Literature DB >> 34230447

Application of the RCOG Risk Assessment Model for Evaluating Postpartum Venous Thromboembolism in Chinese Women: A Case-Control Study.

Ying-Zhou Ge1,2,3, Chen Zhang1,2,3, Yan-Qing Cai1,2,3, He-Feng Huang1,2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND Since China has not yet constructed its own risk assessment model (RAM) for pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism (VTE), more and more hospitals use the RCOG RAM for VTE risk prediction. However, the RCOG RAM was established based on Western populations, and its applicability in China is still uncertain. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the validity of the RCOG RAM in predicting postpartum VTE in Chinese maternity. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective case-control study was conducted at the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital (IPMCHH) from June 2016 to June 2020. The VTE group consisted of 38 women with postpartum VTE. For each VTE patient, 4 women without VTE who gave birth on the same day were randomly selected as the control group (n=152). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the discrimination, accuracy, and validity of the RCOG RAM. Univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to identify other related factors for postpartum VTE. RESULTS Compared with the low-risk group, the risk of VTE was 9.75-fold greater in the intermediate-risk group, and 90.00-fold greater in the high-risk group. The area under curve (AUC) of the model was 0.828 (95% CI: 0.762-0.894), with a score of 2 as its best cut-off value, which exactly matched the criterion recommended by the RCOG guidelines for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The calibration curves and DCA of the model also showed good accuracy. In addition to the factors included in the RCOG RAM, glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy (adjusted OR=6.72, 95% CI: 1.56-28.91) and previous use of IUD (adjusted OR=7.11, 95% CI: 1.45-34.93) were associated with increased risk of postpartum VTE. CONCLUSIONS The RCOG RAM was found to be effective in predicting postpartum VTE, and has certain guiding significance for postpartum thromboprophylaxis in China.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34230447      PMCID: PMC8274362          DOI: 10.12659/MSM.929904

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Monit        ISSN: 1234-1010


Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) comprises deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Because of increased concentrations of coagulation factors, decreased anticoagulant and fibrinolytic components, and increased compression of the uterus to the iliac vein and inferior vena cava [1], the risk of VTE for women during pregnancy and the puerperium period is approximately 4–5 times higher than that in non-pregnant women of the same age [2,3]. Meanwhile, the risk of postpartum VTE is 20 times higher than that of antepartum VTE [4]. The incidence of VTE is 1–2 per 1000 pregnancies in Europe and America [5,6]. Nearly 80% of pregnancy-related VTEs are isolated DVTs, and 20% are PEs or coexisting PE and DVT [7], whose fatality rate can be as high as 15% [8]. Currently, VTE has become one of the leading causes of maternal mortality worldwide [9]. In the past, insufficient attention was given to the prevention of pregnancy-related VTE in China, and until now, there has been no epidemiological analysis based on national data. The Wells score and the Caprini score are usually used in clinical practice for VTE risk assessment in the obstetric department, but neither is designed specifically for pregnant women [10]. In 2015, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) released the latest edition of guidelines for the prevention of VTE during pregnancy and puerperium and updated the VTE risk scoring method (mentioned as RCOG risk assessment model below). The detailed scoring method for VTE is shown in Supplementary Table 1. This model has been widely used in Western countries for the assessment of the risk of pregnancy-related VTE in both the antenatal and postnatal periods, and a thromboprophylaxis management process based on the results of the model has been recommended by the RCOG guidelines. If the total score is ≥2 postnatally, thromboprophylaxis for at least 10 days is recommended [11]. However, the data used for building the RCOG RAM were mostly obtained from Western countries. At present, whether this model is suitable for Chinese maternity care remains poorly understood. In view of the higher prevalence of VTE during the postnatal period, this study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the RCOG RAM for postpartum VTE and its guiding significance in postpartum thromboprophylaxis in China. Furthermore, we aimed to explore related factors for postpartum VTE other than those already included in the model.

