Key result
The Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) demonstrated significantly better discrimination for predicting major in-hospital bleeding compared to the IMPROVE model (AUC 0.86 vs. 0.72, p < 0.001).
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in acutely or critically ill medical patients with acceptable bleeding risk, but only one validated bleeding risk assessment model exists.
Does the Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) improve the prediction of major bleeding risk at admission in medical inpatients compared to the IMPROVE model?
Cohort (n=46,314)
Yes
Does the Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) improve the prediction of major bleeding risk at admission in medical inpatients compared to the IMPROVE model?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.86% vs 0.72%
p-value: p=<0.001
The newly developed Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) provides superior discrimination for predicting major in-hospital bleeding among medical inpatients compared to the existing IMPROVE model, potentially optimizing VTE prophylaxis decisions.
May aid bleeding risk stratification in medical inpatients; leaves open effects on VTE prophylaxis decisions.
Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the leading cause of preventable hospital death in the US. Guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians and American Society for Hematology recommend providing pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to acutely or critically ill medical patients at acceptable bleeding risk, but there is currently only one validated risk assessment model (RAM) for estimating bleeding risk. We developed a RAM using risk factors at admission and compared it with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) model. Methods: A total of 46,314 medical patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Health System hospital from 2017-2020 were included. Data were split into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets with equivalent bleeding event rates in each set. Potential risk factors for major bleeding were identified from the IMPROVE model and literature review. Penalized logistic regression using LASSO was performed on the training set to select and regularize important risk factors for the final model. The validation set was used to assess model calibration and discrimination and compare performance with IMPROVE. Bleeding events and risk factors were confirmed through chart review. Results: The incidence of major in-hospital bleeding was 0.58%. Active peptic ulcer (OR = 5.90), prior bleeding (OR = 4.24), and history of sepsis (OR = 3.29) were the strongest independent risk factors. Other risk factors included age, male sex, decreased platelet count, increased INR, increased PTT, decreased GFR, ICU admission, CVC or PICC placement, active cancer, coagulopathy, and in-hospital antiplatelet drug, steroid, or SSRI use. In the validation set, the Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) had better discrimination than IMPROVE (0.86 vs. 0.72, p < .001) and, at equivalent sensitivity (54%), categorized fewer patients as high-risk (6.8% vs. 12.1%, p < .001). Conclusions: From a large population of medical inpatients, we developed and validated a RAM to accurately predict bleeding risk at admission. The CCBM may be used in conjunction with VTE risk calculators to decide between mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis for at-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mittman et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Major in-hospital bleeding (n=46,314). Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) vs. IMPROVE model was evaluated on Discrimination (AUROC) for major in-hospital bleeding (95% CI 0.08-0.21, p=<0.001). The Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) demonstrated significantly better discrimination for predicting major in-hospital bleeding compared to the IMPROVE model (AUC 0.86 vs. 0.72, p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: