An update on the global use of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with medical illnesses from the World Thrombosis Day steering committee: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Extended thromboprophylaxis in heart failure patients; the unmet need

Heart failure (HF) is considered one of a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. The association between HF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported in several studies owing to many physiological and thromboembolic risk factors. Thus, the need for extended thromboprophylaxis during the post-discharge period in HF patients has been evaluated. Most guidelines do not recommend extended thromboprophylaxis because of its uncertain benefits and increased risk of bleeding. However, recent evidence in HF patients revealed no increased risk of bleeding with extended thromboprophylaxis, which highlights the importance of identifying ideal candidates who might benefit from extended thromboprophylaxis. Several risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to identify patients at a high risk of VTE who would benefit from in-hospital and post-discharge prophylactic anticoagulation therapy based on the risk-benefit principle. However, their accuracy in predicting VTE is questionable, and none have a standardized approach for evaluating the risk of VTE in HF patients. In this review, we provided an overview of the incidence and pathophysiology of VTE in HF patients, a summary of guideline recommendations for VTE prevention, and a summary of studies evaluating the use of extended thromboprophylaxis, with a focus on subgroup or post-hoc analyses of HF patients. We also discussed the need to design an ideal RAM that can identify candidate patients for extended thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the risk of VTE and identifying the key risk factors for bleeding in medically ill patients, including those with HF.

Deep vein thrombosis after sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation of varicose veins - an observational study

Background: The risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after endovenous ablation of varicose veins varies in the literature. Little is known about the characteristics of this complication and associated factors. This study aimed: 1) to study the occurrence of DVT after ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) alone or combined with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for lower-limb varicose veins; 2) to identify factors associated with DVT. Patients and methods: The study included all outpatients aged 18 years or older who underwent UGFS and EVLA or UGFS alone at the University Hospital of Zurich between 2011 and 2015. Data were extracted from the hospital electronic medical record. Patients were surveyed about their level of pain after the procedure and their level of satisfaction with the procedure. Duplex ultrasound was used to assess the deep venous system 7-10 days and 6-8 months after the procedure. Regression analysis was used to examine the association of patient and procedure characteristics with the development of DVT. Results: A total of 334 patients (561 procedures performed in 393 different sessions) were included: 73% of the patients underwent combined UGFS and EVLA and 27% underwent UGFS alone. DVT occurred in 24 (7.2%) patients, of whom 88% underwent combined procedures and 17% underwent interventions involving both the great and small saphenous veins on the same session. DVT occurred in 8.2% of patients receiving thromboprophylaxis and in 9.5% of patients not receiving thromboprophylaxis. DVT occurred in 5.2% of women and 11.9% of men. No factors associated with a diagnosis of DVT after intervention were identified. Pain and satisfaction levels did not differ between patients with and without DVT. Conclusions: This study adds to the knowledge of the risk of DVT following UGFS alone or combined with EVLA. Further studies are needed to revise thromboprophylaxis.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Gynecologic Oncology: A MITO-MaNGO Survey

Cancer-associated thrombosis is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients, and its incidence has been increasing in recent years. This survey was aimed at gathering information regarding the management of thromboembolic prophylaxis within the MITO (Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer)-MaNGO (Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology) groups. We designed a self-administered, multiple-choice online questionnaire available only for MITO-MaNGO members for one month, starting in May 2022 and ending in June 2022. We processed one response form per center, and 50 responses were analyzed, with most of the respondents (78%) over 40 years old. We found that 82% of them consider thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology to be relevant. In 82% of the centers, a standardized protocol on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is used, which is applied to both patients undergoing surgery and those undergoing chemotherapy. In the remaining 18% of centers, prophylaxis is used exclusively for patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Prophylaxis of patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy treatment is managed in most cases by the surgeon (72%) and oncologist (76%), respectively. Only 26% of respondents use a thromboembolic risk assessment scale, and of these, those used are the Caprini Score (6%), Khorana Score (6%), and Wells Score (2%). The respondents have good knowledge of low-molecular-weight heparin (90%) and average knowledge of dicumarolics (40%), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (68%), and antiplatelet agents (40%). The results of our survey indicate that there is a good awareness of thromboembolic prophylaxis in gynecologic oncology. Nevertheless, it is used less in outpatients than in patients undergoing surgery. Moreover, the thromboembolic risk assessment scores are barely used.

The potential use of artificial intelligence for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and management: clinician and healthcare informatician perspectives

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) can support guidelines recommending an individualized approach to risk assessment and prophylaxis. We conducted electronic surveys asking clinician and healthcare informaticians about their perspectives on AI/ML for VTE prevention and management. Of 101 respondents to the informatician survey, most were 40 years or older, male, clinicians and data scientists, and had performed research on AI/ML. Of the 607 US-based respondents to the clinician survey, most were 40 years or younger, female, physicians, and had never used AI to inform clinical practice. Most informaticians agreed that AI/ML can be used to manage VTE (56.0%). Over one-third were concerned that clinicians would not use the technology (38.9%), but the majority of clinicians believed that AI/ML probably or definitely can help with VTE prevention (70.1%). The most common concern in both groups was a perceived lack of transparency (informaticians 54.4%; clinicians 25.4%). These two surveys revealed that key stakeholders are interested in AI/ML for VTE prevention and management, and identified potential barriers to address prior to implementation.

The value of performance status in predicting venous thromboembolism in lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is notably high in lung cancer patients, particularly among those treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Previous studies have focused on the relationship between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) and VTE risk in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, but available evidence is inconsistent.

METHODS

The clinical data of lung cancer patients treated with ICIs were collected and analyzed from West China Hospital between January 2018 and March 2022. ECOG PS score was measured on admission. The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE, encompassing both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS

A total of 1115 lung cancer patients receiving ICIs were eligible for this study, VTE developed in 105 (9.4%) during the 12-month follow-up, of which 95 (8.5%) had DVT,14 (1.3%) had definite PE. Poor ECOG PS (PS ≥ 2) was associated with an increased risk for VTE (OR = 5.405, 95% CI = 3.067-9.525, P < 0.001), DVT (OR = 4.669, 95% CI = 2.588-8.427, P < 0.001) and PE (OR = 8.413, 95% CI = 2.565-27.600, P < 0.001) after multivariable adjustment in the study cohort.

CONCLUSION

VTE occurred in 9.4% of lung cancer patients treated with ICIs, and poor performance status was associated with an increased risk of VTE.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Patients with Thrombocytopenia or with Platelet Dysfunction: The Last 10 Years

Current guideline recommendations for primary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are based on randomized clinical trials that usually exclude subjects at a potentially high risk of bleeding complications. For this reason, no specific guideline is available for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with thrombocytopenia and/or platelet dysfunction. However, except in patients with absolute contraindications to anticoagulant drugs, antithrombotic prophylaxis should always be considered, for example, in hospitalized cancer patients with thrombocytopenia, especially in those with multiple VTE risk factors. Low platelet number, platelet dysfunction, and clotting abnormalities are also very common in patients with liver cirrhosis, but these patients have a high incidence of portal venous thrombosis, implying that cirrhotic coagulopathy does not fully protect against thrombosis. These patients may benefit from antithrombotic prophylaxis during hospitalization. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 need prophylaxis, but frequently experience thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy. In patients with antiphospholipid antibodies, a high thrombotic risk is usually present, even in the presence of thrombocytopenia. VTE prophylaxis in high-risk conditions is thus suggested in these patients. At variance with severe thrombocytopenia (< 50,000/mm3), mild/moderate thrombocytopenia (≥ 50,000/mm3) should not interfere with VTE prevention decisions. In patients with severe thrombocytopenia, pharmacological prophylaxis should be considered on an individual basis. Aspirin is not as effective as heparins in lowering the risk of VTE. Studies in patients with ischemic stroke demonstrated that thromboprophylaxis with heparins is safe in these patients also during antiplatelet treatment. The use of direct oral anticoagulants in the prophylaxis of VTE in internal medicine patients has been recently evaluated, but no specific recommendation exists for patients with thrombocytopenia. The need for VTE prophylaxis in patients on chronic treatment with antiplatelet agents should be evaluated after assessing the individual risk of bleeding complications. Finally, the selection of patients who require post-discharge pharmacological prophylaxis remains debated. New molecules currently under development (such as the inhibitors of factor XI) may contribute to improve the risk/benefit ratio of VTE primary prevention in this setting of patients.

Availability of medical and endovascular therapies for venous thromboembolism: a global survey for World Thrombosis Day

BACKGROUND

Data on availability, affordability, and accessibility is key for the planning of global strategies to reduce the burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

A survey was conducted for the 10th anniversary of World Thrombosis Day to assess the availability of VTE therapies worldwide and challenges in uniform implementation.

METHODS

We gathered information on the approval status, availability, utilization, occurrence of shortages, and spread of medical and interventional therapies for VTE. Furthermore, we collected information by accessing or contacting national or continental medicines agencies, manufacturers or distributors, and online drug repositories.

RESULTS

We obtained data from a total of 69 countries: 33 countries in Europe, 19 in Asia, 7 in the Americas, 9 in Africa, and 1 in Oceania. Unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and vitamin K antagonists were available in almost all countries, but shortages were recorded in 13%, 19%, and 15% of them, respectively. Direct oral anticoagulants were available in approximately three-quarters of the surveyed countries. At least one parenteral medication for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was available in 57% of countries and a shortage was reported in 9% of these. Shortage of thrombolytics was recorded in 50% of countries. Overall, at least one type of catheter-directed therapy system was approved for use in 77% of countries and available in 23% of surveyed institutions. Our findings revealed notable geographic disparities in the worldwide availability of VTE therapies, the access to which appeared to be limited by economic and geopolitical factors.

CONCLUSION

We anticipate that this comprehensive information will play a pivotal role in highlighting the shortcomings of VTE therapies and the lack of homogeneous availability globally.

Venous Thromboembolism Risk and Adherence to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients in Uruguay: First Nationwide Study

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious, frequent, and preventable medical complication in hospitalized patients. Although the efficacy of prophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) has been demonstrated, compliance with prophylaxis is poor at international and national levels.

AIM

To determine the indication and use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients in Uruguay.

METHODS

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentre study involving 31 nationwide healthcare facilities was conducted. Baseline characteristics associated with hospital admission, the percentage of the population with an indication for thromboprophylaxis, and the percentage of patients receiving pharmacological thromboprophylaxis were assessed. The VTE risk was determined using the Padua score for medical patients; the Caprini score for surgical patients; the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guidelines for pregnant-postpartum patients.

RESULTS

1925 patients were included, representing 26% of hospitalized patients in Uruguay. 71.9% of all patients were at risk of VTE. Of all patients at risk of VTE, 58.6% received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The reasons for not receiving thromboprophylaxis were prescribing omissions in 16.1% of cases, contraindication in 15.9% and 9.4% of patients were already anticoagulated for other reasons. Overall, just 68% of patients were "protected" against VTE. Recommendations of major thromboprophylaxis guidelines were followed in 70.1% of patients at risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the progress made in adherence to thromboprophylaxis indications, nonadherence remains a problem, affecting one in six patients at risk of VTE in Uruguay.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medical and Surgical Patients - What's Our Reality?

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in lower limbs, and thrombosis in rare locations. VTE is a common cardiovascular disease, being the leading preventable cause of in-hospital death. Both surgical and acute medical patients have an elevated risk of developing VTE. VTE risk assessment is essential to identify patients who might benefit from VTE prophylaxis accurately. Clinical data on risk factors and prophylaxis in Portugal are scarce. We aimed to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who received prophylaxis and the incidence of bleeding events. We also intended to study the rate of VTE in a cohort of medical and surgical patients during the hospitalization period and three months after discharge.

METHODS

During one week in 2020, adults admitted for more than 72hr to a medical or surgical ward were included. The study excluded patients with a diagnosis of VTE three months before hospitalization and who were either chronically receiving anticoagulation therapy or had started it 48 hours after admission. Risk assessments were based on the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) for medical patients and the Caprini Risk Assessment Model (CRAM) for surgical patients. We used CHEST guidelines, 9th edition, to determine the adequacy of the prophylactic method.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 18.7% of which tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. VTE risk in surgical patients was categorized as very low or low (16.6%), moderate (37.5%), and high (43.8%), according to the CRAM. Risk in medical patients was categorized as low (60.0%) or high (40.0%) according to the PPS. We estimated that VTE chemoprophylaxis was overused in about 30.0% of patients vs. 7.0% who were at risk and did not receive appropriate chemoprophylaxis. The rate of thromboembolic events was 4.1% (n=5), 2 of which happened after discharge. Two of these patients were under VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. Major bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients (n=3).

DISCUSSION

A significant number of hospitalized patients are deemed to be at risk for VTE, making appropriate prophylaxis essential. The results emphasize the insufficient management of VTE prophylaxis.

Formal and informal venous thromboembolism risk assessment and impact on prescribing of thromboprophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) is a leading cause of preventable death and disability worldwide. HAT includes any venous thromboembolic (VTE) event occurring in-hospital or within 90-days of hospitalisation. Despite availability of evidence-based guidelines for HAT risk assessment and prophylaxis, guidelines are still underutilised.

AIM

To determine the proportion of patients who developed HAT that could have been potentially prevented with appropriate VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis at a large public hospital in New Zealand. Additionally, the predictors of VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis were examined.

METHOD

VTE patients admitted under general medicine, reablement, general surgery, or orthopaedic surgery service were identified using ICD-10-AM codes. Data were collected on patient characteristics, VTE risk factors, and the thromboprophylaxis regimen prescribed. The hospital VTE guidelines were used to determine rates of VTE risk assessment and the appropriateness of thromboprophylaxis.

RESULTS

Of 1302 VTE patients, 213 HATs were identified. Of these, 116 (54%) received VTE risk assessment, and 98 (46%) received thromboprophylaxis. Patients who received VTE risk assessment were 15 times more likely to receive thromboprophylaxis (odds ratio [OR] = 15.4; 95% CI 7.65-30.98) and 2.8 times more likely to receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis (OR = 2.79; 95% CI 1.59-4.89).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of high-risk patients who were admitted to medical, general surgery and reablement services and who developed HAT did not receive VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis during their index admission, demonstrating a significant gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Implementing mandatory VTE risk assessment and adherence to guidelines to improve thromboprophylaxis prescription in hospitalised patients may help reduce the burden of HAT.

Overuse and underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients

Background

Thromboprophylaxis (TPX) prescription is recommended in medical inpatients categorized as high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by validated risk assessment models (RAMs), but how various RAMs differ in categorizing patients in risk groups, and whether the choice of RAM influences estimates of appropriate TPX use is unknown.

Objectives

To determine the proportion of medical inpatients categorized as high or low risk according to validated RAMs, and to investigate the appropriateness of TPX prescription.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study of acutely ill medical inpatients from 3 Swiss university hospitals. Participants were categorized as high or low risk of VTE by validated RAMs (ie, the Padua, the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism, simplified, and original Geneva scores). We assessed prescription of any TPX at baseline. We considered TPX prescription in high-risk and no TPX prescription in low-risk patients as appropriate.

