Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a subanalysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4157121/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a subanalysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4157121/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) may frequently experience both an increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding. The use of risk assessment models (RAMs) could aid their management. We present a post-hoc analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study, an observational, retrospective, multi-center study conducted in 38 Italian IMUs. Primary aim was to evaluate the predictors associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization. Secondary objectives were to evaluate RAMs adherence, prophylaxis prescription, and the number of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 927 out of 1387 (66.8%) patients with a Padua Prediction score (PPS) ≥ 4. Remarkably, 397 in 1230 (32.3%) patients with both PPS ≥ 4 and an IMPROVE bleeding risk score (IBS) < 7 did not receive it. The prescription of thromboprophylaxis mostly correlated with reduced mobility (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.90-2.81), ischemic stroke (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.34-2.91), history of previous thrombosis (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.49-4.07), and the presence of a central venous catheter (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.99-4.54). The assessment of bleeding risk using the IBS did not appear to impact physicians' decisions.

Our analysis provides insight into how indications for thromboprophylaxis were determined, highlighting the difficulties faced by physicians with patients admitted to IMUs.

Thromboprophylaxis

risk assessment models

hospitalization

Internal Medicine

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in hospitalized patients. The incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) without pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is about 10 to 40% among patients admitted for medical issues. [1, 2] Randomized-controlled trials and meta-analyses showed that pharmacological prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of VTE compared to placebo in medically ill inpatients. [3, 4] Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) may frequently experience an increased bleeding risk due to coexistent diseases and treatments with potential drug-drug interactions. In these patients, the use of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE and bleeding events is recommended by contemporary guidelines. [5, 6] The most validated RAMs to discriminate medical inpatients at higher risk for VTE are the Padua Prediction score (PPS) and the IMPROVE VTE score. [7, 8] The IMPROVE bleeding score (IBS) is suggested for identifying medical inpatients with an elevated bleeding risk. [9] These RAMs are not regularly used, as solid evidence of an effective positive impact on clinical practice is still lacking. [10]

The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis after discharge and the factors associated with its use have been evaluated in a large Italian multicenter retrospective study, the FADOI-NoTEVole study. [11] The aim of this paper is to describe the attitude of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis among Italian physicians during IMUs stays of medical patients in a post-hoc analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.

2.1 Study design

The FADOI-NoTEVole study was an observational, retrospective, multi-center study conducted in 38 Italian IMUs (either standard or short-stay units) from September to December 2017. The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (CER Umbria) of Perugia, Italy, and reported to the Ethics Committees of the other participating sites. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki (Fortaleza 2013 version). The Scientific Society of Internal Medicine (FADOI, i.e., Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) coordinated the study.

2.2 Objective

The primary aim of the study is to evaluate the rate of pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE, and the predictors associated with the prescription of pharmacological prophylaxis during the hospital stay. The secondary aims are to evaluate RAMs’ adherence and the number of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in each group.

2.3 Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were described in the main study paper.[11] Briefly, all the consecutive medically ill patients admitted for any cause and discharged alive from any participating IMU were considered. Patients with a short life expectancy (less than 3 months) who were transferred to the nursing home, or the palliative care service were excluded. Patients on therapeutic dose of oral or parenteral anticoagulants at the admission were excluded.

2.4 Data collection

Data collection was described in the main study paper. [11] The available information from the hospital charts is listed as follow:

Age, gender, body mass index (BMI).
Medical history (history of VTE, history of major bleeding according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) [12], bleeding events occurred less than 3 months earlier, bed rest, lower limb paralysis, thrombophilia, central venous catheter, trauma, or surgery within 1 month before the hospitalization, alcohol abuse, risk of falling in the previous 6 months, availability of a caregiver).
Laboratory analysis (hemoglobin, platelet count, creatinine, International Normalized Ratio, activated Partial Thromboplastin Time).
Acute diseases at hospital admission and concomitant diseases.
Drugs (anti-inflammatory medications, anticoagulants, hormone therapy, antibiotics, oxygen therapy).
RAMs for the risk of venous thrombosis and bleeding (Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE Bleeding Score).
Clinical events occurring during hospital stay (major bleeding, VTE, other major cardiovascular events).
Pharmacological prophylaxis for VTE during hospital stays (type and duration throughout the hospital stay, type and expected duration at discharge).

