Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments.

Emergencias

Departamento de Medicina Interna, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, España. CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Madrid, España. Interdisciplinar Teragnosis and Radiosomics (INTRA) Research Group, Universidad de Navarra, España.

Published: June 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study aimed to compare different risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized patients and examine factors influencing the decision to prescribe preventative treatment in emergency departments.
  • - Researchers included 1,203 patients from 15 emergency departments, using three risk scores: Padua Prediction Score (PPS), IMPROVE score, and NICE score. The agreement between these scores varied, with the PPS and NICE scores showing strong agreement, while the IMPROVE score had weaker correlation with the others.
  • - Key variables associated with prescribing thromboprophylaxis included conditions like acute myocardial infarction and immobility, while factors like recent surgery or trauma and bleeding risks deterred its use. *

Article Abstract

Objective: To evaluate agreement between risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for medical conditions and to analyze variables associated with the decision to prescribe pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Conclusions.

Methods: Prospective observational multicenter cohort study. We included adults attended in 15 hospital EDs who were hospitalized for medical conditions, calculating VTE risk according to the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) score. In addition to assessing interscore concordance, we analyzed variables associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis in the ED.

Results: A total of 1203 patients were included. The PADUA, IMPROVE, and NICE scales assigned high risk scores for 68.7%, 47.4%, and 69.5% of the patients, respectively. The κ statistic for agreement between the PADUA and NICE scores was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); 102 patients (8.5%) had discordant scores. The κ statistics for agreement between the IMPROVE score and the PADUA and NICE classifications were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.33-0.42), respectively; 322 (26.8%) and 384 patients (31.9%), respectively, had discordant scores. Variables associated with starting thromboprophylaxis in the ED were a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.26), immobility in the last 2 months (aOR, 2.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 1.97), ischemic heart disease (aOR, 1.51), reduced mobility of 3 days or longer (aOR, 1.14), body mass index (aOR, 1.04), age (aOR, 1.02), recent trauma or surgery (aOR, 0.40), and risk for bleeding (aOR, 0.56).

Conclusions: There is disagreement among the recommended models for predicting risk for VTE in patients hospitalized for medical conditions. The basis for emergency physicians' clinical judgment regarding thromboprophylaxis extends beyond risk scales to include multiple risk factors for VTE and bleeding.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.55633/s3me/084.2024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

venous thromboembolism
12
hospitalized medical
12
medical conditions
12
variables associated
12
risk scales
8
emergency departments
8
vte patients
8
patients hospitalized
8
improve score
8
score padua
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!