29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Completion of the Updated Caprini Risk Assessment Model (2013 Version)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          The Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) has been validated in over 250 000 patients in more than 100 clinical trials worldwide. Ultimately, appropriate treatment options are dependent on precise completion of the Caprini RAM. As the numerical score increases, the clinical venous thromboembolism rate rises exponentially in every patient group where it has been properly tested. The 2013 Caprini RAM was completed by specially trained medical students via review of the presurgical assessment history, medical clearances, and medical consults. The Caprini RAM was completed for every participant both preoperatively and predischarge to ensure that any changes in the patient’s postoperative course were captured by the tool. This process led to the development of completion guidelines to ensure consistency and accuracy of scoring. The 2013 Caprini scoring system provides a consistent, thorough, and efficacious method for risk stratification and selection of prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thrombosis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

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

          Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

          This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggestions imply that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full discussion of the grading, see the "Grades of Recommendation" chapter by Guyatt et al). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: we recommend that every hospital develop a formal strategy that addresses the prevention of VTE (Grade 1A). We recommend against the use of aspirin alone as thromboprophylaxis for any patient group (Grade 1A), and we recommend that mechanical methods of thromboprophylaxis be used primarily for patients at high bleeding risk (Grade 1A) or possibly as an adjunct to anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2A). For patients undergoing major general surgery, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), or fondaparinux (each Grade 1A). We recommend routine thromboprophylaxis for all patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery or major, open urologic procedures (Grade 1A for both groups), with LMWH, LDUH, fondaparinux, or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). For patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty, we recommend one of the following three anticoagulant agents: LMWH, fondaparinux, or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA); international normalized ratio (INR) target, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0 (each Grade 1A). For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS), we recommend the routine use of fondaparinux (Grade 1A), LMWH (Grade 1B), a VKA (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1B], or LDUH (Grade 1B). We recommend that patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty or HFS receive thromboprophylaxis for a minimum of 10 days (Grade 1A); for hip arthroplasty and HFS, we recommend continuing thromboprophylaxis > 10 days and up to 35 days (Grade 1A). We recommend that all major trauma and all spinal cord injury (SCI) patients receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A). In patients admitted to hospital with an acute medical illness, we recommend thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, LDUH, or fondaparinux (each Grade 1A). We recommend that, on admission to the ICU, all patients be assessed for their risk of VTE, and that most receive thromboprophylaxis (Grade 1A).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Predictive and Associative Models to Identify Hospitalized Medical Patients at Risk for VTE

            Acutely ill hospitalized medical patients are at risk for VTE. We assessed the incidence of VTE in the observational International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) study and derived VTE risk assessment scores at admission and associative VTE scores during hospitalization. Data from 15,156 medical patients were analyzed to determine the cumulative incidence of clinically observed VTE over 3 months after admission. Multiple regression analysis identified factors associated with VTE risk. Of the 184 patients who developed symptomatic VTE, 76 had pulmonary embolism, and 67 had lower-extremity DVT. Cumulative VTE incidence was 1.0%; 45% of events occurred after discharge. Factors independently associated with VTE were previous VTE, known thrombophilia, cancer, age > 60 years, lower-limb paralysis, immobilization ≥ 7 days, and admission to an ICU or coronary care unit (first four were available at admission). Points were assigned to each factor identified to give a total risk score for each patient. At admission, 67% of patients had a score ≥ 1. During hospitalization, 31% had a score ≥ 2; for a score of 2 or 3, observed VTE risk was 1.5% vs 5.7% for a score ≥ 4. Observed and predicted rates were similar for both models (C statistic, 0.65 and 0.69, respectively). During hospitalization, a score ≥ 2 was associated with higher overall and VTE-related mortality. Weighted VTE risk scores derived from four clinical risk factors at hospital admission can predict VTE risk in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. Scores derived from seven clinical factors during hospitalization may help us to further understand symptomatic VTE risk. These scores require external validation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A validation study of a retrospective venous thromboembolism risk scoring method.

              Validate a retrospective venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk scoring method, which was developed at the University of Michigan Health System and based on the Caprini risk assessment model, and assess the confounding effects of VTE prophylaxis. Assessing patients for risk of VTE is essential to initiating appropriate prophylaxis and reducing the mortality and morbidity associated with deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. VTE risk factors were identified for 8216 inpatients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program using the retrospective scoring method. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for VTE within 30 days after surgery for risk factors and risk level. A bivariate probit model estimated the effects of risk while controlling for adherence to prophylaxis guidelines. Distribution of the study population by risk level was highest, 52.1%; high, 36.5%; moderate, 10.4%; and low, 0.9%. Incidence of VTE within 30 days was overall 1.4%; by risk level: highest, 1.94%; high, 0.97%; moderate, 0.70%; low, 0%. Controlling for length of hospitalization (>2 d) and fiscal year, pregnancy or postpartum (OR = 8.3; 1.0-68, P < 0.05), recent sepsis (4.0; 1.4-10.9, P < 0.01), malignancy (2.3; 1.5-3.3, P < 0.01), history of VTE (2.1; 1.1-4.1, P < 0.05), and central venous access (1.8; 1.1-3.0, P < 0.05) were significantly associated with VTE. Risk level was significantly associated with VTE (1.9; 1.3-2.6, P < 0.01). The bivariate probit demonstrated significant correlation between the probability of VTE and lack of adherence to prophylaxis guidelines (rho = 0.299, P = 0.013). The retrospective risk scoring method is valid and supports use of individual patient assessment of risk for VTE within 30 days after surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Appl Thromb Hemost
                Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost
                CAT
                spcat
                Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1076-0296
                1938-2723
                03 April 2019
                Jan-Dec 2019
                : 25
                : 1076029619838052
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Syosset Hospital, Syosset, NY, USA
                [2 ]Emeritus, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA
                [3 ]University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
                Author notes
                [*]MaryAnne Cronin, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwell Health/Syosset Hospital, 221 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, NY 11791, USA. Email: mcronin@ 123456northwell.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7498-1564
                Article
                10.1177_1076029619838052
                10.1177/1076029619838052
                6714938
                30939900
                fdc66b23-5a9f-417f-8215-233cdc89db5b
                © The Author(s) 2019

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 01 February 2019
                : 20 February 2019
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2019

                thromboprophylaxis,risk stratification,deep vein thrombosis,pulmonary embolism,caprini risk assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article