M Todd Greene1, Alex C Spyropoulos2, Vineet Chopra3, Paul J Grant4, Scott Kaatz5, Steven J Bernstein3, Scott A Flanders4. 1. The Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium Data Coordinating Center, Ann Arbor; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. Electronic address: mtgreene@med.umich.edu. 2. Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, NY. 3. The Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium Data Coordinating Center, Ann Arbor; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor; VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, Mich. 4. The Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium Data Coordinating Center, Ann Arbor; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. 5. Hurley Medical Center, Flint, Mich.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for acute medical illness are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism. Although risk assessment is recommended and several at-admission risk assessment models have been developed, these have not been adequately derived or externally validated. Therefore, an optimal approach to evaluate venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients is not known. METHODS: We conducted an external validation study of existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models using data collected on 63,548 hospitalized medical patients as part of the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium. For each patient, cumulative venous thromboembolism risk scores and risk categories were calculated. Cox regression models were used to quantify the association between venous thromboembolism events and assigned risk categories. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: Venous thromboembolism incidence in hospitalized medical patients is low (1%). Although existing risk assessment models demonstrate good calibration (hazard ratios for "at-risk" range 2.97-3.59), model discrimination is generally poor for all risk assessment models (C-index range 0.58-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of several existing risk assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism among acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients at admission is limited. Given the low venous thromboembolism incidence in this nonsurgical patient population, careful consideration of how best to utilize existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models is necessary, and further development and validation of novel venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for this patient population may be warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Patients hospitalized for acute medical illness are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism. Although risk assessment is recommended and several at-admission risk assessment models have been developed, these have not been adequately derived or externally validated. Therefore, an optimal approach to evaluate venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients is not known. METHODS: We conducted an external validation study of existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models using data collected on 63,548 hospitalized medical patients as part of the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium. For each patient, cumulative venous thromboembolism risk scores and risk categories were calculated. Cox regression models were used to quantify the association between venous thromboembolism events and assigned risk categories. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index. RESULTS:Venous thromboembolism incidence in hospitalized medical patients is low (1%). Although existing risk assessment models demonstrate good calibration (hazard ratios for "at-risk" range 2.97-3.59), model discrimination is generally poor for all risk assessment models (C-index range 0.58-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of several existing risk assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism among acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients at admission is limited. Given the low venous thromboembolism incidence in this nonsurgical patient population, careful consideration of how best to utilize existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models is necessary, and further development and validation of novel venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for this patient population may be warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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
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
Authors: Lindsey Snyder; Scott M Stevens; Masarret Fazili; Emily L Wilson; James F Lloyd; Benjamin D Horne; Joseph Bledsoe; Scott C Woller Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2020-05-20
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
Authors: David Paje; Anna Conlon; Scott Kaatz; Lakshmi Swaminathan; Tanya Boldenow; Steven J Bernstein; Scott A Flanders; Vineet Chopra Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: S B Jensen; K Hindberg; T Solomon; E N Smith; J D Lapek; D J Gonzalez; N Latysheva; K A Frazer; S K Braekkan; J-B Hansen Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Alex C Spyropoulos; Jerrold H Levy; Walter Ageno; Jean Marie Connors; Beverley J Hunt; Toshiaki Iba; Marcel Levi; Charles Marc Samama; Jecko Thachil; Dimitrios Giannis; James D Douketis Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 16.036
Authors: Scott C Woller; Scott M Stevens; R Scott Evans; Daniel Wray; John Christensen; Valerie T Aston; Matthew Wayne; James F Lloyd; Emily L Wilson; C Gregory Elliott Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-06-07