Results

Among 1352 medical inpatients, the proportion categorized as high risk ranged from 29.8% with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score to 66.1% with the original Geneva score. Overall, 24.6% were consistently categorized as high risk, and 26.3% as low risk by all 4 RAMs. Depending on the RAM used, TPX prescription was appropriate in 58.7% to 63.3% of high-risk (ie, 36.7%-41.3% underuse) and 52.4% to 62.8% of low-risk patients (ie, 37.2%-47.6% overuse).

Conclusion

The proportion of medical inpatients considered as high or low VTE risk varied widely according to different RAMs. Only half of patients were consistently categorized in the same risk group by all RAMs. While TPX remains underused in high-risk patients, overuse in low-risk patients is even more pronounced.

Evaluation of a fast-and-frugal clinical decision algorithm ('pathways') on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated with anticoagulants

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Critics have charged that evidence-based medicine (EBM) overemphasises algorithmic rules over unstructured clinical experience and intuition, but the role of structured decision support systems in improving health outcomes remains uncertain. We aim to assess if delivery of anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 according to an algorithm based on evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) improved clinical outcomes compared with administration of anticoagulant treatment given at individual practitioners' discretion.

METHODS

An observational design consisting of the analysis of all acutely ill, consecutive patients (n = 1783) with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted between 10 March 2020 to 11 January 2022 to an US academic center. American Society of Haematology CPG for anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was converted into a clinical pathway and translated into fast-and-frugal decision (FFT) tree ('algorithm'). We compared delivery of anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 according to the FFT algorithm with administration of anticoagulant treatment given at individual practitioners' discretion.

RESULTS

In an adjusted analysis, using combination of Lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) and propensity score based weighting [augmented inverse-probability weighting] statistical techniques controlling for cluster data, the algorithm did not reduce death, venous thromboembolism, or major bleeding, but helped avoid longer hospital stay [number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) = 40 (95% CI: 23-143), indicating that for every 40 patients (23-143) managed on FFT algorithm, one avoided staying in hospital longer than 10 days] and averted admission to intensive-care unit (ICU) [NNT = 19 (95% CI: 13-40)]. All model's selected covariates were well balanced. The results remained robust to sensitivity analyses used to test the stability of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

When delivered using a structured FFT algorithm, CPG shortened the hospital stay and help avoided admission to ICU, but it did not affect other relevant outcomes.

A systematic approach to venous thromboembolism prevention: a focus on UK experience

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality associated with hospitalization. Despite evidence that providing appropriate thromboprophylaxis to those at risk of VTE in hospital, recent data suggest that the delivery of thromboprophylaxis remains suboptimal across the globe, with a lack of standardization in approach to VTE prevention. This review considers the role of VTE risk assessment and interventions to improve the implementation of the VTE prevention pathway and highlights the systematic approach to VTE prevention adopted in England and its impact. Finally, the critical areas for further research and the emerging data presented during the 2022 ISTH annual congress in London, UK, are summarized.

Prevention of hospital‐associated venous thromboembolism — Insight from the Getting It Right First Time thrombosis survey in England

A national Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention Programme was introduced in England in 2010, with limited subsequent study of its impact. Whilst the National Outcomes Framework reports VTE deaths related to hospitalisation annually, there are little data regarding VTE prevention practice or non-fatal VTE associated with hospitalisation. We report the first national thrombosis survey undertaken in collaboration with Getting It Right First Time. 98 Trusts (103 sites, 67% of 144 invited) participated in at least one survey, contributing data regarding VTE prevention in 9553 patients. Anti-coagulant thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 88% (when indicated), with 8.1% of patients missing doses. Written patient information was provided to 31%. Of 4595 episodes of hospital-associated VTE, 13% were considered potentially preventable. The survey highlights the success of the national programme and areas for improvement in delivery of thromboprophylaxis and patient information.

