What Constitutes High Risk for Venous Thromboembolism? Comparing Approaches to Determining an Appropriate Threshold
Mittman, B. G.; Hu, B.; Schulte, R.; Le, P.; Pappas, M. A.; Hamilton, A. C.; Rothberg, M. B.
Show abstract
BackgroundGuidelines recommend pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis only for high-risk patients, but the probability of VTE considered "high-risk" is not specified. Our objective was to define an appropriate probability threshold (or range) for VTE risk stratification and corresponding prophylaxis in medical inpatients. MethodsPatients were adults admitted to any of 10 Cleveland Clinic Health System hospitals between December 2020 and August 2021 (N = 41,036). Hospital medicine physicians and internal medicine residents from included hospitals were surveyed between June and November 2023 (N = 214). We compared five approaches to determining a threshold: decision analysis, maximizing the sensitivity and specificity of a logistic regression model, deriving a probability from a point-based model, surveying physicians understanding of VTE risk, and deriving a probability from physician behavior. For each approach, we determined the probability threshold above which a patient would be considered high-risk for VTE. We applied each threshold to the Cleveland Clinic VTE risk assessment model (CCM) and calculated the percentage of the 41,036 patients in our cohort who would be considered eligible for prophylaxis due to their high-risk status. We compared these hypothetical prophylaxis rates with physicians observed prophylaxis rates. ResultsThe different approaches yielded thresholds ranging from 0.3% to 5.4%, corresponding inversely with hypothetical prophylaxis rates of 0.2% to 75%. Multiple thresholds clustered between 0.52% to 0.55%, suggesting an average hypothetical prophylaxis rate of approximately 30%, whereas physicians observed prophylaxis rates ranged from 48% to 76%. ConclusionsMultiple approaches to determining a probability threshold for VTE prophylaxis converged to suggest an optimal threshold of approximately 0.5%. Other approaches yielded extreme thresholds that are unrealistic for clinical practice. Physicians prescribed prophylaxis much more frequently than the suggested rate of 30%, indicating opportunity to reduce unnecessary prophylaxis. To aid in these efforts, guidelines should explicitly quantify high-risk.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Incidence and Risk of Post-COVID-19 Thromboembolic Disease and the Impact of Aspirin Prescription; Nationwide Observational Cohort at the US Department of Veteran Affairs 95%
- Risk Factors for Early PICC Removal: A Retrospective Study of Adult Inpatients at an Academic Medical Center 94%
- COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of venous thrombosis, but not arterial thrombosis, compared with influenza: Insights from a large US cohort 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Venous Thromboembolism and the Effects of Statin and Hormone Therapy: A Case-Control Study of 250,000 Women 50-64 years of age 94%
- Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP): An Interpretable Machine Learning AutoScore–Derived Triage Tool for Predicting Mortality after Emergency Admissions 92%
- Corticosteroids in COVID-19: Optimizing Observational Research through Target Trial Emulations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Outcomes With the Use of Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Anticoagulation in COVID-19 92%
- A Multicenter Evaluation of Blood Purification with Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Preliminary Report 91%
- ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The influence of access to bundle-enhancing supplies and equipment 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States 95%
- Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19 93%
- Clinical Decision Support in Cardiovascular Medicine: Effectiveness, Implementation Barriers, and Regulation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Case Series of Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome following COVID-19 vaccination—United States, December 2020–August 2021 89%
- Clinical Trends Among U.S. Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19, March-December 2020 88%
- Effectiveness of COVID-19 treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or molnupiravir among U.S. Veterans: target trial emulation studies with one-month and six-month outcomes 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.