Derivation and Validation of a Risk Factor Model to Identify Medical Inpatients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism

Abstract

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized medical patients at high risk for VTE. Multiple risk assessment models exist, but few have been compared in large datasets.

Methods We constructed a derivation cohort using 6 years of data from 12 hospitals to identify risk factors associated with developing VTE within 14 days of admission. VTE was identified using a complex algorithm combining administrative codes and clinical data. We developed a multivariable prediction model and applied it to three validation cohorts: a temporal cohort, including two additional years, a cross-validation, in which we refit the model excluding one hospital each time, applying the refitted model to the holdout hospital, and an external cohort. Performance was evaluated using the C-statistic.

Results The derivation cohort included 155,026 patients with a 14-day VTE rate of 0.68%. The final multivariable model contained 13 patient risk factors. The model had an optimism corrected C-statistic of 0.79 and good calibration. The temporal validation cohort included 53,210 patients, with a VTE rate of 0.64%; the external cohort had 23,413 patients and a rate of 0.49%. Based on the C-statistic, the Cleveland Clinic Model (CCM) outperformed both the Padua (0.76 vs. 0.72, p = 0.002) and IMPROVE (0.68, p < 0.001) models in the temporal cohort. C-statistics for the CCM at individual hospitals ranged from 0.68 to 0.78. In the external cohort, the CCM C-statistic was similar to Padua (0.70 vs. 0.66, p = 0.17) and outperformed IMPROVE (0.59, p < 0.001).

Conclusion A new VTE risk assessment model outperformed recommended models.

Keywords

VTE - risk models - validation

Note

This study was presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, United States, April 13, 2018.

Publication History

Received: 11 May 2021

Accepted: 13 November 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 November 2021

Article published online:
29 December 2021

• References

• 1 Lederle FA, Zylla D, MacDonald R, Wilt TJ. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients and those with stroke: a background review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (09) 602-615
• 2 Dentali F, Douketis JD, Gianni M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Meta-analysis: anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146 (04) 278-288
• 3 Wein L, Wein S, Haas SJ, Shaw J, Krum H. Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167 (14) 1476-1486
• 4 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-e226S
• 5 Greene MT, Spyropoulos AC, Chopra V. et al. Validation of risk assessment models of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Am J Med 2016; 129 (09) 1001.e9-1001.e18
• 6 Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V. et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8 (11) 2450-2457
• 7 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 (03) 531-538
• 8 Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE. et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv 2018; 2 (22) 3198-3225
• 9 Spyropoulos AC, Anderson Jr FA, FitzGerald G. et al; IMPROVE Investigators. Predictive and associative models to identify hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. Chest 2011; 140 (03) 706-714
• 10 Fang MC, Fan D, Sung SH. et al. Validity of using inpatient and outpatient administrative codes to identify acute venous thromboembolism: the CVRN VTE study. Med Care 2017; 55 (12) e137-e143
• 11 Flanders SA, Greene MT, Grant P. et al. Hospital performance for pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and rate of venous thromboembolism : a cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174 (10) 1577-1584
• 12 Barbar S, Prandoni P. Scoring systems for estimating risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Semin Thromb Hemost 2017; 43 (05) 460-468
• 13 Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY. et al; Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 (11) 793-800
• 14 Leizorovicz A, Cohen AT, Turpie AG, Olsson CG, Vaitkus PT, Goldhaber SZ. PREVENT Medical Thromboprophylaxis Study Group. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation 2004; 110 (07) 874-879
• 15 Alotaibi GS, Wu C, Senthilselvan A, McMurtry MS. The validity of ICD codes coupled with imaging procedure codes for identifying acute venous thromboembolism using administrative data. Vasc Med 2015; 20 (04) 364-368
• 16 Sanfilippo KM, Wang T-F, Gage BF, Liu W, Carson KR. Improving accuracy of International Classification of Diseases codes for venous thromboembolism in administrative data. Thromb Res 2015; 135 (04) 616-620
• 17 Stuck AK, Spirk D, Schaudt J, Kucher N. Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. A systematic review. Thromb Haemost 2017; 117 (04) 801-808
• 18 Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R. et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (10) 969-977
• 19 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 (10) 947-954
• 20 White RH, Garcia M, Sadeghi B. et al. Evaluation of the predictive value of ICD-9-CM coded administrative data for venous thromboembolism in the United States. Thromb Res 2010; 126 (01) 61-67
• 21 Haut ER, Lau BD, Kraenzlin FS. et al. Improved prophylaxis and decreased rates of preventable harm with the use of a mandatory computerized clinical decision support tool for prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in trauma. Arch Surg 2012; 147 (10) 901-907
• 22 Khanna R, Vittinghoff E, Maselli J, Auerbach A. Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (03) 318-324
• 23 Rosenberg D, Eichorn A, Alarcon M, McCullagh L, McGinn T, Spyropoulos AC. 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 (06) e001152
• 24 Spyropoulos AC. Upper vs. lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: outcome definitions of venous thromboembolism for clinical predictor rules or risk factor analyses in hospitalized patients. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7 (06) 1041-1042
• 25 Akl EA, Ramly EP, Kahale LA. et al. Anticoagulation for people with cancer and central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (10) CD006468