4.6 Article

A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 2450-2457

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04044.x

关键词

anticoagulation; deep vein thrombosis; medical patients; prophylaxis; pulmonary embolism; risk assessment; venous thromboembolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients is largely underused. We sought to assess the value of a simple risk assessment model (RAM) for the identification of patients at risk of VTE. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, 1180 consecutive patients admitted to a department of internal medicine in a 2-year period were classified as having a high or low risk of VTE according to a predefined RAM. They were followed-up for up to 90 days to assess the occurrence of symptomatic VTE complications. The primary study outcome was to assess the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of VTE in high-risk patients who had adequate in-hospital thromboprophylaxis in comparison with those who did not, and that of VTE in the latter group in comparison with low-risk patients. Results: Four hundred and sixty-nine patients (39.7%) were labelled as having a high risk of thrombosis. VTE developed in four of the 186 (2.2%) who received thromboprophylaxis, and in 31 of the 283 (11.0%) who did not (HR of VTE, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40). VTE developed also in two of the 711 (0.3%) low-risk patients (HR of VTE in high-risk patients without prophylaxis as compared with low-risk patients, 32.0; 95% CI, 4.1-251.0). Bleeding occurred in three of the 186 (1.6%) high-risk patients who had thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions: Our RAM can help discriminate between medical patients at high and low risk of VTE. The adoption of adequate thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients during hospitalization leads to longstanding protection against thromboembolic events with a low risk of bleeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据