Emily C Alper1, Ivan K Ip2, Patricia Balthazar1, Gregory Piazza3, Samuel Z Goldhaber3, Carol B Benson4, Ronilda Lacson1, Ramin Khorasani1,5. 1. Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, MA, USA. 2. Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Brookline, MA, USA. iip@bwh.harvard.edu. 3. Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Ultrasound, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Wells score for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has a high failure rate and low efficiency among inpatients. OBJECTIVE: To create and validate an inpatient-specific risk stratification model to help assess pre-test probability of DVT in hospitalized patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of hospitalized patients undergoing lower-extremity ultrasonography studies (LEUS) for suspected DVT. Demographics, physical findings, medical history, medications, hospitalization, and laboratory and imaging results were collected. Samples were divided into model derivation (patients undergoing LEUS 11/1/2012-12/31/2013) and validation cohorts (LEUS 1/1/2014-5/31/2015). A DVT prediction rule was derived using the recursive partitioning algorithm (decision tree-type approach) and was then validated. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients undergoing LEUS for suspected DVT from November 2012 to May 2015, excluding those with DVT in the prior 3 months, at a 793-bed, urban academic quaternary-care hospital with ~50,000 admissions annually. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the presence of proximal DVT, and the secondary outcome was the presence of any DVT (proximal or distal). Model sensitivity and specificity for predicting DVT were calculated. KEY RESULTS: Recursive partitioning yielded four variables (previous DVT, active cancer, hospitalization ≥ 6 days, age ≥ 46 years) that optimized the prediction of proximal DVT and yield in the derivation cohort. From this decision tree, we stratified a scoring system using the validation cohort, categorizing patients into low- and high-risk groups. The incidence rates of proximal DVT were 2.9% and 12.0%, and of any DVT were 5.2% and 21.0%, for the low- and high-risk groups, respectively. The AUC for the discriminatory accuracy of the Center for Evidence-Based Imaging (CEBI) score for risk of proximal DVT identified on LEUS was 0.73. Model sensitivity was 98.1% for proximal and 98.1% for any DVT. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adults, specific factors can help clinicians predict risk of DVT, identifying those with low pre-test probability, in whom ultrasonography can be safely avoided.
BACKGROUND: The Wells score for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has a high failure rate and low efficiency among inpatients. OBJECTIVE: To create and validate an inpatient-specific risk stratification model to help assess pre-test probability of DVT in hospitalized patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of hospitalized patients undergoing lower-extremity ultrasonography studies (LEUS) for suspected DVT. Demographics, physical findings, medical history, medications, hospitalization, and laboratory and imaging results were collected. Samples were divided into model derivation (patients undergoing LEUS 11/1/2012-12/31/2013) and validation cohorts (LEUS 1/1/2014-5/31/2015). A DVT prediction rule was derived using the recursive partitioning algorithm (decision tree-type approach) and was then validated. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients undergoing LEUS for suspected DVT from November 2012 to May 2015, excluding those with DVT in the prior 3 months, at a 793-bed, urban academic quaternary-care hospital with ~50,000 admissions annually. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the presence of proximal DVT, and the secondary outcome was the presence of any DVT (proximal or distal). Model sensitivity and specificity for predicting DVT were calculated. KEY RESULTS: Recursive partitioning yielded four variables (previous DVT, active cancer, hospitalization ≥ 6 days, age ≥ 46 years) that optimized the prediction of proximal DVT and yield in the derivation cohort. From this decision tree, we stratified a scoring system using the validation cohort, categorizing patients into low- and high-risk groups. The incidence rates of proximal DVT were 2.9% and 12.0%, and of any DVT were 5.2% and 21.0%, for the low- and high-risk groups, respectively. The AUC for the discriminatory accuracy of the Center for Evidence-Based Imaging (CEBI) score for risk of proximal DVT identified on LEUS was 0.73. Model sensitivity was 98.1% for proximal and 98.1% for any DVT. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized adults, specific factors can help clinicians predict risk of DVT, identifying those with low pre-test probability, in whom ultrasonography can be safely avoided.
Entities:
Keywords:
Wells score; deep vein thrombosis; inpatient; pre-test probability
Authors: Joachim Gruettner; Tim Viergutz; Merle Bolte; Thomas Henzler; Stefan O Schoenberg; Sonja Sudarski; Paul Apfaltrer; Thomas Walter Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Martin H Osmond; Terry P Klassen; George A Wells; Rhonda Correll; Anna Jarvis; Gary Joubert; Benoit Bailey; Laurel Chauvin-Kimoff; Martin Pusic; Don McConnell; Cheri Nijssen-Jordan; Norm Silver; Brett Taylor; Ian G Stiell Journal: CMAJ Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: James F Holmes; Peter E Sokolove; William E Brant; Michael J Palchak; Cheryl W Vance; John T Owings; Nathan Kuppermann Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: John E Schrecengost; Robin D LeGallo; James C Boyd; Karel G M Moons; Steven L Gonias; C Edward Rose; David E Bruns Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: G J Geersing; N P A Zuithoff; C Kearon; D R Anderson; A J Ten Cate-Hoek; J L Elf; S M Bates; A W Hoes; R A Kraaijenhagen; R Oudega; R E G Schutgens; S M Stevens; S C Woller; P S Wells; K G M Moons Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-10
Authors: Irina N Chernysh; Chandrasekaran Nagaswami; Sofia Kosolapova; Alina D Peshkova; Adam Cuker; Douglas B Cines; Carolyn L Cambor; Rustem I Litvinov; John W Weisel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 4.379