急诊科患者静脉血栓栓塞风险量表之间的一致性。

Mónica Olid Velilla, Sònia Jiménez Hernández, Fahd Beddar, Vanesa Sendín Martín, Línder Cárdenas Bravo, Ángel Álvarez Márquez, Daniel Sánchez Díaz-Canel, Susana Diego Roza, Ángel Sánchez Garrido-Lestache, David Jiménez Castro, Ramón Lecumberri, Pedro Ruiz Artacho
{"title":"急诊科患者静脉血栓栓塞风险量表之间的一致性。","authors":"Mónica Olid Velilla, Sònia Jiménez Hernández, Fahd Beddar, Vanesa Sendín Martín, Línder Cárdenas Bravo, Ángel Álvarez Márquez, Daniel Sánchez Díaz-Canel, Susana Diego Roza, Ángel Sánchez Garrido-Lestache, David Jiménez Castro, Ramón Lecumberri, Pedro Ruiz Artacho","doi":"10.55633/s3me/084.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":93987,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":"36 5","pages":"342-350"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments.\",\"authors\":\"Mónica Olid Velilla, Sònia Jiménez Hernández, Fahd Beddar, Vanesa Sendín Martín, Línder Cárdenas Bravo, Ángel Álvarez Márquez, Daniel Sánchez Díaz-Canel, Susana Diego Roza, Ángel Sánchez Garrido-Lestache, David Jiménez Castro, Ramón Lecumberri, Pedro Ruiz Artacho\",\"doi\":\"10.55633/s3me/084.2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"volume\":\"36 5\",\"pages\":\"342-350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/084.2024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/084.2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估因内科疾病住院的患者静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)风险评估模型之间的一致性,并分析与医院急诊科(ED)处方药物血栓预防决定相关的变量。结论:方法前瞻性多中心队列观察研究。我们纳入了 15 家医院急诊科因内科疾病住院的成人,根据静脉血栓栓塞症国际医疗预防登记(IMPROVE)评分、帕多瓦预测评分(PPS)和美国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)评分计算 VTE 风险。除了评估分数间的一致性外,我们还分析了与急诊室开具血栓预防处方相关的变量:结果:共纳入了 1203 名患者。PADUA、IMPROVE和NICE量表分别对68.7%、47.4%和69.5%的患者进行了高风险评分。PADUA 和 NICE 评分的κ统计量为 0.80(95% CI,0.76-0.84);102 名患者(8.5%)的评分不一致。IMPROVE评分与PADUA和NICE分类之间的κ统计量分别为0.47(95% CI,0.43-0.52)和0.37(95% CI,0.33-0.42);分别有322名(26.8%)和384名(31.9%)患者的评分不一致。与在急诊室开始血栓预防治疗相关的变量有:急性心肌梗死或中风的诊断(调整后比值比 [aOR],4.26)、过去 2 个月内不能移动(aOR,2.19)、慢性阻塞性肺病(aOR,1.97)、缺血性心脏病(aOR,1.51)、活动能力下降 3 天或更久(aOR,1.14)、体重指数(aOR,1.04)、年龄(aOR,1.02)、近期创伤或手术(aOR,0.40)和出血风险(aOR,0.56):结论:预测因内科疾病住院的患者发生 VTE 风险的推荐模型之间存在分歧。急诊医生对血栓预防进行临床判断的依据不仅仅是风险量表,还包括 VTE 和出血的多种风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments.

Objective: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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).

Conclusions: 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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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