Impact of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis and Risk Stratification with the Caprini Model in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer

Abstract ▪364▪This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract VTE is a common complication in hospitalized medical patients and the role of pharmacologic anticoagulation prophylaxis is well-established. Patients with active malignancy are at higher risk for VTE during hospitalization. However, VTE...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBlood Vol. 120; no. 21; p. 364
Main Authors Ruch, Joshua M, Hu, Hsou M, Bahl, Vinita, Sood, Suman L.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Inc 16.11.2012
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract ▪364▪This icon denotes a clinically relevant abstract VTE is a common complication in hospitalized medical patients and the role of pharmacologic anticoagulation prophylaxis is well-established. Patients with active malignancy are at higher risk for VTE during hospitalization. However, VTE prophylaxis is underutilized in these patients due to many real and perceived contraindications to prophylaxis. To aid clinicians in determining VTE risk and guide choice of prophylaxis, our institution adopted the Caprini risk assessment model (Ann Surg, 2010; 251[2]:344–50), based on clinical factors such as age, comorbidities, and recent surgery. Our primary objective was to assess adherence to recommended VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with solid tumors, hematological malignancies, and bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in comparison to general medical (GM) patients, and the impact of recommended prophylaxis use on VTE outcomes. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the distribution of Caprini risk scores and the utility of the Caprini risk assessment model for guiding prophylaxis in this population. Patients admitted to the hematology/oncology (HO; oncology, malignant hematology, and BMT) and GM inpatient services at the University of Michigan between July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011 were included in the study. After IRB approval, patient information was extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). A point-scoring method based on the Caprini risk assessment model was used to calculate VTE risk at admission. A score of 3–4 was high risk and ≥ 5 highest risk for VTE. Type of VTE prophylaxis and VTE rate were determined. Recommended prophylaxis was 5000 units TID SQ heparin, 30–40 mg SQ enoxaparin, or 2.5 mg SQ fondaparinux, ± sequential compression devices (SCDs). Pharmacological prophylaxis administration was verified in the EMR. VTE is defined as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) occurring during hospitalization or within 90 days, confirmed by Doppler, CT or V/Q scan. Adherence was defined as the percentage of patients at high or highest risk for VTE with a length of stay ≥ 2 days who received guideline recommended prophylaxis within 2 days of admission. Patients with a contraindication to prophylaxis were excluded. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Chi-squared test was used to test differences in proportions and Cochran-Armitage test for trends. 4300 patients were admitted to HO and 18,347 to GM services. Compared to GM patients (86.8%), the rate of adherence to recommended VTE prophylaxis was similar for oncology (87.6%), hematology (85.4%), and lower (45.6%) for BMT patients (p<0.0001). The overall VTE rate on HO services was 2.77%. Compared with 1.45% in GM, VTE rate was 3.02% in oncology (p=0.070), 2.01% in hematology (p=0.220), and 3.61% for BMT (p=0.001). Over half (51.3%) of VTE in HO patients occurred in patients who did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis. In HO patients with a VTE, ordered prophylaxis included 16.0% combined pharmacological and SCD, 32.8% pharmacological alone, 32.8% SCD alone, and 18.5% none. Use of combined or pharmacologic prophylaxis alone was non-significantly increased in the non-VTE HO patients. By the Caprini risk assessment model, 33.3% of all patients on HO services were high and 62.2% highest risk, with less oncology (p=0.0001) and more BMT (p=0.0003) patients classified as high or highest risk. VTE rate in HO patients rose as Caprini risk score increased: score (n, % with VTE) 0–1 (23, 4.35%,); 2 (169, 0.59%); 3–4 (1434, 1.67%); 5–6 (1691, 2.90%); 7–8 (745, 3.76%); and 9 (238, 6.72%), p<0.0001 for trend. Adherence to recommended VTE prophylaxis was high in medical patients with cancer, resulting in low overall rates of VTE during and following discharge. The majority of patients with VTE did not receive recommended pharmacologic prophylaxis. Most VTE occurred in patients at highest risk (Caprini risk assessment score ≥ 5), with a trend to higher VTE rate as individual score increased. These data suggest that the individual Caprini score may provide more detailed VTE risk assessment and may help inform the need for prophylaxis despite perceived relative contraindications in this high risk cancer population. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to ordering VTE prophylaxis in this population and encourage increased prophylaxis use. No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
ISSN:0006-4971
1528-0020
DOI:10.1182/blood.V120.21.364.364