Comparison of the predictive value of venous thromboembolism assessment tools in medical inpatients
10.3760/cma.j.cn211501-20230919-00582
- VernacularTitle:内科住院患者静脉血栓栓塞症风险评估工具的预测价值比较
- Author:
Yifang HOU
1
;
Xiaomei DENG
;
Jun DUAN
;
Ping ZHANG
Author Information
1. 南方医科大学护理学院，广州 510515
- Keywords:
Venous thromboembolism;
Guidebooks;
Risk assessment;
Medical inpatients;
Padua Score
- From:
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2024;40(10):758-764
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:A comparison was made between the predictive efficacy of the Padua Score and the simplified Assessment Scheme Recommended by Chinese experts (hereinafter referred to as the Simplified Method) for the risk assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients, aiming to provide a reference for the clinical selection of appropriate risk assessment tools.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted, selecting 42 257 internal medicine inpatients discharged from Peking University Shenzhen Hospital between May 1, 2021, and April 30, 2022, using a convenience sampling method. Data collected included general information upon admission, VTE-related information, occurrences of VTE during hospitalization, and results from the two assessment tools. The predictive efficacy of the tools was evaluated by plotting ROC curves and calculating AUC, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and predictive accuracy.Results:Among 42 257 patients, there were 21 065 male and 21 192 female participants, aged (55.04 ± 15.17) years old. The incidence rate of VTE among medical inpatients was 2.24% (948/42 257). The AUC for Padua Score and the Simplified Method in medical patients were 0.735 (95% CI 0.717-0.753) and 0.582 (95% CI 0.561-0.602), respectively. Sensitivities were 49.4% and 18.2%, specificities were 89.6% and 98.1%, positive predictive values were 9.9% and 17.7%, negative predictive values were 98.7% and 98.1%, and predictive accuracy were 88.7% and 96.3%, respectively. The departments with the highest incidence rates of VTE during hospitalization were rehabilitation medicine, emergency, neurology, geriatrics, and respiratory medicine. Within these departments, the AUC values for the Padua Score and the Simplified Method were as follows: 0.864 and 0.612, 0.782 and 0.653, 0.792 and 0.664, 0.850 and 0.551, 0.867 and 0.664, respectively. Conclusions:The Padua Score demonstrated better predictive efficacy compared to the Simplified Method. However, the Simplified Method had more accessible assessment criteria and could serve as an initial VTE risk screening tool in emergency situations or when complete data are not available.
