Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients.

Häfliger, Emmanuel; Kopp, Basil; Darbellay Farhoumand, Pauline; Choffat, Damien; Rossel, Jean-Benoît; Reny, Jean-Luc; Aujesky, Drahomir; Méan, Marie; Baumgartner, Christine (2024). Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients. JAMA Network Open, 7(5) American Medical Association 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9980

[img]
Preview
Text
hfliger_2024_oi_240362_1714658012.44612.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY).

Download (1MB) | Preview

IMPORTANCE

Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for medical inpatients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to stratify VTE risk, but a prospective head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively validate an easy-to-use RAM, the simplified Geneva score, and compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cohort study was conducted from June 18, 2020, to January 4, 2022, with a 90-day follow-up. A total of 4205 consecutive adults admitted to the general internal medicine departments of 3 Swiss university hospitals for hospitalization for more than 24 hours due to acute illness were screened for eligibility; 1352 without therapeutic anticoagulation were included.

EXPOSURES

At admission, items of 4 RAMs (ie, the simplified and original Geneva score, the Padua score, and the IMPROVE [International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism] score) were collected. Patients were stratified into high and low VTE risk groups according to each RAM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Symptomatic VTE within 90 days.

RESULTS

Of 1352 medical inpatients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 54-77 years]; 762 men [55.4%]), 28 (2.1%) experienced VTE. Based on the simplified Geneva score, 854 patients (63.2%) were classified as high risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 2.6% (n = 22; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.9%), and 498 patients (36.8%) were classified as low risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 1.2% (n = 6; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%). Sensitivity of the simplified Geneva score was 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%) and specificity was 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.8%); the positive likelihood ratio of the simplified Geneva score was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03-1.52) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.28-1.18). In head-to-head comparisons, sensitivity was highest for the original Geneva score (82.1%; 95% CI, 64.4%-92.1%), while specificity was highest for the IMPROVE score (70.4%; 95% CI, 67.9%-72.8%). After adjusting the VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis use and site, there was no significant difference between the high-risk and low-risk groups based on the simplified Geneva score (subhazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 0.83-5.05]; P = .12) and other RAMs. Discriminative performance was poor for all RAMs, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 53.8% (95% CI, 51.1%-56.5%) for the original Geneva score to 58.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-60.7%) for the simplified Geneva score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs found suboptimal accuracy and prognostic performance of the simplified Geneva score and other RAMs to predict hospital-acquired VTE in medical inpatients. Clinical usefulness of existing RAMs is questionable, highlighting the need for more accurate VTE prediction strategies.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Department of Clinical Research (DCR)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of General Internal Medicine (DAIM) > Clinic of General Internal Medicine

UniBE Contributor:

Häfliger, Emmanuel (A), Rossel, Jean-Benoît, Aujesky, Drahomir, Baumgartner, Christine

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

2574-3805

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Language:

English

Submitter:

Pubmed Import

Date Deposited:

13 May 2024 16:04

Last Modified:

13 May 2024 23:47

Publisher DOI:

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9980

PubMed ID:

38728035

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/196690

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/196690

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback