the Calibrated Automated Thrombogram (CAT) method.

RESULTS

Overall 187 (73.9%) patients had Padua score<4, and 66 (26.1%) patients had Padua score ≥4. Comparison of the thrombogram parameters between the two Padua score categories showed no significant difference; lag time (P=0.066), ETP (P=0.266), peak height (P=0.418), and time to peak (P=0.415). Among the individual Padua score risk factors, only active cancer was significantly associated with peak height, myocardial infarction or stroke with lag time, and none of the risk factors was significantly associated with ETP. Because of their low frequency, the association with previous VTE, known thrombophilia, hormonal treatment, and recent trauma or/and surgery was not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Single thrombin generation measurement obtained at the same time in acutely hospitalized patients didn't bear any correlation with the Padua prediction score. This finding should be interpreted with caution considering the underrepresentation of risk factors that may influence thrombin generation.

Venous thromboembolism after community-acquired bacteraemia: a 20-year danish cohort study

Background

Infections may increase the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but little is known about VTE risk associated with community-acquired bacteraemia (CAB). We examined the risk for VTE within one year of CAB in comparison to that in matched controls.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study in North Denmark 1992–2011, using data from high-quality health-care databases. We included 4,213 adult CAB patients who had positive blood cultures drawn on the day of hospital admission, 20,084 matched hospitalised controls admitted for other acute medical illness, and 41,121 matched controls from the general population. We computed 0–90 and 91–365 day absolute risks for hospital-diagnosed VTE and used regression analyses with adjustment for confounding factors to compare the risk for VTE in bacteraemia patients and controls.

Results

Among CAB patients, 1.1% experienced VTE within 90 days of admission and 0.5% during 91–365 days after admission. The adjusted 90-day odds ratio (OR) for VTE was 1.9 (95% CI 1.4–2.7) compared with hospitalised controls, and 23.4 (95% CI 12.9–42.6) compared with population controls. During 91–365 days after CAB admission, the VTE risk remained moderately increased (adjusted hazard ratio vs. hospitalised controls, 1.4; 95% CI 0.8–2.5, and vs. population controls, 1.9; 95% CI 1.0–3.3). Compared to hospitalised controls, the 90-day VTE risk increase was greater for Gram-positive infection (adjusted OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.6–4.1) than for Gram-negative infection (adjusted OR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.7–2.1), partly due to a high risk after Staphylococcus aureus infection (3.6%).

Conclusion

The risk for VTE is substantially increased within 90 days after community-acquired bacteraemia when compared to hospitalised controls and population controls. However, the absolute risk of VTE following CAB is low.