Thrombosis and Bleeding Risk Scores Are Strongly Associated with Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: Internationally established guidelines mention pharmacological prophylaxis for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, there are concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants. This study investigated the associations between thrombosis/bleeding risk scores and clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to two hospitals between 2021 and 2022. We analyzed clinical data, laboratory results, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) use, thrombosis, bleeding, and 30-day survival. Results: Of the 160 patients, 69.4% were female, and the median age was 59 years. The rates of thrombotic complications and mortality were 12.5% and 36.3%, respectively. LMWH prophylaxis was administered to 73 of the patients (45.6%). The patients with high Padua prediction scores (PPS) and high IMPROVEVTE scores had a significantly higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to those with low scores (30.8% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.006 and 25.6% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.006). Similarly, elevated IMPROVEVTE and IMPROVEBRS scores were associated with increased mortality (hazard ratios of 7.49 and 6.27, respectively; p < 0.001). Interestingly, LMWH use was not associated with a decreased incidence of VTE when stratified by risk groups. Conclusions: this study suggests that COVID-19 patients with high thrombosis and bleeding risk scores have a higher mortality rate.

[Application of Padua prediction score and serum albumin level in evaluating venous thromboembolism in rheumatic inpatients].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the status of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in rheumatic inpatients, and to explore the efficiency of Padua prediction score (PPS) in the patient population. In addition, to analyze the relationship between serum albumin and VTE in rheumatic inpatients. METHODS: Data of inpatients with rheumatology were retrospectively collected and analyzed at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from September 2018 to September 2019. Occurrence of VTE was compared between high (PPS≥4) and low (PPS < 4) risk groups. PPS were analyzed in the VTE and non-VTE patients. Multivariate Logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors in PPS and the relationship between serum albumin and VTE. RESULTS: A total of 1 547 patients were included in this study, and 27 (1.7%) had symptomatic VTE. Among the symptomatic VTE cases, 19 (1.2%) had deep vein thrombosis (DVT) only, 6 (0.4%) had pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) only, and 2 (0.1%) were diagnosed with DVT and PTE. PPS in the VTE and non-VTE groups were 3.33±1.78 and 1.80±0.97 respectively (P < 0.05).The number of patients with PPS≥4 in the VTE group and non-VTE group was 37.0% and 4.3% respectively (P < 0.01). The average serum albumin level in the VTE group was lower than that in non-VTE group [(29.79±6.36) g/L vs. (35.17±6.31) g/L, P < 0.001]. Seventy-six cases was divided into high-risk group of VTE, while 1 471 cases were in the low-risk group, and the incidence of VTE was 13.2% and 1.2% respectively (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that ongoing hormonal treatment, age≥70 years, trauma and/or surgery ≤30 d, reduced mobility and previous VTE were risk factors of VTE in the rheumatology patients, OR values were 7.11, 7.07, 3.40, 2.40 and 2.00, respectively. Lower serum albumin level was the risk factor of VTE in the rheumatology patients [OR=0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.94)]. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VTE was relatively higher in the hospitalized patients in Department of Rheumatology and Immunology. Glucocorticoid therapy was the highest risk factor of VTE and lower serum albumin level also was the risk factor. Although the PPS can reflect the risk of VTE in rheumatic inpatients to some extent, its effectiveness is limited. PPS can be optimized for quantitative VTE risk assessment of rheumatic inpatients in the future.

Superior Predictive Value of D-Dimer to the Padua Prediction Score for Venous Thromboembolism in Inpatients with AECOPD: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: The optimal tool for risk prediction of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate whether D-dimer could predict the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD compared to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). Methods: Inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers in China between December 2018 and June 2020. On admission, D-dimer was detected, PPS was calculated for each patient, and the incidence of 2-month VTE was investigated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of D-dimer and PPS on VTE development, and the best cut-off value for both methods was evaluated through the Youden index. Results: Among the 4468 eligible patients with AECOPD, 90 patients (2.01%) developed VTE within 2 months after admission. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of D-dimer for predicting VTE were significantly higher than those of the PPS both in the overall cohort (0.724, 95% CI 0.672-0.776 vs 0.620, 95% CI 0.562-0.679; P<0.05) and the subgroup of patients without thromboprophylaxis (0.747, 95% CI 0.695-0.799 vs 0.640, 95% CI 0.582-0.698; P<0.05). By calculating the Youden Index, the best cut-off value of D-dimer was determined to be 0.96 mg/L with an AUC of 0.689, which was also significantly better than that of the PPS with the best cut-off value of 2 (AUC 0.581, P=0.007). After the combination of D-dimer with PPS, the AUC (0.621) failed to surpass D-dimer alone (P=0.104). Conclusion: D-dimer has a superior predictive value for VTE over PPS in inpatients with AECOPD, which might be a better choice to guide thromboprophylaxis in inpatients with AECOPD due to its effectiveness and convenience. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trail Registry NO. ChiCTR2100044625; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=121626.

