Literature DB >> 26288124

Validation of the Caprini Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model in Critically Ill Surgical Patients.

Andrea T Obi1, Christopher J Pannucci2, Andrew Nackashi3, Newaj Abdullah4, Rafael Alvarez5, Vinita Bahl5, Thomas W Wakefield5, Peter K Henke5.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Appropriate risk stratification for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is essential to providing appropriate thromboprophylaxis and avoiding morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE: To validate the Caprini VTE risk assessment model in a previously unstudied high-risk cohort: critically ill surgical patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 4844 adults (≥18 years old) admitted to a 20-bed surgical intensive care unit in a large tertiary care academic hospital during a 5-year period (July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main study outcome was VTE (defined as patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) that occurred during the patient's initial hospital admission.
RESULTS: The study population was distributed among risk levels as follows: low, 5.3%; moderate, 19.9%; high, 31.6%; highest, 25.4%; and superhigh, 14.9%. The overall incidence of inpatient VTE was 7.5% and increased with risk level: 3.5% in low-risk patients, 5.5% in moderate-risk patients, 6.6% in high-risk patients, 8.6% in highest-risk patients, and 11.5% in superhigh-risk patients. Patients with Caprini scores greater than 8 were significantly more likely to develop inpatient VTE events when compared with patients with Caprini scores of 7 to 8 (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.85; P = .04), 5 to 6 (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16-1.57; P < .001), 3 to 4 (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47; P < .001), or 0 to 2 (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001). Similarly, patients with Caprini scores of 7 to 8 were significantly more likely to develop inpatient VTE when compared with patients with Caprini scores of 5 to 6 (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75; P = .04), 3 to 4 (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51; P = .005), or 0 to 2 (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Caprini VTE risk assessment model is valid. This study supports the use of individual risk assessment in critically ill surgical patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26288124     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1841

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  25 in total

Review 1.  Venous Thrombosis and Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: From Novel Biomarkers to Biology.

Authors:  Allan K Metz; Jose A Diaz; Andrea T Obi; Thomas W Wakefield; Daniel D Myers; Peter K Henke
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep

Review 2.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology surgery.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after abdominopelvic cancer surgery: a retrospective review.

Authors:  M Laureano; M Ebraheem; M Crowther
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Gram-Negative Pneumonia Alters Large-Vein Cell-Adhesion Molecule Profile and Potentiates Experimental Stasis Venous Thrombosis.

Authors:  Andrea T Obi; Elizabeth Andraska; Yogendra Kanthi; Catherine E Luke; Megan Elfline; Suresh Madathilparambil; Teruna J Siahaan; Farouc A Jaffer; Thomas W Wakefield; Krishnan Raghavendran; Peter K Henke
Journal:  J Vasc Res       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 1.934

5.  Experience with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Bariatric Surgery: Comparison of MGB and LSG in 374 Patients.

Authors:  Marie-Cécile Blanchet; Benoît Gignoux; Yann Matussière; Alexandre Vulliez; Thomas Lanz; Fabienne Monier; Vincent Frering
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.129

6.  An abbreviated Caprini model for VTE risk assessment in trauma.

Authors:  Max D Hazeltine; Erin M Scott; Jon D Dorfman
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 2.300

7.  The limited utility of currently available venous thromboembolism risk assessment tools in gynecological oncology patients.

Authors:  Emma L Barber; Daniel L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Routine surveillance for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism after pleurectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Authors:  Luis E De León; Carlos E Bravo-Iñiguez; Sam Fox; Jeffrey Tarascio; Samuel Freyaldenhoven; Moshe Lapidot; Michael T Jaklitsch; Raphael Bueno
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Keratinocyte Carcinoma.

Authors:  Shannon F Rudy; Kevin Li; Sami P Moubayed; Sam P Most
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 4.611

10.  Are venous thromboembolism risk assessment tools reliable in the stratification of microvascular risk following lower extremity reconstruction?

Authors:  L Geoghegan; J Super; M Machin; M Gimzewska; S Onida; S Hettiaratchy; A H Davies
Journal:  JPRAS Open       Date:  2021-04-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.