Material and Methods

Study Population

This retrospective case-control study was conducted at the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital (IPMCHH), a specialized hospital of obstetrics and genecology in Shanghai, from June 2016 to June 2020. Women diagnosed with VTE during the postpartum period constituted the VTE group. For each VTE patient, 4 women who gave birth at the same day and confirmed as without VTE were randomly selected as the control group. Inclusion criteria included women who gave birth beyond 28 weeks of gestation, regardless of delivery mode, and completed regular antenatal and postnatal examinations as well as diagnostic examinations for VTE. Exclusion criteria were missing or untraceable previous medical records. The diagnosis of DVT was confirmed by compression ultrasonography of the lower limb veins [12,13], and once thrombotic events were detected, the patient was routinely checked by echocardiography and computer tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to investigate the presence of PE. All women were encouraged to walk as soon as possible after delivery. For those who underwent cesarean section, a pneumatic compression device was routinely used. Very few women received pharmacological prophylaxis, which was mainly based on empirical medication.

Data Collection

Data collected from medical records included socio-demographic characteristics, reproductive history, gynecologic history, previous contraceptive use, obstetric characteristics, and the results of laboratory tests (coagulation-related parameters) and imaging examinations. All women returned to the hospital for routine check-ups 42 days after delivery, and relevant data were also collected.

Assessment of Postpartum VTE Risk

Based on the above information, the RCOG RAM was used to assess the risk score and risk level of postpartum VTE. The risk of postpartum VTE was divided into 3 levels: low risk (<2 points and without intermediate or high-risk factors, no need for thromboprophylaxis), intermediate risk (≥2 points and without high-risk factors, need for thromboprophylaxis), and high risk (with at least 1 high-risk factor, need for thromboprophylaxis) [11]. All scores were calculated independently by 2 researchers. If any difference in the RCOG score was present, a third researcher recalculated the score.

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of IPMCHH (GKLW-2020-03).

Statistical Analysis

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate the normal distribution. Continuous variables were assessed using the t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical data were analyzed using chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact test. RCOG risk stratification and factors (not included in the RCOG model) that were significantly different according to the univariable analysis were entered into a multivariable logistic regression analysis by stepwise selection. ROC curve analysis, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the predictive value of the RCOG RAM for postpartum VTE, as well as the applicability of the thromboprophylaxis recommended by the RCOG guidelines. A 2-sided P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 22.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and R statistical software version 4.0.2 (packages ‘pROC’, ‘caTools’, ‘rms’, ‘rmda’).

Results

VTE events and the use of anticoagulant

A total of 65 501 women gave birth in our hospital during the study period, and 39 thrombotic events occurred. The incidence of DVT was 0.060% and the incidence of PE was 0.018%. Among the VTE cases, 1 patient was excluded because delivery occurred at less than 28 gestational weeks. Therefore, 38 VTE cases (VTE group) and 152 women without VTE (control group) were finally included in this study (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Flow chart.

Two women in the control group used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) during pregnancy, one due to significant elevation in D-dimer and the other due to a history of 3 spontaneous abortions. In the VTE group, 1 woman with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) used unfractionated heparin prenatally. Three women with antenatal DVT used LMWH during pregnancy, and the thrombus was dissolved before delivery. Among the 190 women, only the 3 with antenatal DVT used LMWH for thromboprophylaxis after delivery. Details of the VTE events are shown in Supplementary Table 2. Table 1 shows the comparison of socio-demographic characteristics of the women in the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in BMI, educational level, and occupation between the 2 groups. Significant differences in age (P=0.006) and birthplace (P=0.024) were observed.
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of women in the VTE group and control group.

VariableVTE group*n=38Control group*n=152χ2/tp Value
Age, year33.92±1.6531.40±0.663.230.006
BMI, kg/m222.78±0.9721.88±0.561.470.144
Birthplace5.130.024
 Shanghai23 (60.53)61 (40.13)
 Outside of Shanghai15 (39.47)91 (59.87)
Educational level4.410.111
 University or above20 (52.63)103 (67.76)
 High school13 (34.21)41 (26.97)
 Middle school or lower5 (13.16)8 (5.26)
Occupation2.260.133
 Employed32 (84.21)142 (93.42)
 Unemployed6 (15.79)10 (6.58)

VTE – venous thromboembolism; BMI – body mass index.

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage).

Univariable Analysis of Risk Factors in the RCOG RAM

Risk factors contained in the RCOG RAM were compared between the 2 groups (Table 2). We found that the proportions of women in the VTE group with previous VTE (P=0.001), a family history of VTE (P=0.010), known low-risk thrombophilia (P=0.014), age >35 (P=0.007), smoking habit (P=0.046), multiple pregnancy (P=0.025), cesarean section in labor (P<0.001), and surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperium (P=0.004) were higher than those in the control group. Other risk factors showed no significant differences between the 2 groups.
Table 2

Risk factors for postpartum VTE contained in the RCOG risk assessment model.

Variable*VTE group**n=38Control group**n=152χ2p Value
Pre-existing risk factors
 Previous VTE not related to major surgery4 (10.53)0 (0.00)10.350.001
 Medical comorbidities2 (5.26)3 (1.97)1.190.276
 Family history of VTE8 (21.05)10 (6.58)6.680.010
 Known low-risk thrombophilia4 (10.53)2 (1.32)6.030.014
 Age >35 years14 (36.84)25 (16.45)7.330.007
 Obesity0.050.978
  BMI ≥301 (2.63)5 (3.29)
  BMI ≥400 (0.00)1 (0.66)
 Parity >31 (2.63)4 (2.63)0.001.000
 Smoker3 (7.89)2 (1.32)3.990.046
 Gross varicose veins1 (2.63)1 (0.66)0.970.324
Obstetric risk factors
 Pre-eclampsia2 (5.26)10 (6.58)0.090.766
 Multiple pregnancy4 (10.53)3 (1.97)5.030.025
 Cesarean section in labor18 (47.37)20 (13.16)19.46<0.001
 Elective cesarean section17 (44.74)71 (46.71)0.050.827
 Mid-cavity or rotational operative delivery0 (0.00)9 (5.92)1.230.267
 Prolonged labor (>24 hours)0 (0.00)3 (1.97)0.001.000
 PPH (>1 litre or transfusion)1 (2.63)5 (3.29)0.040.836
 Preterm birth <37+0 weeks4 (10.53)5 (3.29)3.170.075
Transient risk factors
 Surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperium6 (15.79)4 (2.63)8.250.004
 Current systemic infection4 (10.53)7 (4.61)1.850.174
 Immobility, dehydration2 (5.26)2 (1.32)1.970.161

VTE – venous thromboembolism; BMI – body mass index; PPH – postpartum hemorrhage.

Previous VTE provoked by major surgery, known high-risk thrombophilia, stillbirth, and hyperemesis are also factors contained in the RCOG risk assessment model, but they did not exist in our study population, thus they are not included in the table.

data are presented as number (percentage).

Among the 190 women, the most common risk factors were elective cesarean section (88/190), age >35 years (39/190), cesarean section in labor (38/190), and family history of VTE (18/190).

Risk Scoring and Risk Stratification Based on the RCOG RAM

Table 3 shows that the RCOG scores of women in the VTE group were much higher than that of the control group (3.74±0.74 vs 1.49±0.22, P<0.001). A difference in risk stratification was also found between the 2 groups (P<0.001). The univariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk of postpartum VTE was 9.75-fold greater in the intermediate-risk group, and 90.00-fold greater in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. Meanwhile, as the RCOG score increased, the risk of developing postpartum VTE increased almost linearly (Figure 2).
Table 3

RCOG risk score and risk level of women in the VTE group and control group.

VTE groupn=38Control groupn=152OR95% CIp Value
Score (mean±SD)3.74±0.741.49±0.222.04[1.57, 2.64]<0.001
Risk level, n (%)<0.001
 Low risk4 (10.53)90 (59.21)Reference
 Intermediate risk26 (68.42)60 (39.47)9.75[3.24, 29.36]
 High risk8 (21.05)2 (1.32)90.00[14.22, 569.52]

VTE – venous thromboembolism; SD – standard deviation; OR – odd ratio; CI – confidence interval.