Incidence of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis in medical patients admitted to specialized hospital in Ethiopia using Padua prediction score.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism is a major cause of mortality and morbidity among hospitalized patients and thromboprophylaxis is one of the key strategies to reduce such events. We aimed to assess venous thromboembolism risk using Padua prediction score, thromboprophylaxis practice, and outcomes in hospitalized medical patients at Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 219 patients admitted to Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital from 1 December 2018 to 31 May 2019. Data were collected from patients' medical records using a pre-tested data abstraction format to collect patients' clinical information and venous thromboembolism risk using the Padua prediction score. We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26 for data analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the findings, and binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess association between the variables of interest. RESULTS: Reduced mobility, recent trauma and/or surgery, heart and/or respiratory failure, and active cancer were the frequently identified venous thromboembolism risk factors. Based on Padua prediction score, 48.4% of patients were at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. The venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was given only for 55 (25.1%) patients and 15 of them were at low risk of developing venous thromboembolism (<4 Padua score) and were ineligible for thromboprophylaxis. Fifteen (6.84%) patients developed venous thromboembolism events during their stay at the hospital and 80% of them were from high risk group. The odds of females to develop venous thromboembolism were more than 14 times higher (adjusted odds ratio = 14.51; 95% confidence interval: 2.52-83.39, p = 0.003) than males. Reduced mobility (adjusted odds ratio = 10.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.70-58.70), <1 month trauma and/or surgery (adjusted odds ratio = 18.93; 95% confidence interval: 2.30-155.56), active cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 6.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.05-34.27), chronic kidney diseases (adjusted odds ratio = 61.790; 95% confidence interval: 2.627-1453.602), and hypertension (adjusted odds ratio = 7.270; 95% confidence interval: 1.105-47.835) were significantly associated with the risk of developing venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients were at risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Underutilization of thromboprophylaxis and inappropriate use of prophylaxis were commonly seen in Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital.

Risk assessment of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly recognized illness that has spread rapidly all over the world. More and more reports highlight the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19. Our study aims to identify in-hospital VTE risk and bleeding risk in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 138 consecutively enrolled patients with COVID-19 and identified in-hospital VTE and bleeding risk by Padua Prediction Score and Improve bleed risk assessment model. The clinical data and features were analyzed in VTE patients. RESULTS: Our findings identified that 23 (16.7%) patients with COVID-19 were at high risk for VTE according to Padua prediction score and 9 (6.5%) patients were at high risk of bleeding for VTE prophylaxis according to Improve prediction score. Fifteen critically ill patients faced double high risk from thrombosis (Padua score more than 4 points in all 15 [100%] patients) and hemorrhage (Improve score more than 7 points in 9 [60.0%] patients). Thrombotic events were identified in four patients (2.9%) of all COVID-19 patients. All of them were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis by ultrasound 3 to 18 days after admission. Three (75.0%) were critically ill patients, which means that the incidence of VTE among critically ill patients was 20%. One major hemorrhage happened in critically ill patients during VTE treatment. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered both a high risk of thrombosis and bleeding risks. More effective VTE prevention strategies based on an individual assessment of bleeding risks were necessary for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Prevalence, risk, and outcome of deep vein thrombosis in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a group of heterogeneous diseases characterized by acute hypoxemia. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 225 adults with ARDS admitted to the Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2020. We analyzed clinical, laboratory, and echocardiography data for groups with and without DVT and for direct (pulmonary) and indirect (extrapulmonary) ARDS subgroups. RESULTS: Ninety (40.0%) patients developed DVT. Compared with the non-DVT group, patients with DVT were older, had lower serum creatinine levels, lower partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen, higher serum procalcitonin levels, higher Padua prediction scores, and higher proportions of sedation and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Multivariate analysis showed an association between age, serum creatinine level, IMV, and DVT in the ARDS cohort. The sensitivity and specificity of corresponding receiver operating characteristic curves were not inferior to those of the Padua prediction score and the Caprini score for screening for DVT in the three ARDS cohorts. Patients with DVT had a significantly lower survival rate than those without DVT in the overall ARDS cohort and in the groups with direct and indirect ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of DVT is high in patients with ARDS. The risk factors for DVT are age, serum creatinine level, and IMV. DVT is associated with decreased survival in patients with ARDS.

Quality gap in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practices in inpatients: Assessment of prophylaxis practices in a University Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent complication of inpatient care, causing high burden of morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis reduces the events; thus, these practices are promoted. We aimed to assess the VTE prophylaxis practices in the general internal medicine wards of a tertiary-care university hospital and utilize these data to propose quality improvement projects. OBJECTIVE: Assess the pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis utilization by using the Padua Prediction Score and demonstrate the main determinants of inappropriate prophylaxis use. METHODS: Electronic medical records were used to collect data cross-sectionally from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019. Padua Prediction Score was used to assess the appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis. Underlying health conditions, hospitalization causes, anti-platelets and use of glucocorticoids were also assessed as confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included. Higher proportion of patients who received VTE prophylaxis were obese and had higher rates of diabetes and coronary artery disease. Prophylaxis was more commonly utilized among patients who were elderly, obese, having an acute infection and/or rheumatologic disorder and prolonged bed rest (P ≤ 0.001, P = 0.01, P = 0.22 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively). Thirty-five patients (11.8%) received VTE prophylaxis, despite 89 patients (30.2%) were high-risk patients. In the high-risk group (n = 89), 27 patients (30.3%) received appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis, while 8 patients (3.9%) received VTE prophylaxis in the low-risk group (total n = 206). A considerable percentage of the high-risk population (69.6%) did not receive VTE prophylaxis. DISCUSSION: Underuse constitutes a major challenge in our hospital but differing from other institutions, overuse is not a significant issue. Further studies are needed whether VTE prophylaxis improvement implementations uniformly increase appropriate VTE use.

A case of non-severe COVID-19 complicated by pulmonary embolism.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is rapidly spreading worldwide. A typical clinical manifestation of COVID-19 is pneumonia, which can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome and respiratory failure. Recent studies have reported that COVID-19 is often accompanied by coagulopathy, and a significant number of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 develop concomitant thrombosis, including pulmonary embolism (PE). However, there are limited reports of the incidence of PE in non-severe COVID-19 patients. Here, we report a case of non-severe COVID-19 complicated by PE, which indicates that the possibility of PE should consistently be considered, even in non-severe cases of COVID-19 without any risk of thrombosis.

Padua prediction score and IMPROVE score do predict in-hospital mortality in Internal Medicine patients.

Padua prediction score (PPS) and IMPROVE bleeding score are validated tools for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment recommended by guidelines, albeit not frequently used. Some data suggest that a positive PPS and IMPROVE score may be were associated with early mortality in Internal Medicine patients. Aim of the study was to characterize the predictive ability on mortality of the two scores using two different populations, respectively, as derivation and validation cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 1956 Internal Medicine patients admitted to La Spezia Hospital in 2013. 399 Internal Medicine patients admitted to Carate Brianza Hospital in 2016 constituted the validation cohort. PPS and IMPROVE scores were applied to each patient using their validated cutoffs. Frequency of positive PPS and mortality were significantly higher in La Spezia patients. In the derivation cohort, the positivity of at least one of the two scores was associated with a significantly higher mortality compared to both negative scores. Similar results were observed in the validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, the sensitivity of a positive PPS score in predicting mortality was 0.97 (0.94, 0.98) but the specificity was 0.21 (0.19, 0.23), the negative likelihood ratio being 0.15. Sensitivity and specificity of a positive IMPROVE gave specular findings but the positive likelihood ratio was 2.19. The accuracy data in the validation cohort were in the same direction. Both PPS and IMPROVE are associated with in-hospital mortality but their additional predictive accuracy is modest. It is unlikely that both scores could be useful in clinical practice to predict death in hospitalized Internal Medicine patients.

Comparison of a novel predictor of venous thromboembolic complications in inflammatory bowel disease with current predictors.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of the present study was to identify predictors of VTE in hospitalized patients with IBD. METHODS: Patients with IBD who were hospitalized from February 2015 to March 2016 at the Chiba University Hospital were included. VTE was detected using enhanced computed tomography, and VTE onset within 2 months after admission was assessed. Predictors of VTE onset were investigated with clinical factors during hospitalization. Availability of the Caprini risk assessment model and Padua prediction score at the time of admission was also assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients with IBD were hospitalized, and central venous catheters were placed in 43 of the 72 patients. During the observation period, VTE occurred in six patients (8.3%); however, none died as a result of the condition. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis identified D-dimer values on admission as a risk factor that was highly associated with VTE onset (hazard ratio = 1.590; 95% confidence interval, 1.132-2.233; P = 0.007) and significantly predicted the occurrence of VTE using the receiver operating characteristic curve (P = 0.005, area under the curve = 0.893). However, Caprini risk assessment model and Padua prediction scores were not useful tools for predicting VTE onset in patients with IBD. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients with IBD, D-dimer values were highly associated with VTE onset. Therefore, measurement of D-dimer values on admission is critical for the management of thromboembolic complications in patients with IBD.

Assessment of the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients using the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini Risk Assessment Model.

AIM: The optimal risk assessment model (RAM) to stratify the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients is not known. We examined and compared how well the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) and the Caprini RAM stratify VTE risk in medical inpatients. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective case-control study among medical inpatients admitted to a large general hospital in China during a 4-year period. In total, 902 cases were confirmed to have VTE during hospitalization and 902 controls were selected randomly to match cases by medical service. RESULTS: The VTE risk increased significantly with an increase of the cumulative PPS or Caprini RAM score. A PPS and Caprini RAM "high risk" classification was, respectively, associated with a 5.01-fold and 4.10-fold increased VTE risk. However, the Caprini RAM could identify 84.3% of the VTE cases to receive prophylaxis according to American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, whereas the PPS could only identify 49.1% of the VTE cases. In the medical inpatients studied, five risk factors seen more frequently in VTE cases than in controls in the Caprini RAM were not included in the PPS. The Caprini RAM risk levels were linked almost perfectly to in-hospital and 6-month mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Both the PPS and Caprini RAM can be used to stratify the VTE risk in medical inpatients effectively, but the Caprini RAM may be considered as the first choice in a general hospital because of its incorporation of comprehensive risk factors, higher sensitivity to identify patients who may benefit from prophylaxis, and potential for prediction of mortality.

Clinical impact of application of risk assessment models (Padua Prediction Score and Improve Bleeding Score) on venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage and health expenditure associated with pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis: a "real life" prospective and retrospective observational study on patients hospitalized in a Single Internal Medicine Unit (the STIME study).

International guidelines recommend the use of pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The same international guidelines suggest the employment of standardized risk assessment models (RAMs) when evaluating the administration of pharmacological prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. The Padua Prediction Score and the Improve Bleeding Score have been indicated as the best available RAMs to predict thrombotic and haemorrhagic risk in hospitalized medical patients, but it is still unknown whether their combined use may lead to a significant reduction in thrombotic and haemorrhagic events. It is also unclear whether their extensive use can affect to some extent health expenditure associated with pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. The purpose of this single-centre, prospective and retrospective observational study is to investigate these unanswered questions. All patients admitted to our Internal Medicine Department between May 2015 and August 2015, i.e., before the introduction and extensive use of RAMs, were consecutively enrolled (retrospective group). Similarly, all patients admitted between November 2016 and February 2017-once RAMs clinical use became a consolidated practice-have also been consecutively recruited (prospective group). Consecutively, 203 patients were enrolled in the retrospective group and 210 patients were enrolled in the prospective group. Three events of major bleeding and one event of pulmonary embolism were observed in the prospective group; three events of major hemorrhage and two events of pulmonary embolism were observed in the retrospective group (p = not significant). A statistically significant decrease in pharmacological VTE prophylaxis among study groups was detected: 43.3% of prospective group patients and 56.7% of retrospective group patients received pharmacological prophylaxis (p = .028). Overall, 299 drug doses for VTE prophylaxis have been spared after RAMs introduction (p = .0001) and health expenditure decreased by 27.2% (i.e., 1.67 € saved for each single patient). In conclusion, the extensive use of RAMs in our population of hospitalized medical patients did not statistically affect VTE rate or incidence of major bleeding, but it resulted in a significant drop in health expenditure related with pharmacological prophylaxis. Awaiting new clinical trials, a broad use of RAMs may be a safe strategy for reducing health expenditure associated with VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Real-life use of thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized for pulmonary disorders: A single-center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Underuse of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients is still common worldwide. Little is known about the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients with pulmonary diseases in everyday hospital practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the use of pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in real-life patients with pulmonary diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 2 validated scoring systems, i.e., the Padua prediction score and Caprini VTE risk assessment, were used to assess the VTE risk in 2011 patients (1133 men and 878 women), aged 18 years or more, hospitalized for pulmonary diseases (median 6 days) in a single tertiary pulmonary medical center from January to December 2014. RESULTS: Using the Padua prediction score, we identified 428 (21.28%) patients at a high risk for VTE, including 167 (39.01%) who received thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and 261 (60.98%) individuals at a high risk without thromboprophylaxis (p < 0.001). A total of 888 (44.16%) patients who scored 5 points or more using the Caprini VTE risk assessment were identified as subjects at a high risk for VTE, including 34.79% of patients receiving thromboprophylaxis. From among patients at a high risk for VTE, 579 (65.20%) did not receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis (p < 0.001). Underuse of thromboprophylaxis was observed more commonly among patients hospitalized for lung cancer or pneumonia (50.60% and 24.87% of patients at a high risk for VTE without prophylaxis, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis is underutilized in hospitalized patients with pulmonary diseases regardless of the scoring system used. Implementation of thromboprophylaxis should be markedly improved in this patient group.

