RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-05-0427
Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism
Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE)Financial support: The study was funded by an unrestricted educational grant from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) 2007 Presidential Fund and Sanofi-Aventis (Suisse) SA, Vernier, Switzerland.
Publikationsverlauf
Received:
27. Mai 2013
Accepted after major revision:
04. Oktober 2013
Publikationsdatum:
22. November 2017 (online)
Summary
There is a need to validate risk assessment tools for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We investigated whether a predefined cut-off of the Geneva Risk Score, as compared to the Padua Prediction Score, accurately distinguishes low-risk from high-risk patients regardless of the use of thromboprophylaxis. In the multicentre, prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients were enrolled of whom 637 (43%) did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The primary endpoint was symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death at 90 days. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01277536. According to the Geneva Risk Score, the cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 3.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–4.6%) in 962 high-risk vs 0.6% (95% CI 0.2–1.9%) in 516 low-risk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.5% vs 0.8% (p=0.029), respectively. In comparison, the Padua Prediction Score yielded a cumulative rate of the primary endpoint of 3.5% (95% CI 2.3–5.3%) in 714 high-risk vs 1.1% (95% CI 0.6–2.3%) in 764 lowrisk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.2% vs 1.5% (p=0.130), respectively. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.28 (95% CI 0.10–0.83) for the Geneva Risk Score and 0.51 (95% CI 0.28–0.93) for the Padua Prediction Score. In conclusion, among hospitalised medical patients, the Geneva Risk Score predicted VTE and VTE-related mortality and compared favourably with the Padua Prediction Score, particularly for its accuracy to identify low-risk patients who do not require thromboprophylaxis.
Keywords
Venous thromboembolism - internal medicine - risk assessment - thromboprophylaxis - validation studies* Both authors contributed equally.
-
References
- 1 Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Anderson FA. et al. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe. The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality. Thromb Haemost 2007; 98: 756-764.
- 2 Francis CW. Clinical practice. Prophylaxis for thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1438-1444.
- 3 Cohen AT, Davidson BL, Gallus AS. et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. Br Med J 2006; 332: 325-329.
- 4 Leizorovicz A, Cohen AT, Turpie AG. et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation 2004; 110: 874-879.
- 5 Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY. et al. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 793-800.
- 6 Dentali F, Douketis JD, Gianni M. et al. Meta-analysis: anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 278-288.
- 7 Vardi M, Steinberg M, Haran M. et al. Benefits versus risks of pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in unselected medical patients revisited. Meta-analysis of the medical literature. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2012; 34: 11-19.
- 8 Chopard P, Spirk D, Bounameaux H. Identifying acutely ill medical patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. J Thromb Haemost 2006; 4: 915-916.
- 9 Cohen AT, Alikhan R, Arcelus JI. et al. Assessment of venous thromboembolism risk and the benefits of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. Thromb Hae-most 2005; 94: 750-759.
- 10 Barba R, Zapatero A, Losa JE. et al. Venous thromboembolism in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. Thromb Res 2010; 126: 276-279.
- 11 Woller SC, Stevens SM, Jones JP. et al. Derivation and validation of a simple model to identify venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients. Am J Med 2011; 124: 947-954.
- 12 Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R. et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous throm-boembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 969-977.
- 13 Nendaz MR, Chopard P, Lovis C. et al. Adequacy of venous thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (IMPART): multisite comparison of different clinical decision support systems. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1230-1234.
- 14 Chopard P, Dorffler-Melly J, Hess U. et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients: definite need for improvement. J Intern Med 2005; 257: 352-357.
- 15 Chopard P, Spirk D, Beer HJ. et al. Swiss results from a global observational study of venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis use in the acute care hospital setting: analysis from the ENDORSE study. Swiss Med Wkly 2009; 139: 630-635.
- 16 Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF. et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008; 371: 387-394.
- 17 Kucher N, Spirk D, Baumgartner I. et al. Lack of prophylaxis before the onset of acute venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients: the SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER). Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 931-935.
- 18 Kucher N, Spirk D, Kalka C. et al. Clinical predictors of prophylaxis use prior to the onset of acute venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER). J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 2082-2087.
- 19 Aujesky D, Guignard E, Pannatier A. et al. Pharmacological thromboembolic prophylaxis in a medical ward: room for improvement. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 788-791.
- 20 Prandoni P, Samama MM. Risk stratification and venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and cancer patients. Br J Haematol 2008; 141: 587-597.
- 21 Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V. et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 2450-2457.
- 22 Geerts WH, Pineo GF, Heit JA. et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004; 126: 338S-400S.
- 23 Tapson VF, Decousus H, Pini M. et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients: findings from the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism. Chest 2007; 132: 936-945.
- 24 Monreal M, Kakkar AK, Caprini JA. et al. The outcome after treatment of venous thromboembolism is different in surgical and acutely ill medical patients. Findings from the RIETE registry. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2: 1892-1898.
- 25 Vardi M, Haran M. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score: a rebuttal. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 9: 1437-1438.