评估胶质瘤患者的现有 VTE 风险量表。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Simakova Maria, Pishchulov Konstantin, Lukinov Vitaliy, Voynov Nikita, Bulaeva Maria, Melnichnikova Olga, Zhilenkova Yulia, Savelyeva Аnna, Moiseeva Olga, Samochernykh Konstantin
{"title":"评估胶质瘤患者的现有 VTE 风险量表。","authors":"Simakova Maria, Pishchulov Konstantin, Lukinov Vitaliy, Voynov Nikita, Bulaeva Maria, Melnichnikova Olga, Zhilenkova Yulia, Savelyeva Аnna, Moiseeva Olga, Samochernykh Konstantin","doi":"10.1177/10760296241238210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequently occurring complication among glioma patients. Several risk assessment models (RAMs), including the Caprini RAM, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score, have not been validated within the glioma patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive accuracy of established VTE risk scales in patients with glioma.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted on 265 glioma patients who underwent surgery at the Almazov Medical and Research Centre between 2021 and 2022. VTE detection followed the current clinical guidelines. Threshold values for the Caprini, IMPROVE VTE, IMPROVEDD, and Padua scales were determined using ROC analysis methods, with cumulative weighting for sensitivity and specificity in predicting VTE development. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated, and comparisons were made using the DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The area under the curve for the Caprini risk assessment model was 80.41, while the IMPROVEDD VTE risk score was 75.38, the Padua prediction score was 76.9, and the IMPROVE risk score was 72.58. No significant differences were observed in the AUC values for any of the scales. The positive predictive values of all four scales were low, with values of 50 (28-72) for Caprini, 48 (28-69) for IMPROVEDD VTE, 50 (30-70) for Padua, and 64 (35-87) for IMPROVE RAM. No significant differences were found in terms of PPV, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio among the analyzed scales.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Caprini Risk Assessment Model, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score exhibit acceptable specificity and sensitivity for glioma patients. However, their low positive predictive ability, coupled with the complexity of interpretation, limits their utility in neurosurgical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10335,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis","volume":"30 ","pages":"10760296241238210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10989032/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating of Existing VTE Risk Scales in Glioma Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Simakova Maria, Pishchulov Konstantin, Lukinov Vitaliy, Voynov Nikita, Bulaeva Maria, Melnichnikova Olga, Zhilenkova Yulia, Savelyeva Аnna, Moiseeva Olga, Samochernykh Konstantin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10760296241238210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequently occurring complication among glioma patients. Several risk assessment models (RAMs), including the Caprini RAM, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score, have not been validated within the glioma patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive accuracy of established VTE risk scales in patients with glioma.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted on 265 glioma patients who underwent surgery at the Almazov Medical and Research Centre between 2021 and 2022. VTE detection followed the current clinical guidelines. Threshold values for the Caprini, IMPROVE VTE, IMPROVEDD, and Padua scales were determined using ROC analysis methods, with cumulative weighting for sensitivity and specificity in predicting VTE development. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated, and comparisons were made using the DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The area under the curve for the Caprini risk assessment model was 80.41, while the IMPROVEDD VTE risk score was 75.38, the Padua prediction score was 76.9, and the IMPROVE risk score was 72.58. No significant differences were observed in the AUC values for any of the scales. The positive predictive values of all four scales were low, with values of 50 (28-72) for Caprini, 48 (28-69) for IMPROVEDD VTE, 50 (30-70) for Padua, and 64 (35-87) for IMPROVE RAM. No significant differences were found in terms of PPV, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio among the analyzed scales.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Caprini Risk Assessment Model, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score exhibit acceptable specificity and sensitivity for glioma patients. However, their low positive predictive ability, coupled with the complexity of interpretation, limits their utility in neurosurgical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"10760296241238210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10989032/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296241238210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296241238210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:术后静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)是胶质瘤患者经常出现的并发症。一些风险评估模型(RAM),包括 Caprini RAM、IMPROVE 风险评分、IMPROVED VTE 风险评分和 Padua 预测评分,尚未在胶质瘤患者群体中得到验证。本研究旨在评估已建立的 VTE 风险量表在胶质瘤患者中的预测准确性:本研究对 2021 年至 2022 年期间在阿尔马佐夫医学研究中心接受手术的 265 名胶质瘤患者进行了单中心、回顾性、观察性队列研究。VTE 检测遵循现行临床指南。采用ROC分析方法确定了Caprini、IMPROVE VTE、IMPROVEDD和Padua量表的阈值,并对预测VTE发生的敏感性和特异性进行了累积加权。计算 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC),并使用 DeLong 检验进行比较:结果:Caprini 风险评估模型的曲线下面积为 80.41,而 IMPROVEDD VTE 风险评分为 75.38,Padua 预测评分为 76.9,IMPROVE 风险评分为 72.58。所有量表的 AUC 值均无明显差异。所有四个量表的阳性预测值都很低,Caprini 为 50(28-72)分,IMPROVEDD VTE 为 48(28-69)分,Padua 为 50(30-70)分,IMPROVE RAM 为 64(35-87)分。在 PPV、NPV、阳性似然比和阴性似然比方面,所分析的量表之间没有发现明显差异:结论:卡普里尼风险评估模型、IMPROVE 风险评分、IMPROVED VTE 风险评分和帕多瓦预测评分对胶质瘤患者具有可接受的特异性和敏感性。然而,它们的阳性预测能力较低,加上解释的复杂性,限制了它们在神经外科实践中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating of Existing VTE Risk Scales in Glioma Patients.

Introduction: Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequently occurring complication among glioma patients. Several risk assessment models (RAMs), including the Caprini RAM, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score, have not been validated within the glioma patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive accuracy of established VTE risk scales in patients with glioma.

Materials and methods: A single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted on 265 glioma patients who underwent surgery at the Almazov Medical and Research Centre between 2021 and 2022. VTE detection followed the current clinical guidelines. Threshold values for the Caprini, IMPROVE VTE, IMPROVEDD, and Padua scales were determined using ROC analysis methods, with cumulative weighting for sensitivity and specificity in predicting VTE development. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated, and comparisons were made using the DeLong test.

Results: The area under the curve for the Caprini risk assessment model was 80.41, while the IMPROVEDD VTE risk score was 75.38, the Padua prediction score was 76.9, and the IMPROVE risk score was 72.58. No significant differences were observed in the AUC values for any of the scales. The positive predictive values of all four scales were low, with values of 50 (28-72) for Caprini, 48 (28-69) for IMPROVEDD VTE, 50 (30-70) for Padua, and 64 (35-87) for IMPROVE RAM. No significant differences were found in terms of PPV, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio among the analyzed scales.

Conclusions: The Caprini Risk Assessment Model, the IMPROVE Risk Score, the IMPROVED VTE Risk Score, and the Padua Prediction Score exhibit acceptable specificity and sensitivity for glioma patients. However, their low positive predictive ability, coupled with the complexity of interpretation, limits their utility in neurosurgical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
150
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: CATH is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal that addresses the practical clinical and laboratory issues involved in managing bleeding and clotting disorders, especially those related to thrombosis, hemostasis, and vascular disorders. CATH covers clinical trials, studies on etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of thrombohemorrhagic disorders.
×
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