Dataset Information

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

ABSTRACT: Essentials Low risk patients don't require venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; low risk is unquantified. We used a Markov model to estimate the risk threshold for VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Prophylaxis was cost-effective for an average medical patient with a VTE risk of ? 1.0%. VTE prophylaxis can be personalized based on patient risk and age/life expectancy.Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable condition in medical inpatients. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for inpatients who are not at low risk of VTE, but no specific risk threshold for prophylaxis has been defined. Objective To determine a threshold for prophylaxis based on risk of VTE. Patients/Methods We constructed a decision model with a decision-tree following patients for 3 months after hospitalization, and a lifetime Markov model with 3-month cycles. The model tracked symptomatic deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli, bleeding events and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Long-term complications included recurrent VTE, post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary hypertension. For the base case, we considered medical inpatients aged 66 years, having a life expectancy of 13.5 years, VTE risk of 1.4% and bleeding risk of 2.7%. Patients received enoxaparin 40 mg day-1 for prophylaxis. Results Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/ quality-adjusted life year (QALY), prophylaxis was indicated for an average medical inpatient with a VTE risk of ? 1.0% up to 3 months after hospitalization. For the average patient, prophylaxis was not indicated when the bleeding risk was > 8.1%, the patient's age was > 73.4 years or the cost of enoxaparin exceeded $60/dose. If VTE risk was < 0.26% or bleeding risk was > 19%, the risks of prophylaxis outweighed benefits. The prophylaxis threshold was relatively insensitive to low-molecular-weight heparin cost and bleeding risk, but very sensitive to patient age and life expectancy. Conclusions The decision to offer prophylaxis should be personalized based on patient VTE risk, age and life expectancy. At a WTP of $100 000/QALY, prophylaxis is not warranted for most patients with a 3-month VTE risk below 1.0%.

SUBMITTER: Le P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5712445 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Le P P Martinez K A KA Pappas M A MA Rothberg M B MB

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH 20170503 6

Essentials Low risk patients don't require venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; low risk is unquantified. We used a Markov model to estimate the risk threshold for VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Prophylaxis was cost-effective for an average medical patient with a VTE risk of ≥ 1.0%. VTE prophylaxis can be personalized based on patient risk and age/life expectancy.<h4>Summary</h4>Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable condition in medical inpatients. Thrombop ...[more]

PMID: 28371250

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:To study the impact of multiphase quality improvement efforts to enhance appropriate use of chemical and mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (VTEP) on the rate of hospital-acquired VTE and determine whether efforts have been associated with increased bleeding complications. Patients and Methods:All adult inpatients discharged between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015, were included in the study. Retrospective interrupted time series analysis compared VTEP performance, VTE outcomes, and unintended consequences (derived from linked administrative and clinical data) across 5 improvement phases: baseline (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006), paper order set phase (January 1, 2007-February 9, 2009), electronic order set phase (February 10, 2009-December 16, 2009), active reminder phase (December 17, 2009-May 31, 2012), and maintenance phase (June 1, 2012-September 30, 2015). Results:Guideline VTEP plan adherence at the end of the study period (including documenting contraindications) reached 88.8% (654,138 of 736,384 patient days). Delivery of pharmacological VTEP increased from 43.9% (49,155 of 111,906 patients) to 60.8% (75,784 of 124,676 patients); delivery of mechanical or pharmacological VTEP increased less (65.0% [431,791 of 664,087 patient days] to 67.4% [496,625 of 736,384 patient days]). Mean VTE rates decreased from 4.6 per 1000 hospitalizations (21.7 VTEs per month) at baseline to 4.3 per 1000 hospitalizations (18.0 VTEs per month) during the maintenance phase (P<.001). More than 97% of patients who had development of VTE (534 of 548) received VTEP, but 65.7% (360 of 548) experienced gaps of 1 or more days in VTEP delivery. Measured in-hospital bleeding rates were fairly consistent over the study (4.6% [5,198 of 111,906 patients] at baseline to 5.3% [6,662 of 124,676 patients] during the reminder phase). There was little change in rates of 7-day readmission with bleeding or VTE. Conclusion:Our VTEP project improved guideline compliance, increased the proportion of patients receiving VTEP, and was associated with a decrease in VTE. Gaps in VTEP delivery occurred despite protocoled order sets and electronic feedback. Further improvements in VTE may require new approaches.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy, safety, and clinical importance of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (EDT) for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical patients remain unclear. We compared the efficacy and safety of EDT in patients hospitalized for medical illness.Methods and findingsElectronic databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 21, 2019. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting use of EDT for prevention of VTE. We performed trial sequential and cumulative meta-analyses to evaluate EDT effects on the primary efficacy endpoint of symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major or fatal bleeding, and all-cause mortality. The pooled number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one symptomatic or fatal VTE event and the number needed to harm (NNH) to cause one major or fatal bleeding event were calculated. Across 5 RCTs with 40,247 patients (mean age: 67-77 years, proportion of women: 48%-54%, most common reason for admission: heart failure), the duration of EDT ranged from 24-47 days. EDT reduced symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death compared with standard of care (0.8% versus 1.2%; risk ratio [RR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002). EDT increased risk of ISTH major or fatal bleeding (0.6% versus 0.3%; RR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.42-2.91; p < 0.001) in both meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Pooled NNT to prevent one symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death was 250 (95% CI: 167-500), whereas NNH to cause one major or fatal bleeding event was 333 (95% CI: 200-1,000). Limitations of the study include variation in enrollment criteria, individual therapies, duration of EDT, and VTE detection protocols across included trials.ConclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials, we observed that use of a post-hospital discharge EDT strategy for a 4-to-6-week period reduced symptomatic or fatal VTE events at the expense of increased risk of major or fatal bleeding. Further investigations are still required to define the risks and benefits in discrete medically ill cohorts, evaluate cost-effectiveness, and develop pathways for targeted implementation of this postdischarge EDT strategy.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018109151.

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.

Dataset Information

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Publications

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets