Dataset Information

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.

Methods

A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.

Results

Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.

Conclusion

Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.

Prospero registration number

Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

SUBMITTER: Pandor A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8323381 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSymptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis.ObjectivesTo compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models.MethodsA retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013.ResultsOf the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model.ConclusionsThese data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.

Project description:ObjectiveHospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE, including pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) is a preventable cause of hospital death. The Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) is one of the most commonly used tools to assess VTE risk. The RAM is operationalized in clinical practice by grouping several risk scores into VTE risk categories that drive decisions on prophylaxis. A correlation between increasing Caprini scores and rising VTE risk is well-established. We assessed whether the increasing VTE risk categories assigned on the basis of recommended score ranges also correlate with increasing VTE risk.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles that used the Caprini RAM to assign VTE risk categories and that reported corresponding VTE rates. A Medline and EMBASE search retrieved 895 articles, of which 57 fulfilled inclusion criteria.ResultsForty-eight (84%) of the articles were cohort studies, 7 (12%) were case-control studies, and 2 (4%) were cross-sectional studies. The populations varied from postsurgical to medical patients. There was variability in the number of VTE risk categories assigned by individual studies (6 used 5 risk categories, 37 used 4, 11 used 3, and 3 used 2), and in the cutoff scores defining the risk categories (scores from 0 alone to 0-10 for the low-risk category; from ≥5 to ≥10 for high risk). The VTE rates reported for similar risk categories also varied across studies (0%-12.3% in the low-risk category; 0%-40% for high risk). The Caprini RAM is designed to assess composite VTE risk; however, two studies reported PE or DVT rates alone, and many of the other studies did not specify the types of DVTs analyzed. The Caprini RAM predicts VTE at 30 days after assessment; however, only 17 studies measured outcomes at 30 days; the remaining studies had either shorter or longer follow-ups (0-180 days).ConclusionsThe usefulness of the Caprini RAM is limited by heterogeneity in its implementation across centers. The score-derived VTE risk categorization has significant variability in the number of risk categories being used, the cutpoints used to define the risk categories, the outcome being measured, and the follow-up duration. This factor leads to similar risk categories being associated with different VTE rates, which impacts the clinical and research implications of the results. To enhance generalizability, there is a need for studies that validate the RAM in a broad population of medical and surgical patients, identify standardized risk categories, define risk of DVT and PE as distinct end points, and measure outcomes at standardized follow-up time points.