The enrolled cohort was divided into two groups for the main analyses: those who used pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. For the secondary analyses, enrolled patients were divided between those with a Padua Prediction score < 4 or ≥ 4, and those with an IMPROVE bleeding score < 7 or ≥ 7, analyzing their characteristics.

2.5 Statistical analysis

The rate of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was presented with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) corrected for continuity correction. All categorical variables were expressed as the absolute number and percentage, and continuous variables as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range if not normally distributed. The chi-square test was used to study the association between outcomes (VTE, major bleeding, cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events) and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported with their respective two-tailed probability values. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A set of univariate analyses were carried out as preliminary evaluations of the variables associated with the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. The final multivariable logistic model was obtained by a stepwise selection method, using 0.05 as the significance level for entering an effect into the model. The same significance level (p-value < 0.05) was required for a variable to stay in the model. The use of prophylaxis was then correlated with the RAMs and with the number of risk factors for thrombosis shown in the multivariate analysis.

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS ODA (version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, United States).

3.1 Baseline characteristics

The NoTEVole study enrolled 3740 patients with a mean age of 74.1 years. Our analysis excluded 723 patients (19.3%) on anticoagulant therapy at admission, considering an overall population of 3017 patients. Among them, 1511 (50.1%) were treated with VTE prophylaxis during the hospital stay, and 1506 (49.9%) were not. Low molecular weight heparin was the most used pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (84.4%), mainly enoxaparin (78.2%). The selection of the analyzed cohort is detailed in Fig. 1.

Almost all patients (97.6%) were hospitalized in a standard IMU with a median hospital stay of 9 days. The 54.3% of the population was over 75 years old, with an equal distribution of gender (female 50.2%), and 16% had a BMI > 30 kg/m². Considering the main diagnosis at admission, 35.3% of patients had an acute infection, 20.3% had heart failure, 7.6% had severe renal impairment (GFR < 30 ml/min), and 6.3% had active cancer. Exploring the thrombotic risk, 46% of the population had a Padua Prediction score ≥ 4, and 3.3% had a history of VTE. The main baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics and main diagnosis at admission.
	General cohort	Prophylaxis during hospitalization		Wald p-value*
	General cohort	Yes	No	Wald p-value*
N of patients	3017	1511	1506
Age (median IQR)	77 (65–85)	80 (71–87)	71 (57–82)	< 0.01
Female (%)	1514 (50.2)	798 (52.8)	716 (47.5)	< 0.01
BMI > 30 (%)	482 (16.0)	255 (52.9)	227 (47.1)	0.18
GFR ≥ 60 ml/min (%)	2362 (78.3)	1147 (48.6)	1215 (51.4)	< 0.01
GFR 30–59 ml/min (%)	426 (14.1)	239 (56.1)	187 (43.9)
GFR < 30 ml/min (%)	229 (7.6)	125 (54.6)	104 (45.4)
Active cancer (%)	350 (11.6)	200 (57.1)	150 (42.9)	< 0.01
History of major bleeding (%)	184 (6.1)	88 (47.8)	96 (52.2)	0.60
Heart failure (%)	612 (20.3)	415 (67.9)	197 (32.1)	< 0.01
Acute infection (%)	1065 (35.3)	660 (62.0)	405 (38.0)	< 0.01
Ischemic stroke (%)	138 (4.5)	88 (63.8)	50 (36.2)	< 0.01
CVC (%)	161 (5.3)	123 (76.4)	38 (23.6)	< 0.01
History of VTE (%)	99 (3.3)	74 (74.8)	25 (25.2)	< 0.01
COPD (%)	476 (15.8)	299 (62.8)	177 (37.2)	< 0.01
Reduced mobility** (%)	782 (25.9)	552 (70.6)	230 (29.4)	< 0.01
Antiplatelet therapy (%)	1044 (34.6)	589 (56.4)	455 (43.6)	< 0.01
Hb g/dl (median IQR)	11.6 (10.0-13.1)	11.4 (10.0-12.8)	11.9 (10.0-13.4)
PLT *10⁹/mm³ (median IQR)	228 (172–297)	235 (179–314)	222 (167–283)
Wald p-value is derived from the univariate analysis of the baseline cohort’s characteristics; IQR: interquartile range, BMI: body mass index, GFR: glomerular filtration rate, CVC: central venous catheter, COPD: chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, *reduced mobility ≥ 7 days before hospitalization, Hb: hemoglobin, PLT: platelet count, VTE: venous thromboembolism.

3.2 VTE and bleeding risk stratification with RAMs and the use of thromboprophylaxis

Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 927 out of 1387 (66.8%) patients with a Padua Prediction score of 4 or higher, while 460 (33.2%) did not receive it (see Table 2 and Fig. 2). Regarding the hemorrhagic risk, 213 patients (7.7%) had an IMPROVE bleeding score of 7 or more, and 120 (51.9%) had thromboprophylaxis prescribed. Moreover, 397 out of 1230 (32.3%) patients with both a high thrombotic risk (PPS ≥ 4) and a low bleeding risk (IBS < 7) did not receive thromboprophylaxis. On the other hand, in the population with a low thrombotic risk (PPS < 4) and a high hemorrhagic risk (IBS ≥ 7), 26 out of 74 patients (35.1%) still received pharmacological prophylaxis.

Table 2

Application of the RAMS and prescription of thromboprophylaxis.
RAMs	General population	Prophylaxis
	3017	Yes (1511)	No (1506)	OR	CI 95%
IMPROVE Bleeding ≥ 7 (n%)	231 (7.7)	120 (51.9)	111 (48.1)	1.08	0.83–1.42
Padua Prediction score ≥ 4 (n%)	1387 (46.0)	927 (66.8)	460 (33.2)	3.61	3.10–4.20
PPS < 4 and IBS < 7 (n%)	1556 (51.6)	558 (36.9)	998 (66.3)	1.0	reference
PPS ≥ 4 and IBS < 7 (n%)	1230 (40.8)	833 (67.7)	397 (32.2)	3.7	3.2–4.4
PPS < 4 and IBS ≥ 7 (n%)	74 (2.5)	26 (35.1)	48 (64.9)	1.0	0.6–1.6
PPS ≥ 4 and IBS ≥ 7 (n%)	157 (5.2)	94 (59.9)	63 (40.1)	2.7	1.9–3.7
RAMs: risk model assessments; PPS: Padua Prediction score; IBS: IMPROVE Bleeding score; OR: Odds Ratio, CI 95%: Confidence Interval of 95%

3.3 Correlation between risk factors and prescription of thromboprophylaxis

Patients who received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were older (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.03–1.04) and with a worse renal function (GFR < 30 ml/min, OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.97–1.67) compared to patients who did not receive it. The following variables were identified as candidates for the multivariable analysis: age, sex, reduced mobility, the presence of a central venous catheter, kidney impairment, actual cancer, heart failure, ischemic stroke, infection, hemoglobin < 10 g/dl, platelet ≥ 70.000/mm³, previous TEV, corticosteroid’s use, and previous major bleedings.

At the multivariate analysis, reduced mobility (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.90–2.81), ischemic stroke (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.34–2.91), previous VTE (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.49–4.07), infection at admission (OR 2.22; 95% CI 1.87–2.64), presence of a central venous catheter (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.99–4.54) and platelet count ≥ 70.000/mm³ (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.81–5.34) resulted significantly associated with thromboprophylaxis’ prescription while the history of previous bleeding was associated with a lower rate of prescription (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44–0.86) (see Table 3). Also, the use of pharmacological prophylaxis progressively increases with the number of prothrombotic risk factors, rising from 9.8% with a single risk factor to 100% in patients with 9 risk factors (Fig. 2). Detailed data are reported in Supplementary S2.

Table 3

Association between baseline variables and thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, multivariate analysis.
Associated variables	OR	95%CI
Reduced mobility^⊺	2.31	1.90–2.81
Age (continuous)	1.03	1.02–1.04
CVC	3.00	1.99–4.54
Cancer	2.18	1.39–2.29
Heart failure	2.18	1.76–2.69
Ischemic stroke	2.38	1.34–2.91
Acute infection	2.22	1.87–2.64
Hb < 10 g/dl	1.26	1.04–1.53
PLT ≥ 70*10⁹/mm³	3.11	1.81–5.34
Previous VTE	2.46	1.49–4.07
Previous major bleedings	0.61	0.44–0.86
OR: odds ratio, ^⊺reduced mobility ≥ 7 days, BMI: body mass index, GFR: glomerular filtration rate, CVC: central venous catheter, COPD: chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, Hb: hemoglobin, PLT: platelet count, VTE: venous thromboembolism.

