Dataset Information

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Design

Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021.

Eligibility criteria

All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery).

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively.

Conclusions

Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020221094.

SUBMITTER: Pandor A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9562726 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

Pandor Abdullah A Daru Jahnavi J Hunt Beverley J BJ Rooney Gill G Hamilton Jean J Clowes Mark M Goodacre Steve S Nelson-Piercy Catherine C Davis Sarah S

BMJ open 20221012 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>All validation studies ...[more]

PMID: 36223963

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital.MethodsA systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings.ResultsAmong 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%.ConclusionAvailable data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM.Prospero registration numberSteve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

Project description:BackgroundSymptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis.ObjectivesTo compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models.MethodsA retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013.ResultsOf the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model.ConclusionsThese data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.

Project description:ObjectiveHospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE, including pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) is a preventable cause of hospital death. The Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) is one of the most commonly used tools to assess VTE risk. The RAM is operationalized in clinical practice by grouping several risk scores into VTE risk categories that drive decisions on prophylaxis. A correlation between increasing Caprini scores and rising VTE risk is well-established. We assessed whether the increasing VTE risk categories assigned on the basis of recommended score ranges also correlate with increasing VTE risk.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles that used the Caprini RAM to assign VTE risk categories and that reported corresponding VTE rates. A Medline and EMBASE search retrieved 895 articles, of which 57 fulfilled inclusion criteria.ResultsForty-eight (84%) of the articles were cohort studies, 7 (12%) were case-control studies, and 2 (4%) were cross-sectional studies. The populations varied from postsurgical to medical patients. There was variability in the number of VTE risk categories assigned by individual studies (6 used 5 risk categories, 37 used 4, 11 used 3, and 3 used 2), and in the cutoff scores defining the risk categories (scores from 0 alone to 0-10 for the low-risk category; from ≥5 to ≥10 for high risk). The VTE rates reported for similar risk categories also varied across studies (0%-12.3% in the low-risk category; 0%-40% for high risk). The Caprini RAM is designed to assess composite VTE risk; however, two studies reported PE or DVT rates alone, and many of the other studies did not specify the types of DVTs analyzed. The Caprini RAM predicts VTE at 30 days after assessment; however, only 17 studies measured outcomes at 30 days; the remaining studies had either shorter or longer follow-ups (0-180 days).ConclusionsThe usefulness of the Caprini RAM is limited by heterogeneity in its implementation across centers. The score-derived VTE risk categorization has significant variability in the number of risk categories being used, the cutpoints used to define the risk categories, the outcome being measured, and the follow-up duration. This factor leads to similar risk categories being associated with different VTE rates, which impacts the clinical and research implications of the results. To enhance generalizability, there is a need for studies that validate the RAM in a broad population of medical and surgical patients, identify standardized risk categories, define risk of DVT and PE as distinct end points, and measure outcomes at standardized follow-up time points.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to published guidelines, gynecologic surgical patients should be stratified into different risk level groups to receive prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the applicability of available risk assessment models (RAMs) in common gynecologic surgical patients remained to be confirmed. We aimed to validate the use of the Caprini RAM and gynecologic Caprini (G-Caprini) RAM for assessing postoperative VTE risk in gynecologic surgical patients.MethodsThe database of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was used to select patients who underwent gynecologic surgeries for benignant and malignant diseases in five institutions in China between 2011 and 2018. The Caprini RAM version recommended by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) was adopted. Participants were divided into four risk levels based on the Caprini and G-Caprini scores. For each risk level group, the incidence of VTE was calculated. The correlation between VET incidence and risk levels was assessed by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS) value.ResultsAs a result, 800 patients in the data base were analyzed with an overall VTE incidence of 5.8%. Caprini RAM showed that the percentage of patients at very low risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk were 0%, 4.3%, 44.4%, and 51.4%, respectively, and the VTE incidence was 2.9%, 2.3%, and 9.0%, respectively. RS value between the risk stratification and VTE incidence was 0.500 (P=0.667). G-Caprini RAM showed that the percentage of patients at very low risk, low risk, moderate risk, and high risk were 7.8%, 28.0%, 32.0%, and 32.3%, respectively, and the VTE incidence was 0.0%, 2.9%, 2.3%, and 9.0%, respectively. RS value between the risk stratification and VTE incidence was 1.000 (P<0.01).ConclusionsThe G-Caprini RAM was as suitable as the Caprini RAM for VTE risk assessment in gynecologic surgical patients. The gynecologic model has the advantages of ease of use and more accurate identification of low-risk groups.

Dataset Information

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusions

Prospero registration number

Publications

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets