Identification of Medical Patients Who Should Receive Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1786-1786
Author(s):  
Alexander T. Cohen ◽  
Raza Alikhan ◽  
Juan I. Arcelus ◽  
Jean-François Bergmann ◽  
Sylvia Haas ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Despite various medical illnesses/conditions and patient-related factors known to increase venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in medical patients, there is no worldwide consensus regarding which of these patients should receive VTE prophylaxis. As a result, many medical patients remain at risk from this potentially fatal disease. Our objective was to develop a simple risk assessment model (RAM) that could be used at the bedside to identify medical patients who should receive prophylaxis. Methods Acute medical illnesses/conditions and risk factors were included in the RAM if there was strong evidence from prospective clinical studies to show that they significantly increase VTE risk in medical patients, or VTE prophylaxis was beneficial in these cases. If strong evidence was not available, the illness/condition or factor was only included if there was consensus from the authors that VTE prophylaxis is beneficial for these patients. Results Table 1 shows acute medical illnesses/conditions and factors associated with significant VTE risk that are included in the RAM. If a medical patient is >40 years old with an acute medical illness and reduced mobility and has one of the illnesses/conditions or factors shown in Table 1, the RAM recommends prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH: enoxaparin 40 mg o.d. or dalteparin 5000 IU o.d.) or unfractionated heparin (5000 IU q8h). LMWH is preferred due to a better safety profile. If pharmacologic prophylaxis is contraindicated, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended. Conclusion Acute medical illnesses/conditions and patient-related factors that increase the risk for VTE in medical patients have been identified and used to develop a novel RAM. The RAM is evidence-based wherever possible, and can be easily revised as new evidence becomes available. The RAM is simple in design, and can assist physicians to assess whether VTE prophylaxis is warranted in an individual medical patient. Table 1. Factors that increase the risk of VTE in medical patients Acute medical illnesses/conditions Risk factors *Note: The risk of hemorrhagic transformation should be assessed before giving VTE prophylaxis. Evidence-based: Acute MI, acute heart failure (NYHA III/IV), active cancer requiring therapy, severe infection/sepsis, respiratory disease (respiratory failure with/without mechanical ventilation, exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease), rheumatic disease (including acute arthritis of lower extremities, and vertebral compression), ischemic stroke*, paraplegia Consensus view only: Inflammatory disorder with immobility, inflammatory bowel disease Evidence-based: History of VTE, history of malignancy, concurrent acute infectious disease, age >75 years Consensus-based from strong evidence in other settings: Prolonged immobility, age >60 years, varicose veins, obesity, hormone therapy, pregnancy/postpartum, nephrotic syndrome, dehydration, thrombophilia, thrombocytosis

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Anna L. Parks ◽  
Swetha Kambhampati ◽  
Bita Fakhri ◽  
Charalambos Andreadis ◽  
Lissa Gray ◽  
...  

