Reassessment of venous thromboembolism and bleeding risk in medical patients receiving VTE prophylaxis

A review of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for different patient populations: What we know and don't!

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Globally, it is also the third leading vascular disease, after myocardial infarction and stroke. The incidence of VTE is reportedly higher in Western countries than in Asian countries. However, recent reports suggest an increasing incidence of VTE in Asian countries, including India. Since VTE is largely a preventable disease, early identification of risk factors can lead to disease prevention or the adoption of appropriate prophylactic measures. To this end, several VTE risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed and validated for different populations who are at risk of developing VTE, such as hospitalized patients with medical illness/surgical indication, patients with cancer, and pregnant women. Evidence indicates that the systematic use of RAMs improves prophylaxis rates and lowers the burden of VTE. Given the increasing burden of VTE in the Indian population and poor prophylaxis rates, the implementation of systematic RAMs in routine clinical practice might ameliorate the disease burden in the country. We have assessed the evidence-based utilities of available RAMs and have delineated the most common and suitable RAMs for different populations including coronavirus disease 2019 affected patients. This review depicts the current status of implementation and validation of RAMs in the Indian scenario. It also highlights the need for additional validation studies, improved awareness, and implementation of RAMs in clinical practice for lowering the burden of VTE.

Physicians' Views on Utilization of an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Calculator to Assess Risk for Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients: A Qualitative Study

Background  Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable in-hospital morbidity. Pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces VTE in at-risk patients but also increases bleeding. To increase appropriate prescribing, a risk calculator to guide prophylaxis decisions was developed. Despite efforts to promote its use, providers accessed it infrequently. Objective  This study aimed to understand provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and facilitators and barriers to using the risk calculator. Design  This is a qualitative study exploring provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and the VTE risk calculator. Participants  We interviewed attending physicians and advanced practice providers who used the calculator, and site champions who promoted calculator use. Providers were categorized by real-world usage over a 3-month period: low (<20% of the time), moderate (20-50%), or high (>50%). Approach  During semistructured interviews, we asked about experiences with VTE, calculator use, perspectives on its implementation, and experiences with other risk assessment tools. Once thematic saturation was reached, transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. Results  Fourteen providers participated. Five were high utilizers, three were moderate utilizers, and six were low utilizers. Three site champions participated. Eight major themes were identified as follows: (1) ease of use, (2) perception of VTE risk, (3) harms of thromboprophylaxis, (4) overestimation of calculator use, (5) confidence in own ability, (6) underestimation of risk by calculator, (7) variability of trust in calculator, and (8) validation to withhold prophylaxis from low-risk patients. Conclusions  While providers found the calculator is easy to use, routine use may be hindered by distrust of its recommendations. Inaccurate perception of VTE and bleeding risk may prevent calculator use.