Mittman Benjamin G, Hu Bo, Schulte Rebecca, Le Phuc, Pappas Matthew A, Hamilton Aaron, Rothberg Michael B
Center for Value-Based Care Research, Community Care, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
medRxiv. 2024 Sep 1:2024.08.30.24312871. doi: 10.1101/2024.08.30.24312871.
Guidelines 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.
Patients 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.
The 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%.
Multiple 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.
指南建议仅对高危患者进行药物性静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)预防,但未明确“高危”VTE的概率。我们的目标是确定医疗住院患者VTE风险分层及相应预防的合适概率阈值(或范围)。
患者为2020年12月至2021年8月期间入住克利夫兰诊所医疗系统10家医院中的任何一家的成年人(N = 41,036)。2023年6月至11月对纳入医院的医院内科医生和内科住院医师进行了调查(N = 214)。我们比较了确定阈值的五种方法:决策分析、最大化逻辑回归模型的敏感性和特异性、从基于点的模型推导概率、调查医生对VTE风险的理解以及从医生行为推导概率。对于每种方法,我们确定了患者被视为VTE高危的概率阈值。我们将每个阈值应用于克利夫兰诊所VTE风险评估模型(CCM),并计算我们队列中41,036名患者中因高危状态而被视为有预防资格的患者百分比。我们将这些假设的预防率与医生观察到的预防率进行比较。
不同方法得出的阈值范围为0.3%至5.4%,与0.2%至75%的假设预防率呈反比。多个阈值聚集在0.52%至0.55%之间,表明平均假设预防率约为30%,而医生观察到的预防率范围为48%至76%。
确定VTE预防概率阈值的多种方法趋于一致,表明最佳阈值约为0.5%。其他方法得出的极端阈值在临床实践中不现实。医生开具预防药物的频率远高于建议的30%,这表明有机会减少不必要的预防。为了助力这些努力,指南应明确量化高危情况。