Figure 2

The distribution of the women in each score segment according to the RCOG assessment model. (A) Histogram of RCOG score (n=190). (B) Rates of VTE in each RCOG score segment.

The ROC curve analysis determined that the AUC of the RCOG RAM was 0.828 (95% CI: 0.762–0.894, Figure 3A), and the Youden index was 0.50, with the best cut-off value being 2, which exactly matches the cut-off value recommended by the RCOG guidelines for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after delivery. The sensitivity of the model was 89.47%, and its specificity was 60.53%. The positive predictive value was 36.17%, and the negative predictive value was 95.83%. In addition, the calibration plot showed good agreement between the prediction of the RCOG RAM and actual observation of VTE events (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p=0.214, see Figure 3B). The DCA also showed a certain net benefit value when the threshold probability is between 0.05–0.74 and 0.87–0.99, indicating that clinical decisions based on the predicted result of this model can benefit patients (Figure 3C).
Figure 3

ROC curve, calibration plot and DCA of the RCOG risk assessment model. (A) ROC curve of the RCOG RAM. The AUC was 0.828 (95% CI: 0.762–0.894), and the Youden index was 0.50. (B) Calibration plot of the RCOG RAM. The apparent (thin dotted line) and bias-corrected (black solid line) nonparametric smoothed calibration curves are shown. (C) DCA of the RCOG RAM. The gray and black solid lines represent the net benefit of the strategy of treating all patients and no patients, respectively.

Univariable Analysis of Other Clinical Dactors and D-dimer

Other factors that might be associated with postpartum VTE were also analyzed. We found that endometriosis (P=0.024), a family history of diabetes (P=0.010), recurrent pregnancy loss (P=0.024), glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy (P=0.004), previous use of oral contraceptive pills (P=0.005), and intrauterine devices (P=0.001) for contraception were more common in women with postpartum VTE, while the previous use of condoms, calendar rhythm method, or withdrawal method for contraception (P=0.009) was more common in the control group (Table 4). Women in the VTE group had significantly higher D-dimer levels before delivery, and on the first and third day after delivery (P<0.05, Table 4).
Table 4

Other clinical features and D-dimer of women in the VTE group and control group.

VariableVTE group*n=38Control group*n=152χ2/Zp Value
Reproductive history
 Gravidity3.200.202
  115 (39.47)80 (52.63)
  210 (26.32)40 (26.32)
  ≥313 (34.21)32 (21.05)
 Number of spontaneous abortions7.420.024
  031 (81.58)127 (83.55)
  12 (5.26)21 (13.82)
  ≥25 (13.16)4 (2.63)
 Number of voluntary termination of pregnancy1.170.559
 028 (73.68)113 (74.34)
 16 (15.79)30 (19.74)
 ≥24 (10.53)9 (5.92)
Gynecologic history
 Endometriosis5 (13.16)5 (3.29)5.110.024
 PCOS1 (2.63)6 (3.95)0.150.702
Previous contraceptive use
 Never/condoms/calendar rhythm method/withdrawal method24 (63.16)126 (82.89)6.770.009
 Oral contraceptive pills13 (34.21)21 (13.82)8.040.005
 IUD7 (18.42)3 (1.97)11.340.001
Obstetric characteristics
 ART5 (13.16)19 (12.50)0.010.913
 Progesterone therapy during early pregnancy13 (34.21)36 (23.68)1.740.187
 Glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy7 (18.42)6 (3.95)8.330.004
 GDM8 (21.05)33 (21.71)0.010.930
 Gestational hypertension5 (13.16)13 (8.55)0.740.390
Family history
 Family history of diabetes8 (21.05)10 (6.58)6.680.010
 Family history of hypertension8 (21.05)30 (19.74)0.030.856
D-dimer
 D-dimer at 12 weeks (mg/ml)0.67 (0.50–0.99)0.66 (0.50–0.79)0.300
 D-dimer at 34 weeks (mg/ml)1.29 (0.94–1.72)1.16 (0.88–1.74)0.305
 D-dimer before delivery (mg/ml)2.13 (1.32–3.15)1.72 (1.17–2.66)0.043
 D-dimer at 1st day after delivery (mg/ml)4.86 (3.36–7.11)3.74 (2.53–5.13)0.006
 D-dimer at 3rd day after delivery (mg/ml)2.71 (1.65–4.09)1.99 (1.38–2.74)0.008

