{"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.