Literature DB >> 24226257

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).

M Nendaz, D Spirk, N Kucher1, D Aujesky, D Hayoz, J H Beer, M Husmann, B Frauchiger, W Korte, W A Wuillemin, K Jäger, M Righini, H Bounameaux.   

Abstract

There is a need to validate risk assessment tools for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We investigated whether a predefined cut-off of the Geneva Risk Score, as compared to the Padua Prediction Score, accurately distinguishes low-risk from high-risk patients regardless of the use of thromboprophylaxis. In the multicentre, prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients were enrolled of whom 637 (43%) did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The primary endpoint was symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death at 90 days. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01277536. According to the Geneva Risk Score, the cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 3.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-4.6%) in 962 high-risk vs 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-1.9%) in 516 low-risk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.5% vs 0.8% (p=0.029), respectively. In comparison, the Padua Prediction Score yielded a cumulative rate of the primary endpoint of 3.5% (95% CI 2.3-5.3%) in 714 high-risk vs 1.1% (95% CI 0.6-2.3%) in 764 low-risk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.2% vs 1.5% (p=0.130), respectively. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.83) for the Geneva Risk Score and 0.51 (95% CI 0.28-0.93) for the Padua Prediction Score. In conclusion, among hospitalised medical patients, the Geneva Risk Score predicted VTE and VTE-related mortality and compared favourably with the Padua Prediction Score, particularly for its accuracy to identify low-risk patients who do not require thromboprophylaxis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Venous thromboembolism; internal medicine; risk assessment; thromboprophylaxis; validation studies

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24226257     DOI: 10.1160/TH13-05-0427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 0340-6245            Impact factor:   5.249


  20 in total

1.  Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in Internal Medicine Units: the RAMs issue.

Authors:  Antonella Tufano; Giovanni Di Minno
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 3.397

2.  Has time come for the use of direct oral anticoagulants in the extended prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients? No.

Authors:  Francesco Marongiu; Doris Barcellona
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 3.  A systematic review of mobility/immobility in thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospitalized patients.

Authors:  Fan Ye; Carolyn Stalvey; Matheen A Khuddus; David E Winchester; Hale Z Toklu; Joseph J Mazza; Steven H Yale
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.300

4.  Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Andrea J Darzi; Allen B Repp; Frederick A Spencer; Rami Z Morsi; Rana Charide; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Kenneth A Bauer; Allison E Burnett; Mary Cushman; Francesco Dentali; Susan R Kahn; Suely M Rezende; Neil A Zakai; Arnav Agarwal; Samer G Karam; Tamara Lotfi; Wojtek Wiercioch; Reem Waziry; Alfonso Iorio; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-10-13

Review 5.  Variation in Definitions of Immobility in Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Clinical Trials in Medical Inpatients: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Fan Ye; Lauren N Bell; Joseph Mazza; Arthur Lee; Steven H Yale
Journal:  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.389

6.  International consensus on the prevention of venous and arterial thrombotic events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Pablo A Olivera; Stephane Zuily; Paulo G Kotze; Veronique Regnault; Sameer Al Awadhi; Peter Bossuyt; Richard B Gearry; Subrata Ghosh; Taku Kobayashi; Patrick Lacolley; Edouard Louis; Fernando Magro; Siew C Ng; Alfredo Papa; Tim Raine; Fabio V Teixeira; David T Rubin; Silvio Danese; Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 46.802

7.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Mary Cushman; Allison E Burnett; Susan R Kahn; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Frederick A Spencer; Suely M Rezende; Neil A Zakai; Kenneth A Bauer; Francesco Dentali; Jill Lansing; Sara Balduzzi; Andrea Darzi; Gian Paolo Morgano; Ignacio Neumann; Robby Nieuwlaat; Juan J Yepes-Nuñez; Yuan Zhang; Wojtek Wiercioch
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

8.  Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Contemporary Approach to Diagnosis, Risk-Stratification, and Management.

Authors:  Tahir Tak; Swetha Karturi; Umesh Sharma; Lee Eckstein; Joseph T Poterucha; Yader Sandoval
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2019-07-05

9.  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.

Authors:  David Rosenberg; Ann Eichorn; Mauricio Alarcon; Lauren McCullagh; Thomas McGinn; Alex C Spyropoulos
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 10.  Pediatric Hospital Acquired Venous Thromboembolism.

Authors:  Char M Witmer; Clifford M Takemoto
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 3.418

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.