3.4 VTE rate and bleeding events during hospitalization with and without thromboprophylaxis

The overall incidence of thrombotic events during hospitalization was 25 out of 3017 (0.8%). The rate was higher among people with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, having 22 events in a population of 1511 (1.5%), versus 3 out of 1506 patients (0.2%) without it. Also, the group with pharmacological prophylaxis reported 9 (0.6%) cardiovascular events versus 2 (0.1%) in the non-prophylaxis group. Hence, there was an equal incidence of cerebrovascular events in both groups. One cardiac arrest with the return of spontaneous circulation and five episodes of atrial fibrillation were also reported in patients on thromboprophylaxis (Supplementary S3). Major bleedings occurred in 30 (2%) patients on pharmacological prophylaxis and 24 (1.6%) without it. The major events recorded during hospitalization are detailed in Supplementary S4.

3.5 VTE and bleeding events according to RAMs and the prescription of thromboprophylaxis

Among patients with an estimated high risk for thrombosis (PPS ≥ 4), 21 of 1387 (1.5%) had a VTE event. Of these, 18 occurred with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization (18 of 927, 1.9%), and 3 without it (3 of 460, 0.7%). The population with an estimated higher bleeding risk (IBS ≥ 7) reported 15 out of 231 (11.5%) actual bleeds. Eleven (73.3%) were in the thromboprophylaxis group, and 4 (26.6%) were in the non-prophylaxis group. Data and analysis are detailed in Supplementary S5 and S6.

This subanalysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study provides a detailed insight into the practice of Italian physicians regarding the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in IMUs’ inpatients.

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in about half of the 3017 patients admitted to 38 Italian IMUs without prior anticoagulation. According to the PPS, almost 50% of patients were considered at high risk of VTE and, according to the IBS, less than 8% were considered at high risk for bleeding. Although not specifically requested by the FADOI-NoTEVole study protocol, the adoption of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization was only partially influenced by the VTE and bleeding’s RAMs recommended by current guidelines. [5, 6] Indeed, only 66.8% of patients classified as high risk for VTE, according to the PPS, received thromboprophylaxis. Additionally, the assessment of bleeding risk using the IBS did not appear to impact physicians' decisions. Interestingly, several other features composing PPS, IBS, and other RAMs [7, 8] were associated with a different use of pharmacological prophylaxis. These included the presence of a CVC, a previous VTE event, the diagnosis of ischemic stroke, perceived reduced mobility, and a platelet count not lower than 70.000/mm³ at the time of admission. On the other hand, as expected, a recent former major bleeding event led to a lower prescription of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

In previous studies, the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized non-surgical patients was highly heterogeneous. In the Endorse study, a multinational cross-sectional study designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, the use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was generally low, although the risk of VTE was not negligible. [13] Conversely, in a large prospective Italian cohort study, pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was implemented in more than 80% of patients admitted to an IMU with a PPS equal to or above 4. [14]

Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have clearly shown the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis compared to placebo in reducing the risk of VTE in non-surgical patients admitted to the hospital. [4, 15, 16] However, this is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and, in general, it has no effect on reducing all-cause mortality, questioning the real importance of this treatment in medical settings. Thus, tools to assess individual risk of VTE and bleeding may be useful in this setting.

In the last few years, many RAMs evaluating these risks have been developed and validated. However, poor evidence is available assessing their real impact in improving the clinical outcomes of these patients. [10] In a small single-center, prospective, quasi-randomized study, the adoption of the Padua Prediction Score was associated with a 50% reduction in the incidence of VTE (i.e., symptomatic and asymptomatic, mainly distal VTE) compared with clinical judgment, with no differences in terms of bleeding and death from all-cause. [17] In a large RCT, employing a strategy including an electronic alert about the thrombotic risk (assessed through a risk score) versus no alert greatly reduced the occurrence of symptomatic VTE with no increase in the bleeding rate in hospitalized patients. [18]

Our study has some limitations. First, the retrospective design is per definition at risk of bias. Data are acquired from clinical records with the risk of suboptimal reporting. This may lead to possible bias in the post-hoc assessment of the RAMs, but the distribution of the thrombotic and bleeding risk appeared to be in line with the previous literature. Second, it is unclear the time when the thrombotic and hemorrhagic events occurred and if minor or clinically relevant bleedings led to an interruption of pharmacological prophylaxis. Third, the FADOI-NoTEVole study included only patients discharged alive and excluded patients with a life expectancy of less than 3 months who were transferred to the nursing home, or the palliative care service: this resulted in a lack of data regarding mortality rates. Finally, no information was available about the use of mechanical prophylaxis (i.e., intermittent pneumatic compression and elastic stockings) and early mobilization, and if it might have helped to reduce VTE rate in patients without pharmacological prophylaxis.

In conclusion, our analysis showed some factors that may influence physicians’ prescription of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, underscoring the daily challenges in assessing the appropriateness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in IMU’s patients. Single risk factors for VTE and bleeding seem to modify clinicians’ behavior. Of note, PPS seems to be only a partial driver of the use of pharmacological prophylaxis, and IBS does not appear to modify clinicians’ approach at all.

Author’s contributions: All the authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the acquisition, and the interpretation of data. Bertù L. made the statistical analysis. Abenante A. and Dentali F. drafted the work. All authors revised it critically for important intellectual content and approved the version to be published.

Conflict of interests: Abenante A., Bertù L., Arioli D., Buso R., Carrara D., Ciarambino T. declare that they have no conflict of interest. Squizzato A. had honoraria for lectures and/or participation on advisory board from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Techdow, Werfen, Alexion, Roche and Viatris. Dentali F. had grants and personal fees for lectures and consultancy from Bayer, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi and Boehringer.

Funding: none.

Acknowledgments: none.

Baglin TP, White K, Charles A. Fatal pulmonary embolism in hospitalised medical patients. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 1997;50(7):609-610. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.50.7.609
Stein PD, Henry JW. Prevalence of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Among Patients in a General Hospital and at Autopsy. Chest. 1995;108(4):978-981. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.108.4.978
Turpie AGG. Thrombosis prophylaxis in the acutely ill medical patient: insights from the prophylaxis in medical patients with enoxaparin (MEDENOX) trial. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2000;86(12):48-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(00)01481-8
Dentali F, Douketis JD, Gianni M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Meta-analysis: Anticoagulant Prophylaxis to Prevent Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medical Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):278. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-4-200702200-00007
Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Advances. 2018;2(22):3198-3225. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2018022954
Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, et al. Prevention of VTE in Nonsurgical Patients. Chest. 2012;141(2):e195S-e226S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2296
Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V, et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2010;8(11):2450-2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04044.x
Spyropoulos AC, Anderson FA, FitzGerald G, et al. Predictive and Associative Models to Identify Hospitalized Medical Patients at Risk for VTE. Chest. 2011;140(3):706-714. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-1944
Decousus H, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. Factors at Admission Associated With Bleeding Risk in Medical Patients. Chest. 2011;139(1):69-79. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-3081
Dentali F, Campanini M, Bonaventura A, et al. The Use of Risk Scores for Thromboprophylaxis in Medically Ill Patients—Rationale and Design of the RICO trial. TH Open. 2024;08(01):e55-e60. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2209-4708
Squizzato A, Agnelli G, Campanini M, et al. Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism after Hospital Discharge in Internal Medicine: Findings from the Observational FADOI-NoTEVole Study. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119(12):2043-2052. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697661
Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non‐surgical patients. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2005;3(4):692-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x
Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. The Lancet. 2008;371(9610):387-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60202-0
Regina ML, Orlandini F, Marchini F, et al. Combined assessment of thrombotic and haemorrhagic risk in acute medical patients. Thromb Haemost. 2016;115(02):392-398. https://doi.org/10.1160/th14-12-1050
Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon JY, et al. A Comparison of Enoxaparin with Placebo for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Acutely Ill Medical Patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(11):793-800. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199909093411103
Cohen AT, Davidson BL, Gallus AS, et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332(7537):325-329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38733.466748.7C
Germini F, Agnelli G, Fedele M, et al. Padua prediction score or clinical judgment for decision making on prophylaxis: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;42(3):336-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-016-1358-z
Kucher N, Paterno MD. Electronic Alerts to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism among Hospitalized Patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. Published online 2005. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041533

SUPPLEMENTARYMATERIAL.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
13 May, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
13 May, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
28 Mar, 2024
First submitted to journal
27 Mar, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a subanalysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1 Study design

2.2 Objective

2.3 Inclusion criteria

2.4 Data collection

2.5 Statistical analysis

3. Results

3.1 Baseline characteristics

3.2 VTE and bleeding risk stratification with RAMs and the use of thromboprophylaxis

3.3 Correlation between risk factors and prescription of thromboprophylaxis

3.4 VTE rate and bleeding events during hospitalization with and without thromboprophylaxis

3.5 VTE and bleeding events according to RAMs and the prescription of thromboprophylaxis

4. Discussion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1