Comparison of the Pauda and the Autar DVT Risk Assessment Scales in Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in ICU Patients.

Q2 Medicine
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2024-04-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.38.48
Foruzan Orak, Maryam Saadat, Amal Saki Malehi, Amin Behdarvandan, Fateme Esfandiarpour
{"title":"Comparison of the Pauda and the Autar DVT Risk Assessment Scales in Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism in ICU Patients.","authors":"Foruzan Orak, Maryam Saadat, Amal Saki Malehi, Amin Behdarvandan, Fateme Esfandiarpour","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.38.48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The evaluation of VTE risk using risk assessment scales for each hospitalized patient is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of two common assessment scales, the Autar and Padua deep vein thrombosis (DVT) risk assessment scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective cohort study was conducted on 228 ICU hospitalized patients. The risk of VTE was estimated using the Autar and Padua scales during the first 48 hours after admission. The predictive accuracy of the above two risk assessment scales for VTE in ICU patients was compared based on the area under the receiver operating curve (ROC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results of ROC analysis indicated the area under the curve (AUC) values for the Autar (0.61 ± 0.05) and Pauda (0.53 ± 0.06). Log-rank test showed no difference in AUCs (<i>P</i> = 0.19). Moreover, the accuracy of the Autar scale and Padua obtained 24% and 14% respectively. Both scales had 100% sensitivity but their specificity was low (Autar 14% and Padua 3%). The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 1.17 for Autar and 1.03 for Padua. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0 for Autar and 0.89 for Padua. Inter-rater agreement values obtained 0.99 and 0.95 respectively for the the Autar and Padua scales.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AUC, accuracy, and LR+ of the Autar risk assessment scale were higher than the Padua scale in predicting VTE. However, both scales had excellent reliability, high sensitivity and low specificity. It is recommended that the risk of VTE is recorded by the Autar scale for patients admitted to ICUs. It can help the healthcare team in the use of prophylaxis for those that are at high risk for VTE.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The evaluation of VTE risk using risk assessment scales for each hospitalized patient is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of two common assessment scales, the Autar and Padua deep vein thrombosis (DVT) risk assessment scales.

Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted on 228 ICU hospitalized patients. The risk of VTE was estimated using the Autar and Padua scales during the first 48 hours after admission. The predictive accuracy of the above two risk assessment scales for VTE in ICU patients was compared based on the area under the receiver operating curve (ROC).

Results: Results of ROC analysis indicated the area under the curve (AUC) values for the Autar (0.61 ± 0.05) and Pauda (0.53 ± 0.06). Log-rank test showed no difference in AUCs (P = 0.19). Moreover, the accuracy of the Autar scale and Padua obtained 24% and 14% respectively. Both scales had 100% sensitivity but their specificity was low (Autar 14% and Padua 3%). The positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 1.17 for Autar and 1.03 for Padua. The negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0 for Autar and 0.89 for Padua. Inter-rater agreement values obtained 0.99 and 0.95 respectively for the the Autar and Padua scales.

Conclusion: The AUC, accuracy, and LR+ of the Autar risk assessment scale were higher than the Padua scale in predicting VTE. However, both scales had excellent reliability, high sensitivity and low specificity. It is recommended that the risk of VTE is recorded by the Autar scale for patients admitted to ICUs. It can help the healthcare team in the use of prophylaxis for those that are at high risk for VTE.

保达和 Autar 深静脉血栓风险评估量表在预测重症监护病房患者静脉血栓栓塞方面的比较。
背景:美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所建议使用风险评估量表对每位住院患者进行 VTE 风险评估。本研究旨在比较 Autar 和 Padua 两种常用评估量表(深静脉血栓形成(DVT)风险评估量表)的预测准确性:这项前瞻性队列研究针对 228 名重症监护病房住院患者。方法:这项前瞻性队列研究以 228 名重症监护病房住院患者为对象,在入院后的 48 小时内使用 Autar 和 Padua 量表估算 VTE 风险。根据接收者操作曲线下面积(ROC)比较了上述两种风险评估量表对 ICU 患者 VTE 的预测准确性:ROC分析结果显示,Autar(0.61 ± 0.05)和Pauda(0.53 ± 0.06)的曲线下面积(AUC)值为0.61 ± 0.05。对数秩检验显示,两者的 AUC 值无差异(P = 0.19)。此外,奥塔量表和帕多瓦量表的准确率分别为 24% 和 14%。两种量表的灵敏度均为 100%,但特异性较低(Autar 为 14%,Padua 为 3%)。Autar 和 Padua 的阳性似然比(LR+)分别为 1.17 和 1.03。阴性似然比 (LR-) Autar 为 0,Padua 为 0.89。Autar和Padua量表的评分者间一致性分别为0.99和0.95:结论:在预测 VTE 方面,Autar 风险评估量表的 AUC、准确性和 LR+ 均高于 Padua 量表。结论:在预测 VTE 方面,Autar 风险评估量表的 AUC、准确性和 LR+ 均高于 Padua 量表,但两种量表均具有极佳的可靠性、高灵敏度和低特异性。建议使用 Autar 量表记录入住重症监护病房患者的 VTE 风险。它可以帮助医疗团队对 VTE 高危人群采取预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信