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor modified T Cell (CAR-T) therapy is a rapidly developing treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM). Although this population is at high risk for thrombosis, there are few data about rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) with CAR-T. Additionally, treatment with anticoagulation is complicated because of the prevalence of thrombocytopenia following CAR-T. Our goal was to determine the incidence, associated risk factors, management and outcomes of VTE and ATE in the 60 days following CAR-T therapy. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all patients who received inpatient CAR-T cells at UCSF Medical Center between January 2018 and May 2020 for R/R NHL or MM as standard-of-care or on a clinical trial. The outcomes of incident VTE and ATE were identified by ICD-10 codes and medical record review. Patient characteristics, pre-existing thrombosis risk factors, laboratory results, medications, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding or recurrent thrombotic complications were obtained through chart review. We used descriptive statistics to delineate risk factors, incidence, management and outcomes of thrombotic events. Results: Ninety-one patients who underwent CAR-T therapy were included in the analysis, 37 with NHL and 54 with MM. For NHL, mean age was 63 (range 38-82), and 41% were women. For MM, mean age was 62 (range 33-77), and 50% were women. Patients with NHL were treated with either investigational or Federal Drug Administration-approved CD19-directed therapies, and patients with MM were treated with a variety of investigational B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) therapies. For thrombotic risk factors, 13% of patients with NHL had a history of VTE, 3% had a history of ATE, 27% had a BMI ≥30, 59% had a recent procedure including central venous catheter (CVC) placement, 14% had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and 22% had an infectious complication in the 30 days pre- or post-CAR-T. Forty-one percent of patients with NHL had neurotoxicity of any grade, and 59% had CRS of any grade. At 30 days, 57% had a complete response, 41% had a partial response, 3% had stable disease. For MM, 6% of patients had a pre-existing history of VTE, 2% had a history of ATE, 19% had a BMI ≥30, 96% had a recent procedure, 11% had an ICU stay and 19% had an infection. Seventeen percent had neurotoxicity, and 85% had CRS. Thirty-two percent of patients with NHL and 48% with MM received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis while undergoing CAR-T. For those who did not receive VTE prophylaxis, thrombocytopenia was the reason for holding prophylaxis, which occurred in 51% and 50% of NHL and MM patients, respectively. In the 60 days post-CAR-T, 4 (11%) patients with NHL were diagnosed with VTE-3 pulmonary embolism (PE) and 1 lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with a previously placed inferior vena cava filter. Four (7%) patients with MM were diagnosed with VTE-1 PE and 3 upper extremity DVTs associated with CVCs. Five out of these 8 (63%) patients had symptomatic VTE, while the remainder were incidental on PETCT. Mean time from CAR-T infusion to VTE diagnosis was 20 days (range 6-39 days). There were no documented ATEs. Six out of 8 (75%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Of those who were anticoagulated, 4 patients received direct oral anticoagulants and 2 received low-molecular-weight-heparin. Duration was 3 months in 3 patients, 11 days in 1, 150 days in 1, and indefinitely in 1 with atrial fibrillation. Among all 8 patients with VTE, there were no bleeding events or recurrent thromboses regardless of whether or not they received anticoagulation. Discussion: In this cohort of patients with R/R NHL or MM who received either CD19- or BCMA-directed therapies, almost 1 in 10 developed VTE in the 60 days post-CAR-T. This occurred in the context of a high prevalence of risk factors for thrombosis and low rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Among those who developed VTE, the majority were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for at least 3 months, without documented bleeding or recurrent VTE. Our findings provide crucial information on a common complication that can inform patients, clinicians and researchers and should be expanded upon in larger, prospective studies to identify optimal preventive and therapeutic strategies. Disclosures Fakhri: University of California San Francisco: Current Employment. Andreadis:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wong:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Shah:BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding; GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy.


Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1762-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Herve Decousus ◽  
Jean-Fran[ccedi]ois Bergmann ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Despite consensus group recommendations indicating that medical patients should receive appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, prophylaxis practices remain poorly characterized. This analysis of IMPROVE, a prospective study of acutely ill medical patients, describes in-hospital prophylaxis practices prior to the publication of updated VTE prevention guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians. Methods Patient recruitment began in July 2002. Patients ≥18 years old, and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness are enrolled consecutively. Exclusion criteria are: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission; major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission; and VTE treatment begun within 24 hours of admission. Results Data were from 4315 patients (32% from USA) enrolled up to 30 June 2004 in 37 hospitals in 11 countries (76% with 3-month follow-up data). Patients are 50% female, median (IQR) age 69 (50–80) years, median length of hospital stay 8 (5–14) days, median weight 68 (58–80) kg, and 40% were immobile for ≥3 days (median length of immobility 7 [4–14] days, including immobility immediately prior to admission). In-hospital VTE prophylaxis was received by 41% of patients (Table 1). Of patients with no risk factors (44%), one risk factor (40%), or ≥2 risk factors (16%), 25%, 49%, and 67% received prophylaxis, respectively. 12% of IMPROVE patients would have been eligible for inclusion in the MEDENOX study. Of these, only 52% received prophylaxis in hospital. Prophylaxis was provided to 6% of patients during the 3-month follow-up period, and continued in 11% of patients after discharge. Conclusions Only 41% of IMPROVE patients received VTE prophylaxis, with considerable variation in types and regimens of prophylaxis used. While MEDENOX showed the benefits of VTE prophylaxis (enoxaparin 40 mg) in acutely ill medical patients, only half of MEDENOX-eligible patients received prophylaxis. Table 1. Use of in-hospital VTE prophylaxis (N=4315) VTE prophylaxis Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis, % ROW, rest of world; *Excluding elastic stockings and aspirin ≥1 type of VTE prophylaxis* 41 LMWH - USA (Q12h, Qd) 7 (5, 1) LMWH- ROW (Q12h, Qd) 31 (29, 2) UFH - USA (Q12h, Q8h) 28 (15, 11) UFH - ROW (Q12h, Q8h) 6 (5, 0) Intermittent pneumatic compression (USA, ROW) 6 (19, 0) Aspirin (USA, ROW) 4 (7, 3) Elastic stockings (USA, ROW) 6 (3, 8)


