Comparative Performance of Clinical Risk Assessment Models for Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 118 (01) ◽  
pp. 082-089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Blondon ◽  
David Spirk ◽  
Nils Kucher ◽  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
Daniel Hayoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Discriminative Performance ◽  
Clinical Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Models ◽  
Clinical Risk Assessment

Background Improved thromboprophylaxis for acutely ill medical patients relies on valid predictions of thrombotic risks. Our aim was to compare the performance of the Improve and Geneva clinical risk assessment models (RAMs), and to simplify the current Geneva RAM. Methods Medical inpatients from eight Swiss hospitals were prospectively followed during 90 days, for symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death. We compared discriminative performance and calibration of the RAMs, using time-to-event methods with competing risk modelling of non-VTE death. Results In 1,478 patients, the 90-day VTE cumulative incidence was 1.6%. Discrimination of the Improve and Geneva RAM was similar, with a 30-day AUC (areas under the curve) of 0.78 (95% CI [confidence interval]: 0.65–0.92) and 0.81 (0.73–0.89), respectively. According to the Improve RAM, 68% of participants were at low risk (0.8% VTE at 90 days), and 32% were at high risk (4.7% VTE), with a sensitivity of 73%. According to the Geneva RAM, 35% were at low risk (0.6% VTE) and 65% were at high risk (2.8% VTE), with a sensitivity of 90%. Among patients without thromboprophylaxis, the sensitivity was numerically greater in the Geneva RAM (85%) than in the Improve RAM (54%). We derived a simplified Geneva RAM with comparable discrimination and calibration as the original Geneva RAM. Conclusions We found comparably good discrimination of the Improve and Geneva RAMs. The Improve RAM classified more patients as low risk, but with possibly lower sensitivity and greater VTE risks, suggesting that a lower threshold for low risk (<2) should be used. The simplified Geneva RAM may represent an alternative to the Geneva RAM with enhanced usability.

Venous Thromboembolism Validation Study of the IMPROVE Risk Assessment Models in the Medical Patient (VTE-VALOURR),

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4218-4218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Edward Mahan ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
James D. Douketis ◽  
Alexander G.G. Turpie ◽  
Undaleeb Dairkee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Risk Assessment Models

Abstract Abstract 4218 Introduction. Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) remains the most common cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients despite more than 25 guidelines and over 5 decades of data on VTE prevention. American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and International Union of Angiology (IUA) guideline recommendations are primarily based off of risk factors utilized for entry into randomized controlled trials (RCT) or post-hoc analysis of these RCTs. These guidelines recommend a group-based, as opposed to an individualized risk assessment, approach. It is currently unknown how these risk factors interact in a quantitative manner. There are currently no weighted, validated, VTE risk assessment models (RAM) that are data-derived in medical patients. A retrospective VTE RAM (IMPACT ILL) was recently derived from the multinational IMPROVE registry in hospitalized medical patients. (Table 1) The “VTE-VALOURR ” is a retrospective, multi-center, case control, validation study of this RAM. The VTE-VALOURR is also assessing other VTE and bleeding risk factors. Methods. ICD-10 reports and the McMaster Transfusion Registry for Utilization Surveillance and Tracking (TRUST) database, which contains demographics, transfusion data, and approximately 50 clinical variables including thrombotic outcomes of inpatients, were used as the data source at 3 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were hospitalized medical patients ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 days length of stay (LOS). Exclusion criteria were patients with pregnancy, mental health disorders, atrial fibrillation/ flutter, trauma, spinal cord injury, surgery within 90 days, VTE within 24 hours of admission, treatment dose anticoagulants (including warfarin) within 48 hours of admission, or transferred from a non-McMaster acute care facility. Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism out to 90 days post admission were the thrombotic outcomes of interest and verified by chart review. Upper extremity DVT was excluded. Descriptive statistics (proportions and frequencies) were used to summarize binary variables. Results. From January 1st, 2005 to February 28th, 2011, 247,241 hospitalizations occurred at 3 McMaster hospitals. After exclusionary criteria were applied, 779 VTE events were identified. (Figure 1) Of these, 419 were excluded because they were VTE events not related to a previous hospitalization (i.e. community-acquired). Of the remaining 360 patients, 240 have been reviewed with 93 confirmed, included, VTE events having occurred, 147 events being further excluded, and another 120 patients still requiring review. We present an interim analysis of the 93 currently included patients. Of the included patients, 68 (73%) received some form of prophylaxis during their hospital stay while 35 (38%) received appropriate type, dose and duration of prophylaxis. Fifty-eight (62%) of VTE events were therefore “preventable.” Number of risk factors per patient and risk scores for the 93 patients are listed in tables 2 and 3. Conclusions. Validation of this VTE RAM will identify medical patients at risk of VTE that do not readily fit into group-specific VTE risk categories. Additionally, validation will identify subsets of patients at especially high risk of VTE and focus future randomized controlled trials. Other VTE risk factors may be identified with the study. Review of the 120 VTE cohort patients needs to be completed as well as review of a comparator control cohort. Approximately 80% of the current VTE cohort appears to have a score of 2 or above and be at moderate to high risk of VTE. Final results of approximately 150 VTE patients will be presented along with the control cohort as well as if the model is valid. Disclosures: Turpie: Astellas Pharma Europe: Consultancy; Bayer HealthCare AG: Consultancy; Portola Pharma: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Clinical risk assessment model to predict venous thromboembolism risk after immobilization for lower-limb trauma

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 100270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Banne Nemeth ◽  
Delphine Douillet ◽  
Saskia le Cessie ◽  
Andrea Penaloza ◽  
Thomas Moumneh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Clinical Risk ◽  
Limb Trauma ◽  
Clinical Risk Assessment ◽  
Lower Limb Trauma

Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (03) ◽  
pp. 531-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
Daniel Hayoz ◽  
Jürg Beer ◽  
Marc Husmann ◽  
Beat Frauchiger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Prediction Score ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Cumulative Rate ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

SummaryThere is a need to validate risk assessment tools for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We investigated whether a predefined cut-off of the Geneva Risk Score, as compared to the Padua Prediction Score, accurately distinguishes low-risk from high-risk patients regardless of the use of thromboprophylaxis. In the multicentre, prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients were enrolled of whom 637 (43%) did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The primary endpoint was symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death at 90 days. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01277536. According to the Geneva Risk Score, the cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 3.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–4.6%) in 962 high-risk vs 0.6% (95% CI 0.2–1.9%) in 516 low-risk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.5% vs 0.8% (p=0.029), respectively. In comparison, the Padua Prediction Score yielded a cumulative rate of the primary endpoint of 3.5% (95% CI 2.3–5.3%) in 714 high-risk vs 1.1% (95% CI 0.6–2.3%) in 764 lowrisk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.2% vs 1.5% (p=0.130), respectively. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.28 (95% CI 0.10–0.83) for the Geneva Risk Score and 0.51 (95% CI 0.28–0.93) for the Padua Prediction Score. In conclusion, among hospitalised medical patients, the Geneva Risk Score predicted VTE and VTE-related mortality and compared favourably with the Padua Prediction Score, particularly for its accuracy to identify low-risk patients who do not require thromboprophylaxis.

Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients

2015 ◽  
Vol 113 (05) ◽  
pp. 1127-1134 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Spirk ◽  
Mathieu Nendaz ◽  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
Daniel Hayoz ◽  
Jürg H. Beer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Thromboembolic Risk ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Risk Patients

summaryBoth, underuse and overuse of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients is common. We aimed to explore clinical factors associated with the use of pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients at high (Geneva Risk Score ≥ 3 points) vs low (Geneva Risk Score < 3 points) risk of venous thromboembolism. Overall, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients from eight large Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT01277536. Thromboprophylaxis increased stepwise with increasing Geneva Risk Score (p< 0.001). Among the 962 high-risk patients, 366 (38 %) received no thromboprophylaxis; cancer-associated thrombocytopenia (OR 4.78, 95 % CI 2.75–8.31, p< 0.001), active bleeding on admission (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.69–4.92, p< 0.001), and thrombocytopenia without cancer (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.31–4.95, p=0.006) were independently associated with the absence of prophylaxis. The use of thromboprophylaxis declined with increasing severity of thrombocytopenia (p=0.001). Among the 516 low-risk patients, 245 (48 %) received thromboprophylaxis; none of the investigated clinical factors predicted its use. In conclusion, in acutely ill medical patients, bleeding and thrombocytopenia were the most important factors for the absence of thromboprophylaxis among highrisk patients. The use of thromboprophylaxis among low-risk patients was inconsistent, without clearly identifiable predictors, and should be addressed in further research.

