Predictors for the prescription of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a sub-analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03770-w
Alessia Abenante, Alessandro Squizzato, Lorenza Bertù, Dimitriy Arioli, Roberta Buso, Davide Carrara, Tiziana Ciarambino, Francesco Dentali
{"title":"Predictors for the prescription of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a sub-analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.","authors":"Alessia Abenante, Alessandro Squizzato, Lorenza Bertù, Dimitriy Arioli, Roberta Buso, Davide Carrara, Tiziana Ciarambino, Francesco Dentali","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03770-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) may frequently experience both an increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding. The use of risk assessment models (RAMs) could aid their management. We present a post-hoc analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study, an observational, retrospective, multi-center study conducted in 38 Italian IMUs. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the predictors associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization. The secondary objective was to evaluate RAMs adherence. Univariate analyses were conducted as preliminary evaluations of the variables associated with prescribing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. The final multivariable logistic model was obtained by a stepwise selection method, using 0.05 as the significance level for entering an effect into the model. Thromboprophylaxis was then correlated with the RAMs and the number of predictors found in the multivariate analysis. Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 927 out of 1387 (66.8%) patients with a Padua Prediction score (PPS) ≥ 4. Remarkably, 397 in 1230 (32.3%) patients with both PPS ≥ 4 and an IMPROVE bleeding risk score (IBS) < 7 did not receive it. The prescription of thromboprophylaxis mostly correlated with reduced mobility (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.90-2.81), ischemic stroke (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.34-2.91), history of previous thrombosis (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.49-4.07), and the presence of a central venous catheter (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.99-4.54). The bleeding risk assessment using the IBS did not appear to impact physicians' decisions. Our analysis provides insight into how indications for thromboprophylaxis were determined, highlighting the difficulties faced by physicians with patients admitted to IMUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"151-158"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11794402/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03770-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) may frequently experience both an increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding. The use of risk assessment models (RAMs) could aid their management. We present a post-hoc analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study, an observational, retrospective, multi-center study conducted in 38 Italian IMUs. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the predictors associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization. The secondary objective was to evaluate RAMs adherence. Univariate analyses were conducted as preliminary evaluations of the variables associated with prescribing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. The final multivariable logistic model was obtained by a stepwise selection method, using 0.05 as the significance level for entering an effect into the model. Thromboprophylaxis was then correlated with the RAMs and the number of predictors found in the multivariate analysis. Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed to 927 out of 1387 (66.8%) patients with a Padua Prediction score (PPS) ≥ 4. Remarkably, 397 in 1230 (32.3%) patients with both PPS ≥ 4 and an IMPROVE bleeding risk score (IBS) < 7 did not receive it. The prescription of thromboprophylaxis mostly correlated with reduced mobility (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.90-2.81), ischemic stroke (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.34-2.91), history of previous thrombosis (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.49-4.07), and the presence of a central venous catheter (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.99-4.54). The bleeding risk assessment using the IBS did not appear to impact physicians' decisions. Our analysis provides insight into how indications for thromboprophylaxis were determined, highlighting the difficulties faced by physicians with patients admitted to IMUs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内科住院期间静脉血栓栓塞药物预防处方的预测因素:FADOI-NoTEVole 研究的子分析。
在内科病房(IMU)住院的病人可能会经常遇到血栓形成和出血风险增加的情况。使用风险评估模型(RAM)可以帮助他们进行管理。我们对 FADOI-NoTEVole 研究进行了事后分析,该研究是一项观察性、回顾性、多中心研究,在 38 个意大利 IMU 进行。研究的主要目的是评估与住院期间血栓预防处方相关的预测因素。次要目的是评估 RAMs 的依从性。研究人员进行了单变量分析,初步评估了与住院期间开具药物血栓预防处方相关的变量。最终的多变量逻辑模型是通过逐步选择法得出的,以0.05作为将效应输入模型的显著性水平。然后将血栓预防与 RAMs 和多变量分析中发现的预测因子数量相关联。在帕多瓦预测评分(PPS)≥ 4 的 1387 位患者中,有 927 位(66.8%)开出了血栓预防处方。值得注意的是,在 1230 名(32.3%)PPS ≥ 4 和 IMPROVE 出血风险评分(IBS)均为≥ 4 的患者中,有 397 名患者被处方血栓预防药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Cytisine for smoking cessation in hospitalised smokers with cardiovascular diseases: an observational study. Severe burn injuries and the impact of mental health: insights from 7 years at Switzerland's leading burn center. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and internal-medicine clinicians: observational cohort study. Linezolid-induced neuropathy in Nocardia pneumonia. Detection and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting or non-cardiac surgery: a survey by the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1