The venous thromboembolic risk and the clot wave analysis: a useful relationship?

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with acute medical conditions have higher venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. A patient with a final Padua Prediction Score (PPS) of ≥4 is considered to be at high risk for VTE. The aim of this study was to investigate on a possible relationship between PPS, the dynamics of the clot formation, i.e. the clot waveform analysis (CWA) of aPTT, fibrinogen and D-Dimer in a large group of medical patients. METHODS: CWA in terms of velocity (first derivative), acceleration (second derivative), density (Delta) of aPTT, fibrinogen, D-Dimer and PPS for VTE were determined in 801 medical patients divided in three groups (without antithrombotic prophylaxis and high PPS, without antithrombotic prophylaxis and low PPS, with antithrombotic prophylaxis and high PPS) and a group of healthy subjects. RESULTS: CWA, fibrinogen and D-Dimer values were higher in the medical patients with high PPS with or without antithrombotic prophylaxis when compared with patients without antithrombotic prophylaxis with low PPS and healthy subjects. The second derivative, fibrinogen and D-Dimer were significantly associated with a high PPS score (≥4): odds ratio (OR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-2.28; OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.3-2.79; OR = 3.16, 95% CI = 2.29-4.36, respectively. Interactions between first derivative and D-Dimer (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.23-3.72) and first derivative and fibrinogen (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-2.98) were found. CONCLUSIONS: CWA could give useful information to recognize a hypercoagulable state in patients admitted to a medical ward with high and low PPS. First and second derivative aPTT, D-Dimer and fibrinogen levels could be added to PPS to better assess the global thromboembolic risk of these patients.

Validate Padua prediction score′s ability to predict the risk of venous thromboembolism in medical inpatients / 中国实用护理杂志

Objective To explore the Padua risk assessment model for the application of the prevention of VTE in medical inpatients. Methods A cross-sectional surgery research method was used. A total of 3 990 patients were interviewed of a hospital between June and August in 2017. The Padua assessment model was used to screen patients for VTE risk assessment. Results 3990 patients were interviewed, in which,a high VTE risk was found in 757 cases, accounting for 18.97%. The number and ratio of patients with high risk of VTE in Respiration department (158/32.18%), Endocrinology department (48/7.00%), Neurology department (91/20.31%), Nephrology department (102/18.58%), Gastroenterology epartment (41/8.63% ), Cardiology department (139/29.45% ), Hematology department (69/ 17.12% ) and Medical oncology department (109/23.40% ). Patients with high risk VTE in 11 risk factors were (246/32.5% ), (58/7.66% ), (531/70.15% ), (4/0.53% ), (92/12.15% ), (493/64.99% ), (74/9.78% ), (89/11.76% ), (131/17.31% ), (25/3.30% ), (72/9.51% ), two groups compare between age≥70 and <70 was statistically significant (χ2=952.20, P=0.00), two group compare between mobility and reduced mobility was statistically significant (χ2=1832.28, P=0.00). Conclusions Medical inpatients have a high risk of VTE, it is suggested that include VTE in clinical quality evaluation standard, establish an effective system of VTE risk management. The Padua risk assessment model has been easy to use. Some medical department should be special attention, and has been great significance to early screening and prevention.

Characterization of Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Medical Inpatients Using Different Clinical Risk Assessment Models.

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.

La thromboembolie veineuse symptomatique se produit chez environ 1 % des patients dans les trois mois suivant leur admission à un service médical. Des données récentes portant sur la thromboprophylaxie chez une population non sélectionnée de patients hospitalisés ne suggéraient qu'un modeste avantage. Par conséquent, les lignes directrices recommandent une stratification du risque rigoureuse pour guider l'emploi d'une thromboprophylaxie.