比较 PADUA 和 IMPROVE 评分在评估中国 42,257 名住院病人静脉血栓栓塞风险方面的作用

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Hou Yifang, Duan Jun, Yan Jingting, Shan Ying, Zhang Ping, Deng Xiaomei
{"title":"比较 PADUA 和 IMPROVE 评分在评估中国 42,257 名住院病人静脉血栓栓塞风险方面的作用","authors":"Hou Yifang, Duan Jun, Yan Jingting, Shan Ying, Zhang Ping, Deng Xiaomei","doi":"10.1007/s11239-024-02979-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major contributor to hospital mortality and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) loss. Multiple guidelines recommend using the Padua or IMPROVE scores to stratify VTE risk in hospitalized medical patients. However, the IMPROVE score is not recommended in Chinese guidelines, and there is very little evaluation of its clinical application and effectiveness in the Chinese population. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Padua and IMPROVE scoring models for assessing VTE risk in Chinese medical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 42,257 medical inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong, China, between 2021 and 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess thrombotic risk factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were employed to evaluate the performance of the two models. Of the 42,257 patients included, 948 (2.24%) experienced VTE during hospitalization. According to the Padua score, 3,7513 (88.78%) of patients were considered low risk, while 4,744 (18.22%) were classified as high risk. The IMPROVE score identified 20,744 (49.09%) of patients as low risk, 20799(49.22%) as intermediate risk, and 714(1.69%) as high risk. The AUC for the Padua score was 0.735 (95% CI: 0.717–0.753), with a sensitivity of 49.4% and specificity of 89.6%. For the IMPROVE score, the AUC was 0.711 (95% CI: 0.693–0.729), with a sensitivity of 32.5% and specificity of 99.0%. The DeLong test, used to compare the AUCs, yielded a z-value of 1.886 with a P-value of 0.059, indicating no statistical difference. When assessing VTE risk in patients with stroke, cancer, nephrotic syndrome, and critical illness (ICU/CCU stay), both scoring models showed comparable predictive performance with AUCs ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Both the Padua score and IMPROVE score have good predictive ability for VTE events during hospitalization in medical patients. Among them, the IMPROVE score has objective assessment items, simpler operation, and more detailed risk stratification, which is beneficial for clinicians to take physical and pharmacological preventive measures at different levels.</p><p>ChiCTR2200056903, February 22, retrospectively registered.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Graphical Abstract</h3>\n","PeriodicalId":17546,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China\",\"authors\":\"Hou Yifang, Duan Jun, Yan Jingting, Shan Ying, Zhang Ping, Deng Xiaomei\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11239-024-02979-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major contributor to hospital mortality and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) loss. Multiple guidelines recommend using the Padua or IMPROVE scores to stratify VTE risk in hospitalized medical patients. However, the IMPROVE score is not recommended in Chinese guidelines, and there is very little evaluation of its clinical application and effectiveness in the Chinese population. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Padua and IMPROVE scoring models for assessing VTE risk in Chinese medical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 42,257 medical inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong, China, between 2021 and 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess thrombotic risk factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were employed to evaluate the performance of the two models. Of the 42,257 patients included, 948 (2.24%) experienced VTE during hospitalization. According to the Padua score, 3,7513 (88.78%) of patients were considered low risk, while 4,744 (18.22%) were classified as high risk. The IMPROVE score identified 20,744 (49.09%) of patients as low risk, 20799(49.22%) as intermediate risk, and 714(1.69%) as high risk. The AUC for the Padua score was 0.735 (95% CI: 0.717–0.753), with a sensitivity of 49.4% and specificity of 89.6%. For the IMPROVE score, the AUC was 0.711 (95% CI: 0.693–0.729), with a sensitivity of 32.5% and specificity of 99.0%. The DeLong test, used to compare the AUCs, yielded a z-value of 1.886 with a P-value of 0.059, indicating no statistical difference. When assessing VTE risk in patients with stroke, cancer, nephrotic syndrome, and critical illness (ICU/CCU stay), both scoring models showed comparable predictive performance with AUCs ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Both the Padua score and IMPROVE score have good predictive ability for VTE events during hospitalization in medical patients. Among them, the IMPROVE score has objective assessment items, simpler operation, and more detailed risk stratification, which is beneficial for clinicians to take physical and pharmacological preventive measures at different levels.</p><p>ChiCTR2200056903, February 22, retrospectively registered.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Graphical Abstract</h3>\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":17546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-024-02979-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-024-02979-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)是造成住院死亡率和残疾调整生命年(DALY)损失的主要因素。多个指南建议使用帕多瓦或 IMPROVE 评分对住院内科病人进行 VTE 风险分层。然而,中国指南并未推荐 IMPROVE 评分,对其在中国人群中的临床应用和有效性的评估也很少。本研究旨在比较帕多瓦评分模型和 IMPROVE 评分模型在评估中国内科住院患者 VTE 风险方面的有效性。我们对中国广东省一家三甲医院 2021 年至 2022 年间 42,257 名住院患者的临床特征和血栓风险进行了回顾性分析。采用逻辑回归评估血栓风险因素。采用接收者工作特征曲线(ROC)、曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度和特异性来评估两种模型的性能。在纳入的 42,257 名患者中,有 948 人(2.24%)在住院期间发生过 VTE。根据帕多瓦评分,37513 名患者(88.78%)被认为是低风险,4744 名患者(18.22%)被归类为高风险。IMPROVE 评分确定 20744 名(49.09%)患者为低风险,20799 名(49.22%)患者为中风险,714 名(1.69%)患者为高风险。帕多瓦评分的AUC为0.735(95% CI:0.717-0.753),灵敏度为49.4%,特异度为89.6%。IMPROVE 评分的 AUC 为 0.711(95% CI:0.693-0.729),灵敏度为 32.5%,特异性为 99.0%。用于比较 AUC 的 DeLong 检验得出的 Z 值为 1.886,P 值为 0.059,表明没有统计学差异。在评估中风、癌症、肾病综合征和危重症(ICU/重症监护室住院)患者的 VTE 风险时,两种评分模型的 AUC 值在 0.7 和 0.8 之间,预测效果相当。帕多瓦评分和 IMPROVE 评分对内科病人住院期间的 VTE 事件都有很好的预测能力。其中,IMPROVE评分评估项目客观、操作简单、风险分层更细致,有利于临床医生采取不同程度的物理和药物预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China

Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major contributor to hospital mortality and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) loss. Multiple guidelines recommend using the Padua or IMPROVE scores to stratify VTE risk in hospitalized medical patients. However, the IMPROVE score is not recommended in Chinese guidelines, and there is very little evaluation of its clinical application and effectiveness in the Chinese population. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Padua and IMPROVE scoring models for assessing VTE risk in Chinese medical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 42,257 medical inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong, China, between 2021 and 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess thrombotic risk factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were employed to evaluate the performance of the two models. Of the 42,257 patients included, 948 (2.24%) experienced VTE during hospitalization. According to the Padua score, 3,7513 (88.78%) of patients were considered low risk, while 4,744 (18.22%) were classified as high risk. The IMPROVE score identified 20,744 (49.09%) of patients as low risk, 20799(49.22%) as intermediate risk, and 714(1.69%) as high risk. The AUC for the Padua score was 0.735 (95% CI: 0.717–0.753), with a sensitivity of 49.4% and specificity of 89.6%. For the IMPROVE score, the AUC was 0.711 (95% CI: 0.693–0.729), with a sensitivity of 32.5% and specificity of 99.0%. The DeLong test, used to compare the AUCs, yielded a z-value of 1.886 with a P-value of 0.059, indicating no statistical difference. When assessing VTE risk in patients with stroke, cancer, nephrotic syndrome, and critical illness (ICU/CCU stay), both scoring models showed comparable predictive performance with AUCs ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Both the Padua score and IMPROVE score have good predictive ability for VTE events during hospitalization in medical patients. Among them, the IMPROVE score has objective assessment items, simpler operation, and more detailed risk stratification, which is beneficial for clinicians to take physical and pharmacological preventive measures at different levels.

ChiCTR2200056903, February 22, retrospectively registered.

Graphical Abstract

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
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis is a long-awaited resource for contemporary cardiologists, hematologists, vascular medicine specialists and clinician-scientists actively involved in treatment decisions and clinical investigation of thrombotic disorders involving the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. The principal focus of the Journal centers on the pathobiology of thrombosis and vascular disorders and the use of anticoagulants, platelet antagonists, cell-based therapies and interventions in scientific investigation, clinical-translational research and patient care. The Journal will publish original work which emphasizes the interface between fundamental scientific principles and clinical investigation, stimulating an interdisciplinary and scholarly dialogue in thrombosis and vascular science. Published works will also define platforms for translational research, drug development, clinical trials and patient-directed applications. The Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis'' integrated format will expand the reader''s knowledge base and provide important insights for both the investigation and direct clinical application of the most rapidly growing fields in medicine-thrombosis and vascular science.
×
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