Reza Rafizadeh1, Ricky D Turgeon2, Josh Batterink3, Victoria Su4, Anthony Lau5. 1. , BScPharm, ACPR, is a Clinical Pharmacist, Mental Health and Substance Use, Burnaby Hospital, Burnaby, British Columbia. 2. , BScPharm, ACPR, PharmD, is a Pharmacotherapeutic Specialist, Neurosurgery, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia. 3. , BScPharm, ACPR, is Coordinator with LMPS Informatics and Automation, Langley, British Columbia. 4. , BScPharm, ACPR, PharmD, BCPS, is a Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia. 5. , BScPharm, is a Pharmacist with Surrey Memorial Hospital, Surrey, British Columbia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models. METHODS: A retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013. RESULTS: Of the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models. METHODS: A retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013. RESULTS: Of the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.
Authors: Ajay K Kakkar; Claudio Cimminiello; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Rajiv Parakh; Chen Wang; Jean-François Bergmann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles E Mahan; Yang Liu; A Graham Turpie; Jennifer T Vu; Nancy Heddle; Richard J Cook; Undaleeb Dairkee; Alex C Spyropoulos Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: S Barbar; F Noventa; V Rossetto; A Ferrari; B Brandolin; M Perlati; E De Bon; D Tormene; A Pagnan; P Prandoni Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Alex C Spyropoulos; Frederick A Anderson; Gordon FitzGerald; Herve Decousus; Mario Pini; Beng H Chong; Rainer B Zotz; Jean-François Bergmann; Victor Tapson; James B Froehlich; Manuel Monreal; Geno J Merli; Ricardo Pavanello; Alexander G G Turpie; Mashio Nakamura; Franco Piovella; Ajay K Kakkar; Frederick A Spencer Journal: Chest Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Nils Kucher; Sophia Koo; Rene Quiroz; Joshua M Cooper; Marilyn D Paterno; Boris Soukonnikov; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William H Geerts; David Bergqvist; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; Charles M Samama; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell Journal: Chest Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 9.410