Key result
The Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models demonstrated low ability to predict 90-day venous thromboembolism in unselected hospitalized patients (AUC 0.56 and 0.59, respectively).
Why the study?
Although Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models were designed for all hospital admissions, they have mostly been tested in select, high-risk cohorts.
Do Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models accurately predict venous thromboembolism in an unselected cohort of hospitalized patients?
Cohort (n=1,252,460)
Yes
Do Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models accurately predict venous thromboembolism in an unselected cohort of hospitalized patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.56 (Caprini) and 0.59 (Padua) (95% CI 0.56-0.56 (Caprini), 0.58-0.59 (Padua))
Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models have low predictive ability for venous thromboembolism in unselected hospitalized patients, indicating a need for improved models for general hospital populations.
Low predictive ability in unselected admissions warrants caution in routine use; leaves open the need for improved VTE RAMs in general populations.
OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable complication of hospitalization. Risk-stratification is the cornerstone of prevention. The Caprini and Padua are two of the most commonly used risk-assessment models (RAMs) to quantify VTE risk. Both models perform well in select, high-risk cohorts. Although VTE RAMs were designed for use in all hospital admissions, they are mostly tested in select, high-risk cohorts. We aim to evaluate the two RAMs in a large, unselected cohort of patients. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive first hospital admissions of 1,252,460 unique surgical and non-surgical patients to 1298 Veterans Affairs facilities nationwide between January 2016 and December 2021. Caprini and Padua scores were generated using the Veterans Affairs' national data repository. We determined the ability of the two RAMs to predict VTE within 90 days of admission. In secondary analyses, we evaluated prediction at 30 and 60 days, in surgical vs non-surgical patients, after excluding patients with upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, in patients hospitalized ≥72 hours, after including all-cause mortality in a composite outcome, and after accounting for prophylaxis in the predictive model. We used area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) as the metric of prediction. RESULTS: A total of 330,388 (26.4%) surgical and 922,072 (73.6%) non-surgical consecutively hospitalized patients (total N = 1,252,460) were analyzed. Caprini scores ranged from 0 to 28 (median, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 3-6); Padua scores ranged from 0-13 (median, 1; IQR, 1-3). The RAMs showed good calibration and higher scores were associated with higher VTE rates. VTE developed in 35,557 patients (2.8%) within 90 days of admission. The ability of both models to predict 90-day VTE was low (AUCs: Caprini, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.56; Padua, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.59). Prediction remained low for surgical (Caprini, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.53-0.54; Padua, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.56-0.57) and non-surgical patients (Caprini, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.59; Padua, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.59-0.60). There was no clinically meaningful change in predictive performance in any of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Caprini and Padua RAM scores have low ability to predict VTE events in a cohort of unselected consecutive hospitalizations. Improved VTE RAMs must be developed before they can be applied to a general hospital population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hayssen et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Venous thromboembolism (n=1,252,460). Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models was evaluated on Venous thromboembolism within 90 days of admission (AUC 0.56 (Caprini) and 0.59 (Padua), 95% CI 0.56-0.56 (Caprini), 0.58-0.59 (Padua)). The Caprini and Padua risk-assessment models demonstrated low ability to predict 90-day venous thromboembolism in unselected hospitalized patients (AUC 0.56 and 0.59, respectively).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: