Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients

Summary

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.

Keywords

Thrombosis - prophylaxis - review - systematic - clinical prediction rule - inpatients

• References

• 1 Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS. et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141 2 Suppl e195S-226S
• 2 Heit JA, O’Fallon WM, Petterson TM. et al. Relative impact of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1245-1248
• 3 Spencer FA, Lessard D, Emery C. et al. Venous thromboembolism in the outpatient setting. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 1471-1475
• 4 Dentali F, Douketis JD, Gianni M. et al. Meta-analysis: anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in hospitalised medical patients. Arch Intern Med 2007; 146: 278-288
• 5 Alikhan R, Cohen AT. Heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general medical patients (excluding stroke and myocardial infarction). Cochrane Database System Rev 2009: CD003747.
• 6 Lloyd NS, Douketis JD, Moinuddin I. et al. Anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in hospitalised medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 405-414
• 7 Bergmann JF, Cohen AT, Tapson VF. et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in hospitalised medically ill patients. The ENDORSE Global Survey Thromb Haemost 2010; 103: 736-748
• 8 Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R. et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalised patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 969-977
• 9 Camden R, Ludwig S. Prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in hospitalised medically ill patients: Update and practical approach. American journal of health-system pharmacy. Am J Health Pharm 2014; 71: 909-917
• 10 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. System Rev 2015; 4: 1
• 11 Spyropoulos AC, McGinn T, Khorana AA. The use of weighted and scored risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 1072-1076
• 12 Woller SC, Stevens SM, Jones JP. et al. Derivation and validation of a simple model to identify venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients. Am J Med 2011; 124: 947-954 e2
• 13 Abdel-Razeq HN, Hijjawi SB, Jallad SG. et al. Venous thromboembolism risk stratification in medically-ill hospitalised cancer patients. A comprehensive cancer centre experience. J Thromb Thrombol 2010; 30: 286-293
• 14 Zhou HX, Peng LQ, Yan Y. et al. Validation of the Caprini risk assessment model in Chinese hospitalised patients with venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res 2012; 130: 735-740
• 15 Zhou H, Wang L, Wu X. et al. Validation of a venous thromboembolism risk assessment model in hospitalised chinese patients: a case-control study. J Atheroscl Thromb 2014; 21: 261-272
• 16 Nendaz M, Spirk D, Kucher N. et al. Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost 2014; 111: 531-538
• 17 Spyropoulos AC, Anderson Jr. FA, Fitzgerald G. et al. Predictive and associative models to identify hospitalised medical patients at risk for VTE. Chest 2011; 140: 706-714
• 18 Mahan CE, Liu Y, Turpie AG. et al. External validation of a risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in the hospitalised acutely-ill medical patient (VTE-VALOURR). Thromb Haemost 2014; 112: 692-699
• 19 Rosenberg D, Eichorn A, Alarcon M. et al. External validation of the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) for medical patients in a tertiary health system. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e001152
• 20 Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK, Lahti M. et al. Risk factor model to predict venous thromboembolism in hospitalised medical patients. J Hospital Med 2011; 6: 202-209
• 21 Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V. et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalised medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 2450-2457
• 22 Vardi M, Ghanem-Zoubi NO, Zidan R. et al. Venous thromboembolism and the utility of the Padua Prediction Score in patients with sepsis admitted to internal medicine departments. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11: 467-473
• 23 Chopard P, Spirk D, Bounameaux H. Identifying acutely ill medical patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 915-916
• 24 Rossetto V, Barbar S, Vedovetto V. et al. Physicians’ compliance with the Padua Prediction Score for preventing venous thromboembolism among hospitalised medical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11: 1428-1430
• 25 Nendaz MR, Chopard P, Lovis C. et al. Adequacy of venous thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (IMPART): multisite comparison of different clinical decision support systems. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1230-1234
• 26 Baroletti S, Munz K, Sonis J. et al. Electronic alerts for hospitalised high-VTE risk patients not receiving prophylaxis: a cohort study. J Thromb Thrombol 2008; 25: 146-150
• 27 Spirk D, Nendaz M, Aujesky D. et al. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients. Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE). Thromb Haemost 2015; 113: 1127-1134
• 28 Catterick D, Hunt BJ. Impact of the national venous thromboembolism risk assessment tool in secondary care in England: retrospective population-based database study. Blood Coagul Fibrinol 2014; 25: 571-576