Literature DB >> 27131583

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

Emma L Barber1, Daniel L Clarke-Pearson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of risk assessment tools, such as the Caprini score or Rogers score, is recommended by national societies to stratify surgical patients by venous thromboembolism risk and guide prophylaxis. However, these tools were not developed in a gynecological oncology patient population, and their utility in this population is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the ability of both the Caprini and Rogers scores to stratify gynecological oncology patients by the risk of venous thromboembolism. STUDY
DESIGN: Patients undergoing surgery for cervical, ovarian, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar cancers between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database using International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, codes. The Caprini and Rogers scores were calculated for each patient based on the recorded demographic and procedure data. Venous thromboembolism events were recorded for 30 days postoperatively. Patients were categorized into risk groups based on the calculated Caprini and Rogers scores and the incidence of venous thromboembolism, and the 95% confidence interval was estimated for each of these groups. The relationship between the risk score and venous thromboembolism incidence was examined with Pearson's correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Of 17,713 patients, 1.8% developed a venous thromboembolism. No patients were classified by the Caprini score as low risk, 0.1% were moderate risk, 3.0% were higher risk (score 4), and 96.9% were highest risk (score ≥5). The Caprini score groupings did not correlate with venous thromboembolism. The high-risk group had a paradoxically higher incidence of venous thromboembolism of 2.5% compared with the highest-risk group, 1.7% (P = .40). However, when the highest-risk group of the Caprini score was substratified, it was highly correlated with venous thromboembolism (R(2) = 0.93). For the Rogers score, only 0.2% of patients were low risk (score <7), 36.9% were medium risk (score 7-10), and 63.0% were high risk (score >10). When the highest risk group of the Rogers score was substratified, it was also highly correlated with venous thromboembolism (R(2) = 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Gynecological oncology patients score very high on current venous thromboembolism risk assessment models. The Caprini score is limited in its ability to discriminate relative venous thromboembolism risk among gynecological oncology patients because 97% are in the highest-risk category. Substratification of the highest-risk groups allows for relative venous thromboembolism risk stratification among gynecological oncology patients, suggesting that further evaluation of risk stratification is needed in gynecological oncology surgery.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Caprini score; Rogers score; gynecological oncology surgery; risk assessment model; venous thromboembolism

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27131583      PMCID: PMC5045759          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  28 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery.

Authors:  P Mismetti; S Laporte; J Y Darmon; A Buchmüller; H Decousus
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: an additional benefit of the minimally invasive approach?

Authors:  Ron Shapiro; Jon D Vogel; Ravi P Kiran
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Patient cost associated with filling a prescription for extended-duration venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following surgery for gynecologic cancer.

Authors:  Katherine Cain; Kathleen M Schmeler; Ginger Langley; Oliver Max; Pedro T Ramirez; Charles F Levenback
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Preoperative Chemoprophylaxis is Safe in Major Oncology Operations and Effective at Preventing Venous Thromboembolism.

Authors:  Luke V Selby; Mindy Sovel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Margaret McSweeney; Damon Douglas; David R Jones; Peter T Scardino; Gerald A Soff; Nicola Fabbri; Kent Sepkowitz; Vivian E Strong; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 6.113

6.  Incidence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery: does laparoscopy impart an advantage?

Authors:  Brian Buchberg; Hossein Masoomi; Kristelle Lusby; John Choi; Andrew Barleben; Cheryl Magno; John Lane; Ninh Nguyen; Steven Mills; Michael J Stamos
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2011-06

7.  A scoring system to predict unplanned intubation in patients having undergone major surgical procedures.

Authors:  May Hua; Joanne E Brady; Guohua Li
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.108

8.  A validation study of a retrospective venous thromboembolism risk scoring method.

Authors:  Vinita Bahl; Hsou Mei Hu; Peter K Henke; Thomas W Wakefield; Darrell A Campbell; Joseph A Caprini
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 12.969

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

Authors:  Andrea T Obi; Christopher J Pannucci; Andrew Nackashi; Newaj Abdullah; Rafael Alvarez; Vinita Bahl; Thomas W Wakefield; Peter K Henke
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Is venous thromboprophylaxis necessary in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for a gynecologic malignancy?

Authors:  Geneviève Bouchard-Fortier; William H Geerts; Allan Covens; Danielle Vicus; Rachel Kupets; Lilian T Gien
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 5.482

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  A Systematic Review of the Guidelines on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology.

Authors:  Federico Romano; Giovanni Di Lorenzo; Guglielmo Stabile; Mariateresa Mirandola; Stefano Restaino; Patrizia Ianniello; Giuseppe Mirenda; Giuseppe Ricci
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Effects of Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Benign Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Jennifer Travieso; Neil Kamdar; Daniel M Morgan; Sawsan As-Sanie; Sara R Till
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 4.314

4.  A risk score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in gynecologic cancer: The Thrombogyn score.

Authors:  Lucy A Norris; Mark P Ward; Sharon A O'Toole; Zibi Marchocki; Nadia Ibrahim; Ali S Khashan; Feras Abu Saadeh; Noreen Gleeson
Journal:  Res Pract Thromb Haemost       Date:  2020-05-28

5.  Development and Validation of a Nomogram to Predict the Probability of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Yuhan Wang; Haijian Zhou; Guanglei Zhong; Zhaojie Fu; Yu Peng; Tingting Yao
Journal:  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 2.389

6.  Risk factors for deep venous thrombosis in women with ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Yasuhiko Ebina; Mihoko Uchiyama; Hitomi Imafuku; Kaho Suzuki; Yoshiya Miyahara; Hideto Yamada
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Application of the Caprini risk assessment model for deep vein thrombosis among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Xiuying Lu; Weirong Zeng; Lin Zhu; Lu Liu; Fengmei Du; Qing Yang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Risk factors of deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity in patients undergone gynecological laparoscopic surgery: what should we care.

Authors:  Qing Tian; Meng Li
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  Validation of two risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Tao Guo; Miaomiao Li; Cui-Qin Sang; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Ruijun Guo; Ruigang Lu; Peng Qu; Wen Cao; Wei Zhao; Bin Li; Jian-Liu Wang; Jian-Jun Zhai; Lei Song; Zhi-Qiang Zhang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-01

10.  Clinical Validation of the Chinese Version of Patient Completed Caprini Risk Assessment Form.

Authors:  Xiaolan Chen; Hui Deng; Xinjie Tong; Bei Gu; Jingxuan Liu; He Huang; Liwei Ye; Lei Pan; Joseph A Caprini; Yong Wang
Journal:  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 2.389

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.