BACKGROUND

Balancing the benefits of preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) against the risks of bleeding is important for patients who need prophylactic anticoagulants. This study compared which of the bleeding scores (IMPROVE and HAS-BLED BRS scores) is better at predicting anticoagulant-related bleeding events in critically ill and non-critically ill patients at a tertiary hospital who received prophylactic enoxaparin.

METHODOLOGY

Sixty-nine (69) patients in the ICU and ward who received prophylactic enoxaparin were included in the study and followed until discharge. Demographic data, comorbidities and IMPROVE and HAS-BLED BRS scores were recorded, and bleeding events monitored.

RESULTS

During the study, 16% (11/69) of the study population experienced bleeding events, both major and minor. Patients with IMPROVE BRS ≥ 7 (high risk) were more likely to bleed than those with scores of < 7 (low risk) (p < 0.001). The average HAS-BLED BRS was 2.20 (±1.09). Patients with higher HASBLED BRS scores had a slightly higher rate of bleeding (bleeding event, 2.73 [±1.19] versus no bleeding event, 2.09 [±1.04]), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.079). The IMPROVE BRS had a higher area under the curve (AUC) (0.96) than the HAS-BLED BRS (0.67) in predicting anticoagulant-related bleeding events.

CONCLUSION

In patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants for VTE, the IMPROVE BRS was better at predicting major anticoagulant-related bleeding events than the HAS-BLED BRS, with higher sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Both risk scoring systems are useful for assessing bleeding risk before starting pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, but the IMPROVE BRS is more accurate.

Human ; Venous Thromboembolism