4.6 Article

Venous thromboembolism and the utility of the Padua Prediction Score in patients with sepsis admitted to internal medicine departments

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 467-473

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jth.12108

关键词

medical patients; risk prediction; sepsis; venous thromboembolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Sepsis is prevalent in internal medicine (IM) departments. Elderly patients with sepsis and chronic medical conditions are at an increased risk for venous thromboemolism (VTE). The objective of this study was to assess the rate of VTE and the accuracy of the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) to predict VTE in patient with sepsis admitted to IM departments. Methods We prospectively collected data on septic patients admitted to IM departments in a community-based medical center. Additionally, we retrospectively collected VTE risk factors and events throughout a 1-year post hospitalization period. We computed the PPS for every patient, and analyzed the data accordingly. Results In total, 1080 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 74.68 +/- 16.1years. The average PPS was 4.86 +/- 2.26, and 71.2% of the patients had a positive PPS. Only 17.8% of the patients received anticoagulant prophylaxis during their hospital stay. Seven patients had VTE on admission, 14 (1.29%) acquired in-hospital VTE, and 7 (0.65%) had VTE post discharge throughout 1year. In all, 21.9% patients died during hospitalization, and the overall survival rate was 64%. PPS was not correlated with anticoagulant administration (P=0.36), in-hospital VTE (P=0.23) or 1-year VTE (P=0.40), but was significantly associated with in-hospital death and survival (P<0.0001). Conclusion The rate of VTE in medical patients with sepsis in IM departments is low, and PPS lacks granularity in detecting patients at risk of acquiring it. In this population, a positive PPS is highly associated with death, and may reflect a more general co-morbidity and disease severity index.

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