Venous thromboembolism prevention in medical patients: a framework for improving practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
P G Vaughan-Shaw ◽  
C Cannon
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism Prevention ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis

Objective Medical inpatients have been shown to be at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) including fatal pulmonary emboli. Several studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis significantly reduces the rates of VTE, yet studies published to date have shown a considerable underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. This study assesses the current use of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients at our institution and aims to identify simple strategies to improve practice. Design A prospective study of thromboprophylaxis prescription was undertaken on three occasions over a 12-month period. Patients were stratified according to the number of risk factors and standards of thromboprophylaxis assessed according to risk. After the first round of data collection, results were presented, a local guideline was developed and a risk assessment was added to the clerking pro forma. Results There were 122 patients in the first round, 101 in the second and 163 in the third. Eligible moderate and high-risk patients receiving a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) increased from 31% to 63% ( P < 0.005) over the study period. Prescription of thromboembolic deterrent (TED) stockings in those contraindicated to LMWH increased from 23% to 35% although this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.08), and the percentage of high-risk patients correctly receiving LMWH, TED stockings or both increased from 22% to 62% ( P < 0.0005). Documentation of contraindications to thromboprophylaxis increased from 0% to 59% ( P < 0.0005). Conclusion This paper demonstrates an initial rate of thromboprophylaxis use considerably less than the ENDORSE trial. However the strategies employed following initial audit resulted in a significant increase in the prescription of both mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This example demonstrates the role of audit education and a risk assessment in stimulating change. Such strategies could be used to ensure compliance to recently published National Institute of Clinical Excellence VTE guidelines. Furthermore this example could be generalized to improve other aspects of care.

scholarly journals Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism Based on Clinical and Genetic Factors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Kolin ◽  
Scott Kulm ◽  
Olivier Elemento
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Genetic Factors ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Clinical Risk Factors ◽  
Clinical Risk ◽  
Increased Risk

BACKGROUNDBoth clinical and genetic factors drive the risk of venous thromboembolism. However, whether clinically recorded risk factors and genetic variants can be combined into a clinically applicable predictive score remains unknown.METHODSUsing Cox proportional-hazard models, we analyzed the association of risk factors with the likelihood of venous thromboembolism in U.K. Biobank, a large prospective cohort. We created a novel ten point clinical score using seven established clinical risk factors for venous thromboembolism. We also generated a polygenic risk score of 21 single nucleotide polymorphisms to quantify genetic risk. The genetic score was categorized into high risk (top two deciles of scores), intermediate risk (deciles three to eight), and low risk (lowest two deciles). The discrete clinical score led to the following approximate decile categorizations: high risk (5 to 10 points), intermediate risk (3 to 4 points), and low risk (0 to 2 points).RESULTSAmongst the 502,536 participants in the U.K. Biobank, there were 4,843 events of venous thromboembolism. Analyses of established clinical risk factors and the most commonly used medications revealed that participants were at decreased risk of venous thromboembolism if they had ever used oral contraceptive pills (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.99) or if they currently used bendroflumethiazide (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95), cod liver oil capsules (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99), or atenolol (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91). Participants were at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism if they were at high clinical risk (hazard ratio, 5.98; 95% CI, 5.43 to 6.59) or high genetic risk (hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.07 to 2.51) relative to participants at low clinical or genetic risk, respectively. Combining clinical risk factors with genetic risk factors produced a model that better predicted risk of venous thromboembolism than either model alone (P<0.001). Participants at high clinical and genetic risk in the combined score had over an eightfold increased risk of venous thromboembolism relative to participants at low risk (hazard ratio, 8.27; 95% CI 7.59 to 9.00).CONCLUSIONSBy assessing venous thromboembolic events in over 500,000 participants, we identified several known and novel associations between risk factors and venous thromboembolism. Participants in the high risk group of a combined score, consisting of clinical and genetic factors, were over eight times more likely to experience venous thromboembolism than participants in the low risk group.

The use of weighted and scored risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism

2012 ◽  
Vol 108 (12) ◽  
pp. 1072-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas McGinn ◽  
Alok Khorana ◽  
Alex Spyropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Prognostic Index ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Risk Assessment Models

SummaryFormalised risk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) using weighted and scored variables have only recently been widely incorporated into international antithrombotic guidelines.Scored and weighted VTE RAMs have advantages over a simplified group-specific VTE risk approach, with the potential to allow more tailored strategies for thromboprophylaxis and an improved estimation of the risk/benefit profile for a particular patient. The derivation of VTE RAMs should be based on variables that are a priori defined or identified in a univariate analysis and the predictive capability of each variable should be rigorously assessed for both clinical and statistical significance and internal consistency and completeness. The assessment of the RAM should include the goodness of fit of the model and construction of a prognostic index score. Any VTE RAM which has been derived must undergo validation of that model before it can be used in clinical practice. Validation of the model should be performed in a “deliberate”prospective fashion across several diverse clinical sites using pre-defined criteria using basic standards for performing model validation. We discuss the basic concepts in the derivation of recent scored and weighted VTE RAMs in hospitalised surgical and medical patients and cancer outpatients, the mechanisms for accurate external validation of the models, and implications for their use in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document