Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments

• Published in: Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias Vol. 36; no. 5; p. 342
• Main Authors: 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
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Spanish
• Published: Spain 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants - therapeutic use; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Venous Thromboembolism - diagnosis; Venous Thromboembolism - epidemiology; Venous Thromboembolism - etiology; Venous Thromboembolism - prevention & control; Tromboprofilaxis; Agreement; Emergency department; Escalas de riesgo; Thromboprophylaxis; Concordancia; Risk scales; Tromboembolismo venoso; Urgencias; Venous thromboembolism
• ISSN: 2386-5857

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. 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. 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). 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.