VTE – venous thromboembolism; PCOS – polycystic ovarian syndrome; IUD – intrauterine device; ART – assisted reproductive technology; GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus.

Data are presented as number (percentage) or median (interquartile range).

Multivariable Analysis

RCOG risk stratification and factors (not included in the RCOG model) found to be significantly different in the univariable analysis were further entered into a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The results show that RCOG intermediate risk (adjusted OR=8.39, 95% CI: 2.64–26.60), RCOG high risk (adjusted OR=118.23, 95% CI: 18.05–774.46), previous use of IUD (adjusted OR=7.11, 95% CI: 1.45–34.93), and glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy (adjusted OR=6.72, 95% CI: 1.56–28.91) were associated with elevated risk of postpartum VTE (Table 5).
Table 5

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of risk factors for postpartum VTE.

Adjusted OR95% CIp Value
RCOG risk level<0.001
 Low riskReference
 Intermediate risk8.39[2.64, 26.60]
 High risk118.23[18.05, 774.46]
IUD0.016
 NoReference
 Yes7.11[1.45, 34.93]
Glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy0.010
 NoReference
 Yes6.72[1.56, 28.91]

VTE – venous thromboembolism; IUD – intrauterine device; OR – odd ratio; CI – confidence interval.

Discussion

The RCOG risk assessment model is one of the most complex scales for pregnancy-related VTE. Since its first publication in 2004, it has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the maternal mortality rate from PE in the UK [11], but its applicability in Chinese maternity care is uncertain. The traditional conception is that Asian people have a relatively low risk of VTE compared with people in Western countries [14]. As the data used to establish the RCOG model were obtained from Western countries, it is worrying that the use of RCOG RAM in China might lead to the overestimation of VTE risk as well as the overuse of LMWH. Several domestic studies have compared the RCOG RAM and other VTE scoring models not specifically designed for pregnant women. Liang et al found that the discrimination and accuracy of the Wells score were better than that of the RCOG RAM, but they used the 2009 version of the RCOG model [15]. At the same time, Zhang et al came up with an opposite result [16]. Moreover, a prospective observational study has been carried out in Beijing to evaluate the feasibility of the RCOG RAM [17]. In our case-control study, we found that the RCOG RAM could screen out the majority of patients who eventually developed postpartum VTE (34/38), and for those assessed as low-risk by the model, nearly 96% would not develop VTE (90/94). Therefore, this model has a clear predictive value for postpartum VTE in Chinese women. During its application in other Asian countries, it was found that the RCOG RAM might lead to the overuse of anticoagulant drugs in women who are less likely to develop postpartum VTE. A retrospective study in Malaysia suggested that 30.62% of postpartum women without VTE met the criteria for thromboprophylaxis [18]. Our study reached a similar conclusion. Currently, the main concerns for the large-scale use of LMWH are its high price and the increased risk of hemorrhage and poor wound healing. However, compared with other anticoagulants such as heparin, LMWH is much safer [19]. Some studies have also confirmed that the use of LMWH does not increase the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and wound complications [20,21]. In view of the fatal consequences of VTE, it is critical to ensure that as many women as possible with potential risks of VTE receive anticoagulation treatment. In our study, elective cesarean section, age >35 years, cesarean section in labor, and family history of VTE were the most common risk factors for postpartum VTE. Therefore, to reduce the incidence of VTE events, we strongly recommended that efforts should be made to prevent cesarean sections without indication and to avoid pregnancy in advanced age. We also found that in addition to the factors already contained in the RCOG RAM, previous use of IUD and glucocorticoid therapy during pregnancy might also increase the risk of postpartum VTE. IUDs containing levonorgestrel (Mirena) are thought to increase the risk of VTE, but a copper IUD seems to be a safe