Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias · 2024
Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olid Velilla Mónica, Jiménez Hernández Sònia, Beddar Fahd, Sendín Martín Vanesa, Cárdenas Bravo Línder, Álvarez Márquez Ángel, Sánchez Díaz-Canel Daniel, Diego Roza Susana, Sánchez Garrido-Lestache Ángel, Jiménez Castro David, Lecumberri Ramón, Ruiz Artacho Pedro, Grupo de trabajo de Enfermedad Tromboembólica Venosa de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (ETV-SEMES)
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for medical conditions and to analyze variables associated with the decision to prescribe pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Conclusions.
METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter cohort study. We included adults attended in 15 hospital EDs who were hospitalized for medical conditions, calculating VTE risk according to the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) score. In addition to assessing interscore concordance, we analyzed variables associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis in the ED.
RESULTS: A total of 1203 patients were included. The PADUA, IMPROVE, and NICE scales assigned high risk scores for 68.7%, 47.4%, and 69.5% of the patients, respectively. The κ statistic for agreement between the PADUA and NICE scores was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); 102 patients (8.5%) had discordant scores. The κ statistics for agreement between the IMPROVE score and the PADUA and NICE classifications were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.33-0.42), respectively; 322 (26.8%) and 384 patients (31.9%), respectively, had discordant scores. Variables associated with starting thromboprophylaxis in the ED were a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.26), immobility in the last 2 months (aOR, 2.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 1.97), ischemic heart disease (aOR, 1.51), reduced mobility of 3 days or longer (aOR, 1.14), body mass index (aOR, 1.04), age (aOR, 1.02), recent trauma or surgery (aOR, 0.40), and risk for bleeding (aOR, 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: There is disagreement among the recommended models for predicting risk for VTE in patients hospitalized for medical conditions. The basis for emergency physicians' clinical judgment regarding thromboprophylaxis extends beyond risk scales to include multiple risk factors for VTE and bleeding.
METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter cohort study. We included adults attended in 15 hospital EDs who were hospitalized for medical conditions, calculating VTE risk according to the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) score. In addition to assessing interscore concordance, we analyzed variables associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis in the ED.
RESULTS: A total of 1203 patients were included. The PADUA, IMPROVE, and NICE scales assigned high risk scores for 68.7%, 47.4%, and 69.5% of the patients, respectively. The κ statistic for agreement between the PADUA and NICE scores was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); 102 patients (8.5%) had discordant scores. The κ statistics for agreement between the IMPROVE score and the PADUA and NICE classifications were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.33-0.42), respectively; 322 (26.8%) and 384 patients (31.9%), respectively, had discordant scores. Variables associated with starting thromboprophylaxis in the ED were a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.26), immobility in the last 2 months (aOR, 2.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 1.97), ischemic heart disease (aOR, 1.51), reduced mobility of 3 days or longer (aOR, 1.14), body mass index (aOR, 1.04), age (aOR, 1.02), recent trauma or surgery (aOR, 0.40), and risk for bleeding (aOR, 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: There is disagreement among the recommended models for predicting risk for VTE in patients hospitalized for medical conditions. The basis for emergency physicians' clinical judgment regarding thromboprophylaxis extends beyond risk scales to include multiple risk factors for VTE and bleeding.