2021 ◽  
pp. 26-40
Author(s):  
A. B. Sugraliyev ◽  
Sh. S. Aktayeva ◽  
Sh. B. Zhangelova ◽  
S. A. Shiller ◽  
Zh. M. Kussymzhanova ◽  
...  

Introduction. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major public health issue that is frequently underestimated. The primary objective of this multicenter study was to identify patients at risk for VTE, and to define the rate of patients receiving appropriate prophylaxis in the regions of Kazakhstan.Materials and methods. Standardized case report forms were filled by trained medical doctors on one predefined day in selected hospitals. Data were analyzed by independent biostatistician. Risk of VTE was categorized according to Caprini score which was recommended by 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines.Results. 432 patients from 4 regions of Kazakhstan; 169 (39.10%) medical patients and 263 (60.9%) surgical patients were eligible for the study. Patients were at low (10%), moderate (19.2%), high (33.6%) and very high risk (37.3%) for VTE. The main risk factors (RF) of VTE among hospitalized patients were heart failure (HF), obesity, prolonged bed rest, and the presence of acute non-infective inflammation. From total number of hospitalized patients with RF with indications to VTE prophylaxis, 58.1% of patients received pharmacological prophylaxis and only 24.6% of them received VTE prophylaxis according ACCP. On the other hand, 23.5% patients with the risk of VTE but who were not eligible for it received pharmacological prophylaxis.Conclusion. These results indicate the existence of inconsistency between eligibility for VTE prophylaxis on one hand and its application in practice (p < 0.001). Risk factors for VTE and eligibility for VTE prophylaxis are common, but VTE prophylaxis and guidelines application are low.


2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 402-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven B Deitelzweig ◽  
Gordon J Vanscoy ◽  
Cynthia S Niccolai ◽  
Thomas L Rihn

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the role of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical and orthopedic surgery patients. VTE prophylaxis trials in these practice settings establishing the current use of LMWHs marketed in the US are included. An overview is also provided of VTE incidence, risk factors, and prophylaxis consensus guidelines. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Clinical trials, review articles, and meta-analyses for Food and Drug Administration–approved LMWHs were identified from a MEDLINE search (1980–March 2002). Search terms included dalteparin, enoxaparin, internal medicine, low-molecular-weight heparin, orthopedic surgery, risk factors, tinzaparin, and venous thromboembolism. DATA SYNTHESIS: Consensus guidelines are useful as an initial guide to appropriate VTE prophylaxis; however, a review of the primary literature is needed to identify optimal agents, regimens, or interventions. LMWHs have demonstrated sound efficacy in VTE prevention; however, the quantity and quality of literature are not always comparable for the available agents. CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin has demonstrated efficacy and safety in VTE prevention in medical patients, whereas information is limited or lacking for dalteparin and tinzaparin. Total hip replacement (THR) trials have been conducted with all US-marketed LMWHs and have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of each agent. Trials specifically establishing the efficacy of an LMWH in total knee replacement surgery (TKR) have been published for enoxaparin. One combination THR and TKR trial has been published for tinzaparin. These trial outcomes have positioned the LMWHs as key alternatives to adjusted-dose warfarin for VTE prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Inherent differences between LMWHs prevent the extrapolation of clinical outcomes from 1 trial to another.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4182-4182
Author(s):  
Russell D Hull ◽  
Tazmin Merali ◽  
Allan Mills ◽  
Jane Liang ◽  
Nelly Komari

Abstract Abstract 4182 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has been identified in clinical guidelines as an appropriate strategy for high-risk medical inpatients as it results in reduced VTE events and reduced mortality. However, real life data regarding the timing of VTE events and the relationship between risk factors and VTE in this population is lacking. Further knowledge of the time course of recurrence and influence of risk factors in actual practice may help clinicians determine strategies regarding the frequency of clinical surveillance and the appropriate duration of treatment. Objective: To document the time course of symptomatic VTE events in high-risk medical patients in every day clinical practice and to relate the frequency of risk factors to the likelihood of VTE development. Methods: Charts from 1134 consecutive high-risk medical patients who were hospitalized in the Calgary region and discharged between January and February 2008 were abstracted using standardized case record forms. All hospitals in the region use a common unique patient identifier number, thus enabling the tracking of subsequent patient visits to the emergency room, inpatient admissions or outpatient visits occurring anywhere in the region's acute care system. Any identified patient was followed for a subsequent visit related to VTE. High-risk medical patients were defined as age > 60 years and having at least one of the following risk factors: malignancy, respiratory illness, neurological illness, inflammatory bowel disease, previous VTE, acute infection or heart failure. Records were excluded if the patient was admitted for VTE or to rule out VTE, receiving chronic anticoagulation, experiencing acute coronary syndromes, had a hospital stay ≤ 3 days, was a surgical or orthopedic patient, or pregnant. Data was collected on the timing of VTE related events for up to 100 days post discharge. Results: A total of 989 patients met criteria over the review period. Seventy-four percent (732/989) of all patients received mechanical or pharmacological prophylaxis in hospital. Only 2% (95% CI, 1.6% to 3.6%) of all patients received anticoagulation prophylaxis at discharge. Twenty-one percent of patients in the population studied were identified as requiring medical care for symptoms associated with VTE. Confirmation of VTE by diagnostic testing occurred in 4% (95% CI, 2.7% to 5.2%) while the other 17% (95% CI, 15.0% to 19.8%) had diagnostic tests that were negative or inconclusive. The mean length of time to confirmed first VTE event was 33.5 days. Eighty percent of first events occurred by day 57 and 90% of first VTE events occurred by day 69 post hospital admission. Patients with more than 2 risk factors had a rate of confirmed symptomatic VTE events of 6.1%, increasing to 8.7% for those with more than 3 risk factors while only 2.9% of patients with 2 or less risk factors developed a confirmed VTE. (p=0.015) Conclusion: This study demonstrates that in a real life setting, 6% of those hospitalized medical patients with more than 2 risk factors would develop symptomatic VTE event confirmed by diagnostic testing, increasing to 8.7% for those with more than 3 pre-specified risk factors. The mean time to first VTE event of 33.5 days along with 80% of VTE events occurring by day 57 suggest that more consideration needs to be given to prolonged VTE prophylaxis in this high risk population. The frequency and timing of the VTE events coupled with the results of the EXCLAIM study suggest that this high risk population may benefit from prolonged thromboprophylaxis. Disclosures: Hull: LEO Pharma: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy. Merali:LEO Pharma: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Abbott: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy; Nycomed: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy. Mills:Pfizer: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Research Funding. Komari:sanofi-aventis: Employment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961988000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Céline Martin ◽  
Wei Huang ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
Russell D. Hull ◽  
Adrian F. Hernandez ◽  
...  

Major medical illnesses place patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Some risk factors including age ≥75 years or history of cancer place them at increased risk of VTE that extends for at least 5 to 6 weeks following hospital admission. Betrixaban thromboprophylaxis is now approved in the United States for this indication. We estimated the annual number of acutely ill medical patients at extended risk of VTE discharged from US hospital. Major medical illnesses (stroke, respiratory failure/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, pneumonia, other infections, and rheumatologic disorders) and 2 common risk factors for extended VTE risk, namely, age ≥75 years and history of cancer (active or past) were examined in 2014 US hospital discharges using the first 3 discharge diagnosis codes in the National Inpatient Sample (database of acute-care hospital discharges from the US Agency for Health Care Quality and Research). In 2014, there were 20.8 million discharges with potentially at risk of nonsurgical-related VTE. Overall, 7.2 million (35%) discharges corresponded to major medical illness that warranted thromboprophylaxis according to 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guideline. Among them, 2.79 million were aged ≥75 years and 1.36 million had a history of cancer (aged 40-74 years). Overall, 3.48 million discharges were at extended risk of VTE. Many medical inpatients at risk of VTE according to 2012 ACCP guideline might benefit from the awareness of continuing risk and some of these patients might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis, depending on the risk of bleeding and comorbidities.


Author(s):  
Majid Mokhtari ◽  
Khadijeh Nasri ◽  
Fatemeh Tara ◽  
Elahe Zarean ◽  
Sedigheh Hantoushzadeh ◽  
...  

Objective: The purpose of the present study was a survey of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in obstetrics patients in Iran. Materials and methods: A national, multicenter, non-interventional, prospective study was performed on 1000 women at 11 different parts of Iran. Primary outcome was to assess the situation of VTE prophylaxis in pregnant and postpartum women and the secondary outcome was risk stratification in obstetrics patients and to evaluate the guideline adherence in physician’s practice of VTE prophylaxis. Results: 1,036 women entered the final analysis. The three main VTE risk factors before hospitalization were BMI > 30 kg/m2, history of oral contraceptive (OCP) use, and the age over 35.VTE risk factors upon enrollment were detected in 780 (75.28%) patients. 219 women (28.07%) were deemed eligible for drug prophylaxis, however, only 37 women (17%) received it. A total of 113 (10.9%) patients received VTE prophylaxis, of which 76 (67.25%) women had no clear indications. Concordance between theory and practice was detected with a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient to be 0.74 (p < 0.001), which fell within “good agreement”. Multivariate analysis for association between VTE prophylaxis and VTE risk factors showed that history of VTE [OR = 9.06 (CI 95% 1.16 – 70.8) p = 0.036] was the most frequent risk factor for receiving VTE prophylaxis followed by obesity (BMI > 30 Kg/m2); [OR = 3.74 (CI 95% 1.79 – 5.69), p = <0.001], multiple pregnancy [OR= 2.81 (CI 95% 1.70 – 4.64), p = < 0.001] and age > 35 years; [OR =1.09 (CI 95% 0.82 – 1.21), p = 0.026]. Varicose Veins [OR= 0.22 (CI 95% 0.56 – 0.87), p = 0.031], PROM / PPROM [OR= 0.33 (CI 95% 0.12 – 0.91), p = 0.032] and history of using OCP [OR= 0.36 (CI 95% 0.24 – 0.53), p = < 0.001] were the most missed risk factors for receiving VTE prophylaxis respectively. Conclusion: History of VTE, obesity, multiple pregnancy and age > 35 years were the most frequent risk factors for receiving VTE prophylaxis and varicose veins, PROM / PPROM and history of using OCP were the most missed risk factors for receiving VTE prophylaxis.


2014 ◽  
Vol 142 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 249-256
Author(s):  
Nebojsa Antonijevic ◽  
Ljubica Jovanovic ◽  
Valentina Djordjevic ◽  
Ivana Zivkovic ◽  
Miodrag Vukcevic ◽  
...  

Adequate thromboprophylaxis primarily requires timely detection of reversible and irreversible risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and their categorization. It is important to note that the highest percentage of VTE episodes occur in non-surgical (medical) patients and that VTE develops in a large number of surgical patients upon hospital discharge; this emphasizes the need for adequate VTE prevention in inflammatory diseases, acute medical illness and other medical diseases as well as for prolonging and optimizing the anticoagulant regimen after surgical intervention in the primary VTE prophylaxis. As almost completely unrecognized and neglected major risk factors of VTE in clinical practice, we particularly point out the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, especially in NYHA functional class III and IV patients with significantly reduced left heart ventricle. It is necessary to raise clinicians? awareness of a potential danger from wrongly and one-sidedly interpreted dyspnea and coughing signs in patients with COPD as typical symptoms of basic respiratory disease as well as from ascribing the signs of disease aggravation in heart failure patients exclusively to cardial status worsening, neglecting the possibility of having unrecognized and untreated pulmonary embolism at issue. Contemporary way of life enhances the development of new VTE risk factors such as traveler?s thrombosis, in particular during long-haul flights as well as in individuals sitting at a computer for prolonged periods (e-thrombosis). Determining and recognizing VTE risk factors, especially those formerly neglected nonsurgical ones and simultaneous presence of multiple risk factors within a given period is required for defining an adequate anticoagulant regimen in primary VTE prophylaxis for surgical and non-surgical (medical) patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (05) ◽  
pp. 460-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Prandoni ◽  
Sofia Barbar

AbstractDeep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients, accounting for up to 10% of hospitalization-related deaths in both surgical and medical patients. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis has been demonstrated to be effective, safe, and cost-effective in preventing hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) among medical inpatients, and clinician awareness of thrombotic risk promotes prescription of thromboprophylaxis. Guidelines recommend stratification of thrombotic risk for all patients and, unless contraindicated, administration of VTE prophylaxis. Based on several recognized predisposing and exposing risk factors for VTE, several scoring systems have been published in the past 15 years. Borrowing models developed in the surgical setting, recognized risk factors for VTE complications in medical inpatients have been combined in different weighted scores and derived and validated in heterogeneous medical populations. Although the perfect score, balancing thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk, has probably not yet been built, the adoption of an easy-to-use risk assessment model has the potential to support physicians in properly stratifying VTE risk in medical inpatients, tailoring thromboprophylaxis prescription.


Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 264-264
Author(s):  
Hervé Decousus ◽  
Rainer B. Zotz ◽  
Victor F. Tapson ◽  
Beng H. Chong ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although clinical studies have not shown a significant difference between the risk of bleeding in acutely ill medical patients receiving pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and those receiving placebo, fear of bleeding may lead physicians to withhold pharmacologic prophylaxis for patients who should receive it. We therefore aimed to determine the incidence of, and risk factors for in-hospital bleeding in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients in IMPROVE, an international, observational registry. Methods Patients aged ≥18 years, hospitalized ≥3 days with an acute medical illness have been enrolled consecutively since July 2002. Exclusion criteria: therapeutic antithrombotics/thrombolytics at admission, major surgery or trauma during 3 months prior to admission, and VTE treatment within 24 hours of admission. Patients bleeding immediately before, or at admission were excluded from this analysis. Factors present at admission and associated with increased risk of in-hospital bleeding (defined as major or clinically significant nonmajor [Büller et al. N Engl J Med2003;349:1695–702]) were identified by univariate analysis (p&lt;0.15) and included in a multiple logistic regression model (significant at p&lt;0.05). The model was adjusted for patients’ length of stay in hospital. Results Data were from 5960 patients enrolled up to 31 March 2005 in 49 hospitals (12 countries). In-hospital bleeding occurred in 170 (2.9%) patients: 68 (1.1%) major and 102 (1.7%) clinically significant nonmajor bleeding. Independent risk factors for in-hospital bleeding are shown in the Table. In-hospital prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparin were not independently associated with an increased risk of bleeding when added to the analysis (p=0.51 and 0.38, respectively). In patients with 0, 1, 2 or ≥3 of these risk factors, the incidences of major in-hospital bleeding were 0.1%, 0.4%, 1.2% and 5.2%, respectively. Conclusions In this unselected patient population, the rate of major in-hospital bleeding was low (1.1%) and similar to that in the MEDENOX study (1.0%), a major clinical study of VTE prophylaxis. Factors that we identified will be valuable for predicting the risk of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients. Table. Factors predictive of an increased risk of in-hospital bleeding in acutely ill medical patients Factor Odds ratio 95% confidence interval Active gastroduodenal ulcer 5.38 2.90–10.00 Bleeding disorder 4.54 2.02–10.19 Hepatic failure 3.34 1.80–6.19 Serum creatinine &gt;1.5 mg/dL 2.29 1.63-3.21 Current cancer 2.08 1.43-3.03 Central venous catheter 2.00 1.31-3.05 ICU/CCU stay 1.92 1.23-3.02 Immobile ≥ 4 days 1.75 1.24-2.46 Ischemic heart disease 1.57 1.02-2.40


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document