Unmet definitions in thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients: An appraisal for the need of recommendation

Up to about 60% of venous thromboembolic events in a community are associated with hospitalization, and most can be prevented by appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Several randomized clinical trials and guidelines have addressed the issue of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients and recommended strategies to assess patients' risk and thromboprophylaxis. Simple and validated risk assessment models are available to assist physicians in selecting patients who are at high risk for VTE, in whom thromboprophylaxis should be used. However, some concepts employed are imprecise or not appropriately defined. Indeed, there has been wide variation in the onset, duration, and adequacy of thromboprophylaxis, as well as in the definition of some risk factors. In this article, we highlight these issues and the unmet definitions in thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients mainly by addressing selected randomized clinical trials and guidelines.

Thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is internationally recognized as a significant patient safety issue. While cirrhosis was traditionally considered to predispose to bleeding, these patients are also at an increased risk of VTE, with an associated increase in mortality. Hospitalization rates of patients with cirrhosis are increasing, and decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis are complex due to the uncertain balance between thrombosis and bleeding risk. This is further accentuated by derangements of hemostasis in patients with cirrhosis that are often considered contraindications to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Due to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria of seminal studies of VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis, there is limited data to guide decision making in this patient group. This guidance document reviews the incidence and risk factors for HA-VTE in patients with cirrhosis, outlines evidence to inform the use of thromboprophylaxis, and provides pragmatic recommendations on VTE prevention for hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. In brief, in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis: We suggest inclusion of portal vein thrombosis as a distinct clinically important endpoint for future studies. We recommend against the use of thrombocytopenia and/or prolongation of prothrombin time/international normalized ratio as absolute contraindications to anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. We suggest anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in line with local protocols and suggest low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over unfractionated heparin (UFH). In renal impairment, we suggest LMWH over UFH. For critically ill patients, we suggest case-by-case consideration of thromboprophylaxis. We recommend research to refine VTE risk stratification, and to establish the optimal dosing and duration of thromboprophylaxis.

Incidence of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis in medical patients admitted to specialized hospital in Ethiopia using Padua prediction score

Introduction:

Venous thromboembolism is a major cause of mortality and morbidity among hospitalized patients and thromboprophylaxis is one of the key strategies to reduce such events. We aimed to assess venous thromboembolism risk using Padua prediction score, thromboprophylaxis practice, and outcomes in hospitalized medical patients at Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 219 patients admitted to Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital from 1 December 2018 to 31 May 2019. Data were collected from patients’ medical records using a pre-tested data abstraction format to collect patients’ clinical information and venous thromboembolism risk using the Padua prediction score. We used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 26 for data analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the findings, and binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess association between the variables of interest.

Results:

Reduced mobility, recent trauma and/or surgery, heart and/or respiratory failure, and active cancer were the frequently identified venous thromboembolism risk factors. Based on Padua prediction score, 48.4% of patients were at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. The venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was given only for 55 (25.1%) patients and 15 of them were at low risk of developing venous thromboembolism (<4 Padua score) and were ineligible for thromboprophylaxis. Fifteen (6.84%) patients developed venous thromboembolism events during their stay at the hospital and 80% of them were from high risk group. The odds of females to develop venous thromboembolism were more than 14 times higher (adjusted odds ratio = 14.51; 95% confidence interval: 2.52–83.39, p = 0.003) than males. Reduced mobility (adjusted odds ratio = 10.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.70–58.70), <1 month trauma and/or surgery (adjusted odds ratio = 18.93; 95% confidence interval: 2.30–155.56), active cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 6.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.05–34.27), chronic kidney diseases (adjusted odds ratio = 61.790; 95% confidence interval: 2.627–1453.602), and hypertension (adjusted odds ratio = 7.270; 95% confidence interval: 1.105–47.835) were significantly associated with the risk of developing venous thromboembolism.

Conclusion:

Nearly half of the patients were at risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Underutilization of thromboprophylaxis and inappropriate use of prophylaxis were commonly seen in Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital.