Alessia Abenante, Alessandro Squizzato, Lorenza Bertù, Dimitriy Arioli, Roberta Buso, Davide Carrara, Tiziana Ciarambino, Francesco Dentali
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Predictors for the prescription of pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during hospitalization in Internal Medicine: a sub-analysis of the FADOI-NoTEVole study.
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.
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.