alternative for contraception, even for people with a history of DVT or PE [22,23]. However, we surprisingly found that previous use of a copper IUD might increase the risk of postpartum VTE. Among the 7 women who had used IUD in the VTE group, only 1 used Mirena, and the rest used copper IUDs. Previous studies have not detected changes in coagulation-related parameters in IUD users, but the placement of an IUD has been shown to cause abnormal uterine bleeding by elevating fibrinolysis [24], which might cause further potential abnormalities in coagulation function that lead to thrombosis during pregnancy and the peripartum period. Furthermore, extensive microthrombosis in stromal capillaries has been observed in the endometrium in contact with an IUD [25]. The main purpose of using glucocorticoids during pregnancy is to promote fetal lung maturity in women who are at risk of preterm birth, or to treat thrombocytopenia during pregnancy. The use of glucocorticoids can cause the increased circulation level of fibrinogen, Factor VII, Factor VIII, and other hemostatic components [26]. Previous epidemiological studies also found that the use of systemic glucocorticoids can increase the risk of VTE by up to 3 times [27]. However, in the currently widely used risk assessment models for VTE, whether designed for pregnant women or not, the use of glucocorticoids is not regarded as a risk factor [10]. Therefore, it is recommended that clinicians strengthen the prevention and treatment of VTE in women who use glucocorticoids. To our knowledge, this study is one of the few to assess the applicability of the RCOG RAM in China, and contains a relatively large number of VTE cases. At the same time, our study also has some limitations. Due to the low prevalence of postpartum VTE and the single-center design, although we enrolled all VTE cases within 4 years, the number of VTE events was relatively small. Additionally, the retrospective study design may limit the interpretation of the results and make it difficult to establish causal conclusions. To solve these problems, a prospective, large-sample, multicenter study will be required in the future. As far as we know, a large prospective observational study on the applicability of the RCOG RAM in Chinese women has already been carried out in Beijing, and the researchers hope to revise the model based on the study results to make it more suitable for Chinese population [17]. We hope that this study can provide a reference for the use of the RCOG RAM in Chinese maternity care, and provide valuable experience for subsequent large-scale studies.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the RCOG RAM is effective in identifying women who were at risk of postpartum VTE, and that following the thromboprophylaxis methods recommended by the RCOG guidelines can effectively reduce the risk of VTE. But at the same time, we found that previous use of IUD and use of glucocorticoid during pregnancy might also increase the risk of postpartum VTE. Therefore, for the better prevention of pregnancy-related VTE, a risk assessment model based on national data needs to be established in the future. The RCOG risk assessment model for VTE. VTE – venous thromboembolism; BMI – body mass index; ART – assisted reproductive technology; IVF – in vitro fertilization; PPH – postpartum hemorrhage. Risk factors with score ≥4 are considered as high-risk factor; risk factors with score of 2–3 are considered as intermediate-risk factors; risk factors with score of 1 are considered as low-risk factors. ART/IVF is regarded as a risk factor for antenatal VTE, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is regarded as a risk factor for VTE only in the first trimester. VTE events. VTE – venous thromboembolism; DVT – deep venous thrombosis; PE – pulmonary embolism; APS – antiphospholipid syndrome; LMWH – low-molecular-weight heparin. “Confirmed Time” refers to the time of initial diagnosis of VTE before and/or after delivery. Day 2, Day 3, etc. indicate the second or third day, respectively, after childbirth. Artificial reproductive technology/in vitro fertilization and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome are risk factors for VTE antenatally, so they are not included in this table for postpartum VTE assessment.
Supplementary Table 1

The RCOG risk assessment model for VTE.

