[Assessment of venous thromboembolism risk in hospitalized medical patients. Concordance between PRETEMED guide and the recommendations of the viii conference of the American College of Chest Physicians].

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients using 2 clinical practice guidelines and to analyze the agreement between them. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of medical services in a third level hospital. We calculated the thromboembolic risk and the thromboprophylaxis adequacy by implementing the recommendations of viii conference of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and PRETEMED guide as well as their agreement.
RESULTS: One hundred and twenty eight patients were included in the study. According to the PRETEMED guide, 34.4% of patients were low risk, 6.3% moderate and 59.4% high, with appropriate prophylaxis in 72.7% of patients (CI95%: 64.4-79.9), 18.8% (CI95%: 12.7-26.2) were undertreated and 8.6% (CI95%: 4.6-14.4) overtreated. According to ACCP recommendations, 50% of patients were low risk and 50% high, with appropriate prophylaxis in 74.2% of patients (CI95%: 66.1-81.2), 10.9% (CI95%: 6.4-17.3) were undertreated and 14.8% (CI95%: 9.4-21.8) overtreated. When PRETEMED risk was classified into low or moderate-high group versus ACCP risk low or high, the grade of concordance between both guides was 0.68 (CI95%: 0.56-0.81). When PRETEMED risk was classified into low-moderate or high group versus ACCP risk low or high, the grade of concordance between both guides was 0.81 (CI95%: 0.71-0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: About a quarter of hospitalized medical patients did not receive adequate prophylaxis, showing an important room for improvement. PRETEMED guide and ACCP recommendations differ in risk assessment mainly because PRETEMED guide overestimates the risk of venous thromboembolism since it includes more risk factors.