International Medical Prevention Registry On Venous Thromboembolism Research Articles

Development and internal validation of the Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model to predict major bleeding risk at admission in medical inpatients

BackgroundGuidelines recommend pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for acutely ill medical patients at acceptable bleeding risk, but only the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) model has been validated for bleeding risk assessment. ObjectivesWe developed and internally validated a risk assessment model (RAM) to predict major in-hospital bleeding using risk factors at admission and compared our model with IMPROVE. MethodsWe selected patients admitted to medical services at 10 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic Health System from 2017 to 2020. We identified major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, using a combination of diagnostic codes and laboratory values, and confirmed events with chart review. We fit a least absolute shrinkage selection operator logistic regression model in the training set and compared the discrimination and calibration of our model with the IMPROVE model in the validation set. ResultsAmong 46 314 admissions, 268 (0.58%) had a major bleed. The final RAM included 16 risk factors, of which prior bleeding (odds ratio [OR] = 4.83), peptic ulcer (OR = 3.82), history of sepsis (OR = 3.26), and steroid use (OR = 2.59) were the strongest. The Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model had better discrimination than IMPROVE (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.85 vs 0.70; P < .001) and, at equivalent sensitivity (52%), categorized fewer patients as high risk (7.2% vs 11.8%; P < .001). Calibration was adequate (Brier score = 0.0057). ConclusionUsing a large population of medical inpatients with verified major bleeding events, we developed and internally validated a RAM for major bleeding whose performance surpassed the IMPROVE model.

Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments.

To evaluate agreement between risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for medical conditions and to analyze variables associated with the decision to prescribe pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Conclusions. Prospective observational multicenter cohort study. We included adults attended in 15 hospital EDs who were hospitalized for medical conditions, calculating VTE risk according to the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) score. In addition to assessing interscore concordance, we analyzed variables associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis in the ED. A total of 1203 patients were included. The PADUA, IMPROVE, and NICE scales assigned high risk scores for 68.7%, 47.4%, and 69.5% of the patients, respectively. The κ statistic for agreement between the PADUA and NICE scores was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); 102 patients (8.5%) had discordant scores. The κ statistics for agreement between the IMPROVE score and the PADUA and NICE classifications were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.33-0.42), respectively; 322 (26.8%) and 384 patients (31.9%), respectively, had discordant scores. Variables associated with starting thromboprophylaxis in the ED were a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.26), immobility in the last 2 months (aOR, 2.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 1.97), ischemic heart disease (aOR, 1.51), reduced mobility of 3 days or longer (aOR, 1.14), body mass index (aOR, 1.04), age (aOR, 1.02), recent trauma or surgery (aOR, 0.40), and risk for bleeding (aOR, 0.56). There is disagreement among the recommended models for predicting risk for VTE in patients hospitalized for medical conditions. The basis for emergency physicians' clinical judgment regarding thromboprophylaxis extends beyond risk scales to include multiple risk factors for VTE and bleeding.

Validation of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) risk scores for venous thromboembolism and bleeding in an independent population

BackgroundMultiple guidelines recommend assessment of bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in adult medical inpatients to inform prevention strategies. There is no agreed-upon method for VTE and bleeding risk assessment. ObjectivesTo validate the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE and bleeding risk scores in an independent population. MethodsIn this retrospective study, we calculated the IMPROVE VTE and bleeding risk scores in medical inpatients admitted between 2010 and 2019 at the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC). Patients were followed for in-hospital bleeding events while hospitalized and VTE events while hospitalized and for 3 months after discharge. We assessed calibration of the risk models by comparing the observed incidence of events in the UVMMC and IMPROVE populations across the published risk categories. We also assessed performance of the IMPROVE risk factors after refitting the models in the UVMMC population. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). ResultsVTE occurred in 270 (1.1%) of 23,873 admissions, with 92 (34%) occurring during admission, and bleeding occurred in 712 (4.7%) of 15,240 admissions. When the IMPROVE-VTE risk factors were refitted to the UVMMC data, the AUC was 0.64. When the IMPROVE bleeding risk factors were refitted to the UVMMC data, the AUC was 0.67. The IMPROVE-VTE score tended to overestimate risk at higher scores, and the IMPROVE bleeding score underestimated risk at lower scores and overestimated risk at higher scores. ConclusionWhile the refitted IMPROVE VTE and bleeding risk scores had reasonable model fit, the scores were poorly calibrated and did not reliably identify or differentiate patients at risk for VTE and bleeding. Different methods are needed for risk assessment of medical inpatients for VTE and bleeding risk.

Converting IMPROVE bleeding and VTE risk assessment models into a fast-and-frugal decision tree for optimal hospital VTE prophylaxis

AbstractCurrent hospital venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for medical patients is characterized by both underuse and overuse. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) has endorsed the use of risk assessment models (RAMs) as an approach to individualize VTE prophylaxis by balancing overuse (excessive risk of bleeding) and underuse (risk of avoidable VTE). ASH has endorsed IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) risk assessment models, the only RAMs to assess short-term bleeding and VTE risk in acutely ill medical inpatients. ASH, however, notes that no RAMs have been thoroughly analyzed for their effect on patient outcomes. We aimed to validate the IMPROVE models and adapt them into a simple, fast-and-frugal (FFT) decision tree to evaluate the impact of VTE prevention on health outcomes and costs. We used 3 methods: the “best evidence” from ASH guidelines, a “learning health system paradigm” combining guideline and real-world data from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), and a “real-world data” approach based solely on MUSC data retrospectively extracted from electronic records. We found that the most effective VTE prevention strategy used the FFT decision tree based on an IMPROVE VTE score of ≥2 or ≥4 and a bleeding score of <7. This method could prevent 45% of unnecessary treatments, saving ∼$5 million annually for patients such as the MUSC cohort. We recommend integrating IMPROVE models into hospital electronic medical records as a point-of-care tool, thereby enhancing VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients.

Prediction of bleeding in patients being considered for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis) is an important preventable cause of in-hospital death. Prophylaxis with low doses of anticoagulants reduces the incidence of venous thromboembolism but can also cause bleeding. It is, therefore, important to stratify the risk of bleeding for hospitalized patients when considering pharmacologic prophylaxis. The IMPROVE (international medical prevention registry on venous thromboembolism) and Consensus risk assessment models (RAMs) are the two tools available for such patients. Few studies have evaluated their ability to predict bleeding in a large, unselected cohort of patients. We assessed the ability of the IMPROVE and Consensus bleeding RAMs to predict bleeding within 90 days of hospitalization in a comprehensive analysis encompassing all hospitalized patients, regardless of surgical vs nonsurgical status. MethodsWe analyzed consecutive first hospital admissions of 1,228,448 unique surgical and nonsurgical patients to 1298 Veterans Affairs facilities nationwide between January 2016 and December 2021. IMPROVE and Consensus scores were generated using data from a repository of their common electronic medical records. We assessed the ability of the two RAMs to predict bleeding within 90 days of admission. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to determine the prediction of bleeding by each RAM. ResultsOf 1,228,448 hospitalized patients, 324,959 (26.5%) were surgical and 903,489 (73.5%) were nonsurgical. Of these patients, 68,372 (5.6%) had a bleeding event within 90 days of admission. The Consensus RAM scores ranged from −5.60 to −1.21 (median, −4.93; interquartile range, −5.60 to −4.93). The IMPROVE RAM scores ranged from 0 to 22 (median, 3.5; interquartile range, 2.5-5). Both showed good calibration, with higher scores associated with higher bleeding rates. The ability of both RAMs to predict 90-day bleeding was low (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.61 for the IMPROVE RAM and 0.59 for the Consensus RAM). The predictive ability was also low at 30 and 60 days for surgical and nonsurgical patients, patients receiving prophylactic, therapeutic, or no anticoagulation, and patients hospitalized for ≥72 hours. Prediction was also low across different bleeding outcomes (ie, any bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, nongastrointestinal bleeding, and bleeding or death). ConclusionsIn this large, unselected, nationwide cohort of surgical and nonsurgical hospital admissions, increasing IMPROVE and Consensus bleeding RAM scores were associated with increasing bleeding rates. However, both RAMs had low ability to predict bleeding at 0 to 90 days after admission. Thus, the currently available RAMs require modification and rigorous reevaluation before they can be applied universally.

Twelve-month risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 hospital survivors in Scotland.

Twelve-month risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 hospital survivors in Scotland.

Acute Venous Disease Anomalies in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients

Introduction: Other entities besides deep vein thrombosis (DVT) affecting the venous system, such as superficial vein phlebitis (SVP) and superficial vein thrombophlebitis (SVT), receive poor attention in the literature. However, both entities may propagate proximally into the deep venous system and progress to a DVT. To our knowledge, the relevance of other venous findings such as SVP or SVT in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has not been evaluated. This work aimed to assess the clinical, biochemical, and hematological variables associated with the incidence of acute venous diseases, such as DVT, SVP, and SVT, in a cohort of 74 critically ill COVID-19 patients and their association with mortality.Methods: Given the high thrombotic risk, all patients underwent venous imaging with bedside ultrasound. Clinical variables were obtained from medical records. Comparisons were made by the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. We constructed Kaplan-Meier curves and used Cox proportional hazard models to calculate hazard ratios for dichotomized risk factors to identify predictors of mortality. SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for statistical analysis.Results: SVP occurred in 28 patients (37.8%), DVT in 22 patients (29.7%), and 28 patients died (37.8%). Elevated D-dimer was associated with DVT but not with SVP. Neither SVP nor DVT was associated with mortality. After adjusting for age, elevated troponins (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1-5.4), platelets < 244 cell/mm3 (2.4, 1.1-5.6), and IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) bleeding score > 7 (2.8, 1.3-6.3) were predictors of mortality.Conclusions: Acute venous findings such as SVP and DVT are highly prevalent and independent of mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. These entities are not related, although they may occur synchronically. DVT is frequently presented as an asymptomatic distal bilateral finding associated with elevated D-dimer, decreased ferritin, and higher vasoactive drug use but independent from chronic venous disease. Interestingly, elevated troponins, decreased platelets, and a prognostic value > 7 of the IMPROVE bleeding score were predictors of mortality in this group of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

IMPROVE bleeding score predicts major bleeding in advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients with venous thromboembolism.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism has been reported as 20% in cancer patients. Anticoagulation therapy is the standard treatment for venous thromboembolism. On the other hand, bleeding should be carefully managed, because advanced cancer, particularly gastrointestinal cancer, carries a high risk of bleeding. However, the optimal management for cancer-associated thromboembolism remains to be clarified. We retrospectively examined patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer, including gastric cancer and colorectal cancer, who were treated with chemotherapy between 2014 and 2018 for the incidence and characteristics of venous thromboembolism and bleeding. In total, 194 patients (120 men, 74 women) were enrolled in this study. The underlying pathology was gastric cancer in 74 cases and colorectal cancer in 120 cases. Of the 194 patients, 40 patients (20.6%) were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism and 10 patients (5.2%) were diagnosed with concomitant pulmonary thromboembolism. Conversely, bleeding was observed in 29 patients (15%). The location of bleeding was the primary tumor in 17 cases, metastatic tumor in 9 and hemorrhagic gastric ulcer in 3. Within the venous thromboembolism group (n=40), bleeding was observed in 10 patients (25%). Multivariate analysis showed that International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) bleeding score ≥7 correlated significantly with major bleeding (P=0.01). In patients with a low risk of bleeding, major bleeding was observed in only three patients. IMPROVE bleeding score may predict the risk for bleeding in gastrointestinal cancer patients with venous thromboembolism. Selecting patients with a low risk of bleeding using with IMPROVE bleeding score is expected to contribute to the safer management of anticoagulation therapy for cancer-associated thromboembolism.

Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis After a High-Density Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cluster in a Japanese Psychiatric Hospital.

The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) among hospitalized psychiatric patients after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection remains unclear.Methods and Results:We retrospectively investigated the prevalence of proximal DVT after COVID-19 infection among 50 hospitalized patients in a Japanese psychiatric hospital that in which a COVID-19 cluster developed between August and September 2020. The prevalence of proximal DVT was 10.0%. Patients with proximal DVT had a lower body weight and higher maximum D-dimer levels and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE scores. After COVID-19 infection, hospitalized psychiatric patients are at high risk of DVT and should be carefully followed up.

Asymptomatic deep vein thromboses in prolonged hospitalized COVID-19patients.

High incidence of venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has been reported despite pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. We performed prospective bilateral lower extremity ultrasound evaluation of prolonged hospitalized COVID-19 ward patients from our institution without clinical suspicion of deep vein thrombosis (DVT).A total of 102 patient were included in the study. All patients were receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, the majority in intermediate or therapeutic doses. Asymptomatic DVT was detected in 26/102 (25.5%) patients: 22 had distal and four had proximal DVT, six had bilateral leg involvement. Pulmonary embolism was highly prevalent (17/70, 24.3%) but similarly grouped among patients with and without asymptomatic DVT. In total 37.2% of patients included in the study were recognized as having VTE.Asymptomatic DVT events were more common in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors (60% in postmechanically ventilated ICU survivors, 21.2% in ward patients, 22% in high-flow oxygen treated patients; P = 0.031), in patients with higher modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE risk-score (median 3 vs. 2 points with and without DVT; P = 0.021) and higher body temperature on admission (median 38.7 °C vs. 37.7 °C with and without DVT; P = 0.001). No clear associations with Padua VTE risk score, demographic and other clinical characteristics, intensity of thromboprophylaxis, severity of other COVID-19 symptoms, degree of systemic inflammation or D‑dimers on admission were found (P > 0.05 for all analyses).Systematic ultrasound assessment in prolonged hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients prior to hospital discharge is needed, especially in ICU survivors, to timely recognize and appropriately treat patients with asymptomatic DVT.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00508-021-01973-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inflammatory Markers and Thromboembolic Risk in Patients with Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Introduction: Patients with bladder cancer have a high risk of venous thrombosis that represents a key challenge for physicians in the decision-making for initiating anticoagulation therapy. Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) represents more than 70% of all diagnosed bladder malignancies; therefore, we aimed to evaluate the relationship of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR), and risk of thrombosis by using the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score as well as the risk of bleeding by using the IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Assessment Score in a study cohort. Material and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study involving 130 patients who met the inclusion criteria: age > 18 years, stage pTa-pT1 NMIBC. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years; stage pT2 or higher; or a presentation of metastasis, inflammatory, liver or autoimmune diseases, or other systemic neoplasms. In order to evaluate the risk of thromboembolic events as well as those of bleeding, the IMPROVE scores were calculated for each patient. Subjects were categorized in a Low IMPROVE group (< 4 points) or a High IMPROVE group. By using uni- and multivariate regression models, we analyzed CBC-derived parameters which could be associated with a higher risk of venous thrombosis in subjects with low or high IMPROVE scores. Results: Patients with IMPROVE score greater than 4 were associated with higher NLR, LMR and lymphocyte values (p < 0.05). In a multivariate regression model, the IMPROVE score was significantly influenced by lymphocyte count (p = 0.007) as well as the NLR value (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In our study population, subjects with NMIBC with low lymphocytes and NLR > 3 were at a higher risk of developing venous thromboembolic events, reflected by an IMPROVE score of greater than 4. The IMPROVE and IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Assessment Scores are easy to use, and, complemented with the CBC-derived lymphocyte to monocyte ratio as a prothrombotic marker, could aid in the decision of prophylactic anticoagulation therapy during admission.

Prognostic Value of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Models in Patients with Severe COVID-19

Introduction Severe novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes dysregulation of the coagulation system with arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). We hypothesize that validated VTE risk scores would have prognostic ability in this population. Methods Retrospective observational cohort with severe COVID-19 performed in NorthShore University Health System. Patients were >18 years of age and met criteria for inpatient or intensive care unit (ICU) care. The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) and Caprini scores were calculated and patients were stratified. Results This study includes 184 patients, mostly men (63.6%), Caucasian (54.3%), 63 years old (interquartile range [IQR]: 24–101), and 57.1% of them required ICU care. Twenty-seven (14.7%) thrombotic events occurred: 12 (6.5%) cases of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), 9 (4.9%) of pulmonary embolism, 5 (2.7%) of deep vein thrombosis, and 1 (0.5%) stroke. Among them, 86 patients (46.7%) died, 95 (51.6%) were discharged, and 3 (1.6%) were still hospitalized. “Moderate risk for VTE” and “High risk for VTE” by IMPROVE score had significant mortality association: (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.93–11.03; p < 0.001) and (HR = 6.22; 95% CI: 3.04–12.71; p < 0.001), respectively, with 87% sensitivity and 63% specificity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.752, p < 0.001). “High Risk for VTE” by Caprini score had significant mortality association (HR = 17.6; 95% CI: 5.56–55.96; p < 0.001) with 96% sensitivity and 55% specificity (AUC = 0.843, p < 0.001). Both scores were associated with thrombotic events when classified as “High risk for VTE” by IMPROVE (HR = 6.50; 95% CI: 2.72–15.53; p < 0.001) and Caprini scores (HR = 11.507; 95% CI: 2.697–49.104; p = 0.001). Conclusion The IMPROVE and Caprini risk scores were independent predictors of mortality and thrombotic events in severe COVID-19. With larger validation, this can be useful prognostic information.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medical Intensive Care Unit: An Audit

Introduction: Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to healthcare facilities. This can be prevented by giving thromboprophylaxis to patients after assessing the risk for VTE. This however is not being routinely done leading to underuse of thromboprophylaxis due to inadequate practice of risk assessment. Aim: To conduct an audit of VTE prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) based on Padua score and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Risk Assessment Model (VTE RAM). Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study and the data was collected from medical records of patients retrospectively who were admitted to medical ICU between October 2019 and December 2019. Based on medical records risk assessment was done using the Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM. The prophylaxis given to patients was scrutinised for appropriateness based on American Society of Haematology (ASH) guidelines. The two validated scores Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM were compared with each other for any significant difference in the risk assessment made using Chi-square test and p-value &lt;0.05 were considered significant. Results: Out of the 176 patients risk assessment was not done in any patient. On calculating the Padua score, 149 patients (84.66%) were in high risk for VTE (Padua Score ≥4) and amongst them only 76 (51%) patients received thromboprophylaxis. On calculating the IMPROVE VTE RAM score, 137 patients (77.84%) were in moderate or high risk for VTE requiring prophylaxis and amongst them only 76 (55.47%) patients received thromboprophylaxis. The accuracy of clinician’s judgement without risk assessment was 58.52% (95% CI: 65.80%-51.24%) and 64.20% (95% CI: 71.28%-57.12%) as compared to risk assessment by Padua score and IMPROVE VTE RAM, respectively. There was no significant difference between IMPROVE VTE RAM and Padua score with respect to risk assessment for VTE (p-value of 0.10). Conclusion: The practice of VTE prophylaxis is grossly inadequate and there is a requirement to sensitise the healthcare providers about the importance of risk assessment for VTE.

Validation of the IMPROVE bleeding risk score in Chinese medical patients during hospitalization: Findings from the dissolve-2 study

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis remains suboptimal in China due to the bleeding risk associated with pharmacologic prophylaxis. We used data from the DissolVE-2 study to report the risk factors for bleeding and validated the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) bleeding risk score (BRS). MethodsIn-hospital major bleeding incidence in medical patients from the DissolVE-2 study were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors associated with clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) were analysed using Cox regression model. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compute the diagnostic accuracy of IMPROVE BRS in the study cohort. FindingsOf the 6623 medical patients, 5076 patients with all relevant clinical details were included for the validation cohort. Overall, 127 CRB events (38 major and 89 clinically relevant non-major bleeding events) occurred in this cohort, with a cumulative incidence rate of 2.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3–3.4). Application of IMPROVE BRS revealed significantly higher hazards of CRB (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.17, 95% CI, 5.05–10.18) and major bleeding (HR: 13.95, 95% CI, 7.28–26.73) in patients with IMPROVE BRS ≥7. Comparison of predictive parameters revealed higher sensitivity (44.1 vs 35.9) and positive predictive value (10.9 vs 2.6) for CRB in our study than the IMPROVE study, which was substantiated by the area under the curve (0.73, p<0.0001) from the ROC curve analysis. InterpretationIMPROVE BRS is a simple model for estimating bleeding risk in Chinese medical patients and could be used in conjunction with VTE risk assessment models to decide prophylactic treatment for VTE. FundingThis study and the additional data analysis were funded by Sanofi (Beijing) Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd by the Fund of The National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant 2016YFC0905600] and by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (No.2018-I2M-1–003)

Adecuación de la profilaxis tromboembólica en pacientes de edad avanzada hospitalizados en servicios médicos de un hospital de tercer nivel

ObjectivesTo determine the suitability of the prevention of thromboembolic disease in elderly patients admitted to medical departments, as well as some associated factors, such as the measures required in order to improve quality and safety. Patients and methodsA retrospective study in a tertiary level hospital that included elderly patients that were admitted to medical departments. A simple, non-proportional, randomised sample was used, stratified by department. The risk was measured using the Padua prediction model and the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) adjusting depending on the number of discharges. A Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) plan was used with three levels, good, (standard 95%, threshold 70%), acceptable (standard 95%, threshold 50%), and not acceptable. ResultsA total of 72 cases from 8 departments were evaluated. Just over half (51.4%) of patients had a high risk of thromboembolic disease (Padua≥4), and 23.6% of bleeding (IMPROVE≥7). Besides the advanced age, the adjusted scores were particularly due to cancer (22%) and reduced mobility (19%) for Padua, and male gender (13%) and renal failure (12%) for IMPROVE. The adjusted overall suitability was 57.5% (95%CI: ±19.0%). The OR for suitable conduct on not starting medication, 1.56 (95%CI: 1.07-2.26). The suitability by department was not uniform: all the lots were acceptable, in 3 with level “good” and in 5 with “acceptable”. ConclusionsThe suitability of thromboembolic prophylaxis in the study hospital maintains acceptable levels, although not homogeneous. There is an opportunity for improvement that must be taken. The data obtained may help in deciding interventions, with LQAS being useful to optimise the evaluation effort.

Risk models for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients: systematic identification and expert assessment

AbstractRisk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients inform appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis. Our aim was to use a novel approach for selecting risk factors for VTE and bleeding to be included in RAMs. First, we used the results of a systematic review of all candidate factors. Second, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the identified factors. Third, we using a structured approach to select factors to develop the RAMs, by building on clinical and methodological expertise. The expert panel made judgments on whether to include, potentially include, or exclude risk factors, according to domains of the GRADE approach and the Delphi method. The VTE RAM included age >60 years, previous VTE, acute infections, immobility, acute paresis, active malignancy, critical illness, and known thrombophilia. The bleeding RAM included age ≥65 years, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, active gastroduodenal ulcers, hepatic disease, recent bleeding, and critical illness. We identified acute infection as a factor that was not considered in widely used RAMs. Also, we identified factors that require further research to confirm or refute their importance in a VTE RAM (eg, D-dimer). We excluded autoimmune disease which is included in the IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) bleeding RAM. Our results also suggest that sex, malignancy, and use of central venous catheters (factors in the IMPROVE bleeding RAM) require further research. In conclusion, our study presents a novel approach to systematically identifying and assessing risk factors to be included or further explored during RAM development.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Score in Medical Illness Patients

Objective: To describe applicability of The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score to implement venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with medical illness in Hasan Sadikin General Hospital Bandung. Methods: This study was descriptive, cross-sectional research from database was performed on December 2018. Inclusion criteria in this study were all patients hospitalized in Department of Internal Medicine, Hasan Sadikin General Hospital in November 2018 with medical illness, which is patients with medical condition involves a more systemic, pharmaceutical approach to treatment. Exclusion criteria were surgical disease, which is requires some form of intervention such as surgery, also patients with incomplete medical record were excluded. Results: There were 162 patients (56% male and 44% female). Median age were higher in males compared to females (53 [18-76] vs. 49 [18-85]) years. Low-risk (score &lt;2), medium-risk (score 2 – 3), and high-risk (score &gt;4) for IMPROVE venous thromboembolism score were 77.2%, 17.3%, and 5.6% respectively. ). Low-risk (score &lt;7) and high-risk (score &gt;7) for IMPROVE bleeding score were 75.9% and 24.1% respectively. Medical thromboprophylaxis were given to 14.8% patients, with 91.7% and 8.3% of the patients received unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) respectively. Thromboprophylaxis was given in 88.9% of high-risk patients for venous thromboembolism. There were 18.7% patients with low-risk and 2.6% with high-risk for bleeding that received prophylaxis. Conclusion: The majority of inpatients treated with thromboprophylaxis had low-risk for both thromboembolism and bleeding. The rate of thromboprophylaxis usage was still low; with the most frequently used thromboprophylaxis agent was UFH. Most of high-risk patients for venous thromboembolism received thromboprophylaxis.

Modified IMPROVE VTE Risk Score and Elevated D-Dimer Identify a High Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Acutely Ill Medical Population for Extended Thromboprophylaxis.

An individualized approach to identify acutely ill medical patients at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a low risk of bleeding to optimize the benefit and risk of extended thromboprophylaxis (ET) is needed. The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) VTE risk score has undergone extensive external validation in medically ill patients for in-hospital use and a modified model was used in the MARINER trial of ET also incorporating an elevated D-dimer. The MAGELLAN study demonstrated efficacy with rivaroxaban but had excess bleeding. This retrospective analysis investigated whether the modified IMPROVE VTE model with an elevated D-dimer could identify a high VTE risk subgroup of patients for ET from a subpopulation of the MAGELLAN study, which was previously identified as having a lower risk of bleeding. We incorporated the modified IMPROVE VTE score using a cutoff score of 4 or more or 2 and 3 with an elevated D-dimer (>2 times the upper limit of normal) to the MAGELLAN subpopulation. In total, 56% of the patients met the high-risk criteria. In the placebo group, the total VTE event rate at Day 35 was 7.94% in the high-risk group and 2.83% for patients in the lower-risk group. A reduction in VTE was observed with rivaroxaban in the high-risk group (relative risk [RR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51–0.91, p = 0.008) and in the lower-risk group (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40 -1.20, p = 0.187). The modified IMPROVE VTE score with an elevated D-dimer identified a nearly threefold higher VTE risk subpopulation of patients where a significant benefit exists for ET using rivaroxaban.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Venous Thromboembolism in Neurocritical Care Patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially life-threatening complication among critically ill patients. Neurocritical care patients are presumed to be at high risk for VTE; however, data regarding risk factors in this population are limited. We designed this study to evaluate the frequency, risk factors, and clinical impact of VTE in neurocritical care patients. We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult patients admitted to neurological intensive care unit (NICU) at Henry Ford Hospital between January 2015 and March 2018. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or both diagnosed by Doppler, chest computed tomography (CT) angiography or ventilation-perfusion scan >24 hours after admission. Patients with ICU length of stay <24 hours or who received therapeutic anticoagulants or were diagnosed with VTE within 24 hours of admission were excluded. Among 2188 consecutive NICU patients, 63 (2.9%) developed VTE. Prophylactic anticoagulant use was similar in patients with and without VTE (95% vs 92%; P = .482). Venous thromboembolism was associated with higher mortality (24% vs 13%, P = .019), and longer ICU (12 [interquartile range, IQR 5-23] vs 3 [IQR 2-8] days, P < .001) and hospital (22 [IQR 15-36] vs 8 [IQR 5-15] days, P < .001) length of stay. In a multivariable analysis, potentially modifiable predictors of VTE included central venous catheterization (odds ratio [OR] 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-5.38; P < .001) and longer duration of immobilization (Braden activity score <3, OR 1.07 per day; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; P < .001). Nonmodifiable predictors included higher International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) scores (which accounts for age >60, prior VTE, cancer and thrombophilia; OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97; P < .001) and body mass index (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .007). Despite chemoprophylaxis, VTE still occurred in 2.9% of neurocritical care patients. Longer duration of immobilization and central venous catheterization are potentially modifiable risk factors for VTE in critically ill neurological patients.