1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Validation of Risk Assessment Models Predicting Venous Thromboembolism in Inpatients with Acute Exacerbation Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Multicenter Cohort Study in China

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, the prophylaxis for VTE is largely underused in China. Identifying high-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis is critical to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with VTE. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the validities of the Padua Prediction Score and Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD in China.

          Methods The inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers of China between September 2017 and January 2020. Caprini and Padua scores were calculated on admission, and the incidence of 3-month VTE was investigated.

          Results Among the 3,277 eligible patients with AECOPD, 128 patients (3.9%) developed VTE within 3 months after admission. The distribution of the study population by the Caprini risk level was as follows: high, 53.6%; moderate, 43.0%; and low, 3.5%. The incidence of VTE increased by risk level as high, 6.1%; moderate, 1.5%; and low, 0%. According to the Padua RAM, only 10.9% of the study population was classified as high risk and 89.1% as low risk, with the corresponding incidence of VTE of 7.9 and 3.4%, respectively. The Caprini RAM had higher area under curve compared with the Padua RAM (0.713 ± 0.021 vs. 0.644 ± 0.023, p = 0.029).

          Conclusion The Caprini RAM was superior to the Padua RAM in predicting the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD and might better guide thromboprophylaxis in these patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

          This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia. This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B). Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

            This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease. We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence. For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C). Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study.

              Information about the variation in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and in prophylaxis practices around the world is scarce. The ENDORSE (Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting) study is a multinational cross-sectional survey designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, and to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who receive effective prophylaxis. All hospital inpatients aged 40 years or over admitted to a medical ward, or those aged 18 years or over admitted to a surgical ward, in 358 hospitals across 32 countries were assessed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines were used to assess VTE risk and to determine whether patients were receiving recommended prophylaxis. 68 183 patients were enrolled; 30 827 (45%) were categorised as surgical, and 37 356 (55%) as medical. On the basis of ACCP criteria, 35 329 (51.8%; 95% CI 51.4-52.2; between-country range 35.6-72.6) patients were judged to be at risk for VTE, including 19 842 (64.4%; 63.8-64.9; 44.1-80.2) surgical patients and 15 487 (41.5%; 41.0-42.0; 21.1-71.2) medical patients. Of the surgical patients at risk, 11 613 (58.5%; 57.8-59.2; 0.2-92.1) received ACCP-recommended VTE prophylaxis, compared with 6119 (39.5%; 38.7-40.3; 3.1-70.4) at-risk medical patients. A large proportion of hospitalised patients are at risk for VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. Our data reinforce the rationale for the use of hospital-wide strategies to assess patients' VTE risk and to implement measures that ensure that at-risk patients receive appropriate prophylaxis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Thrombosis and Haemostasis
                Thromb Haemost
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG
                0340-6245
                2567-689X
                August 17 2022
                July 2022
                November 10 2021
                January 20 2022
                July 2022
                : 122
                : 07
                : 1177-1185
                Affiliations
                [1 ]West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
                [2 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
                [3 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
                [4 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, People's Hospital of Leshan, Leshan, Sichuan Province, China
                [5 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
                [6 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
                [7 ]State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
                [8 ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China
                Article
                10.1055/a-1693-0063
                34758489
                ce66c149-7ef4-44c1-a903-60d90bc0d6ed
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article