Risk factors for VTEScore*
Pre-existing risk factors
 Previous VTE (except a single event related to major surgery)4
 Previous VTE provoked by major surgery3
 Known high-risk thrombophilia3
 Medical comorbidities (e.g. cancer, heart failure; active systemic lupus erythematosus, Inflammatory polyarthropathy or inflammatory bowel disease; nephrotic syndrome; type I diabetes mellitus with nephropathy; sickle cell disease; current intravenous drug user)3
 Family history of unprovoked or estrogen-related VTE in first-degree relative1
 Known low-risk thrombophilia (no VTE)1
 Age (>35 years)1
 Obesity
  BMI ≥301
  BMI ≥402
  Parity ≥31
 Smoker1
 Gross varicose veins1
Obstetric risk factors
 Pre-eclampsia in current pregnancy1
 ART/IVF (antenatal only)**1
 Multiple pregnancy1
 Cesarean section in labor2
 Elective cesarean section1
 Mid-cavity or rotational operative delivery1
 Prolonged labor (>24 hours)1
 PPH (>1 litre or transfusion)1
 Preterm birth <37+0 weeks in current pregnancy1
 Stillbirth in current pregnancy1
Transient risk factors
Any surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperium except immediate repair of the perineum, e.g. appendicectomy, postpartum sterilisation3
Hyperemesis3
OHSS (first trimester only)**4
Current systemic infection1
Immobility, dehydration1

VTE – venous thromboembolism; BMI – body mass index; ART – assisted reproductive technology; IVF – in vitro fertilization; PPH – postpartum hemorrhage.

Risk factors with score ≥4 are considered as high-risk factor; risk factors with score of 2–3 are considered as intermediate-risk factors; risk factors with score of 1 are considered as low-risk factors.

ART/IVF is regarded as a risk factor for antenatal VTE, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is regarded as a risk factor for VTE only in the first trimester.

Supplementary Table 2

VTE events.

PatientVTE eventConfirmed time*RCOG scoreRisk factor**Anticoagulant during pregnancy
1DVT (both)Day 25Age >35 years, elective caesarean section, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumNo
2DVT (left)Day 21Elective caesarean sectionNo
3DVT (right) +PEDay 38Previous VTE (PE during puerperium), family history of VTE, age >35 years, elective caesarean section, preterm birthNo
4DVT (both) +PEDay 23Caesarean section in labour, immobilityNo
5DVT (left) +PEDay 22Smoker, elective caesarean sectionNo
6DVT (left)Day 46Low-risk thrombophilia (APS), age >35 years, elective caesarean section, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumHeparin since 1st trimester
7DVT (left)Day 35Family history of VTE, age >35 years, BMI >30, gross varicose veins, elective caesarean sectionNo
8DVT (left) +PEDay 33Age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
9DVT (both) +PEDay 21Elective caesarean sectionNo
10DVT (both)Day 24Medical comorbidities, elective caesarean sectionNo
11DVT (both)Day 34Elective caesarean section, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumNo
12DVT (both)10+ weeks, Day 25Smoker, previous VTE (DVT found in 1st trimester in this pregnancy)LMWH since 1st trimester
13DVT (left)Day 32Family history of VTE, elective caesarean sectionNo
14DVT (both)Day 22Caesarean section in labourNo
15DVT (right)Day 26Age >35 years, current systemic infection, caesarean section in labour, preterm birth, immobilityNo
16DVT (both)Day 32Caesarean section in labourNo
17DVT (left)Day 33Age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
18DVT (right)Day 25Age >35 years, elective caesarean section, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumNo
19DVT (both) +PE7+ weeks, Day 36Previous VTE (non-surgical DVT, and DVT found in 1st trimester in this pregnancy), family history of VTE, low-risk thrombophilia (APS)LMWH since 1st trimester
20DVT (left)Day 24Family history of VTE, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section in labourNo
21DVT (left)Day 43Low-risk thrombophilia (APS), caesarean section in labourNo
22DVT (left)Day 34Smoker, age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
23DVT (left) +PEDay 32Caesarean section in labourNo
24DVT (left) +PEDay 23Age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
25DVT (left) +PEDay 22Family history of VTE, elective caesarean sectionNo
26DVT (left)Day 31Elective caesarean sectionNo
27DVT (left) +PEDay 32Multiple pregnancy, elective caesarean sectionNo
28DVT (right) +PEDay 410Age >35 years, pre-eclampsia, multiple pregnancy, caesarean section in labour, PPH, preterm birth, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumNo
29DVT (both)Day 23Age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
30DVT (left)Day 55Age >35 years, parity >3, caesarean section in labour, current systemic infectionNo
31DVT (left)Day 23Medical comorbiditiesNo
32DVT (both)30+weeks, Day 211Previous VTE (prenatal DVT in this pregnancy), low-risk thrombophilia (APS), family history of VTE, multiple pregnancy, elective caesarean section, surgical procedure in pregnancy or puerperiumLMWH since 3rd trimester
33DVT (left) +PEDay 33Age >35 years, caesarean section in labourNo
34DVT (left)Day 31Elective caesarean sectionNo
35DVT (left)Day 63Multiple pregnancy, elective caesarean section, preterm birthNo
36DVT (left)Day 43Caesarean section in labour, current systemic infectionNo
37DVT (right)Day 23Caesarean section in labour, current systemic infectionNo
38DVT (right)Day 23Family history of VTE, caesarean section in labourNo

VTE – venous thromboembolism; DVT – deep venous thrombosis; PE – pulmonary embolism; APS – antiphospholipid syndrome; LMWH – low-molecular-weight heparin.

“Confirmed Time” refers to the time of initial diagnosis of VTE before and/or after delivery. Day 2, Day 3, etc. indicate the second or third day, respectively, after childbirth.

Artificial reproductive technology/in vitro fertilization and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome are risk factors for VTE antenatally, so they are not included in this table for postpartum VTE assessment.

  24 in total

1.  Fibrinolytic activity in bleeding associated with intrauterine contraceptive devices.

Authors:  A Khanna; A K Biswas; B Dubey; A K Khanna
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 2.  Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Lindsay Robertson; Lauren E Jones
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-02-09

Review 3.  Thrombosis in pregnancy: updates in diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Ian A Greer
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2012

4.  Postpartum thromboprophylaxis in a multireligious cohort: a retrospective review of indications and uptake.

Authors:  Hian Yan Voon; Ming Cheng Chai; Ling Yien Hii; Rafaie Amin; Haris Njoo Suharjono
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 5.  Pregnancy-associated thrombosis.

Authors:  Andra H James
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2009

6.  Intrauterine devices: an effective alternative to oral hormonal contraception.

Authors: 
Journal:  Prescrire Int       Date:  2009-06

Review 7.  Pulmonary embolism and amniotic fluid embolism in pregnancy.

Authors:  Matthew C Brennan; Lisa E Moore
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.844

8.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 196: Thromboembolism in Pregnancy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Application of the Caprini Risk Assessment Model for Evaluating Postoperative Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients Undergoing Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Authors:  Hiroki Yago; Takashi Yamaki; Yumiko Sasaki; Kento Homma; Takatoshi Mizobuchi; Yuki Hasegawa; Atsuyoshi Osada; Hiroyuki Sakurai
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 1.466

10.  Establishment of a risk assessment tool for pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism and its clinical application: protocol for a prospective observational study in Beijing.

Authors:  Yi Chen; Yan Dai; Jing Song; Ling Wei; Ying Ma; Ning Tian; Qian Wang; Qian Zhang; Yue Zhang; Xiao Lan Wang; Jun Zhang; Rong Liu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 3.007

View more
  1 in total

1.  Development of a risk assessment scale for perinatal venous thromboembolism in Chinese women using a Delphi-AHP approach.

Authors:  Meng Zhang; Meixin Liu; Dawei Wang; Yan Wang; Wenhua Zhang; Hanxu Yang; Junshuang Zhang; Qiuyi Li; Zhenqing Guo
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 3.105

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.