Concordance between risk scales for venous thromboembolism in patients treated in emergency departments. / Concordancia entre las escalas de valoración del riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso en pacientes con patología médica en urgencias.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between risk-assessment models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for medical conditions and to analyze variables associated with the decision to prescribe pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Conclusions. METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter cohort study. We included adults attended in 15 hospital EDs who were hospitalized for medical conditions, calculating VTE risk according to the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score, the Padua Prediction Score (PPS), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) score. In addition to assessing interscore concordance, we analyzed variables associated with the prescription of thromboprophylaxis in the ED. RESULTS: A total of 1203 patients were included. The PADUA, IMPROVE, and NICE scales assigned high risk scores for 68.7%, 47.4%, and 69.5% of the patients, respectively. The κ statistic for agreement between the PADUA and NICE scores was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.84); 102 patients (8.5%) had discordant scores. The κ statistics for agreement between the IMPROVE score and the PADUA and NICE classifications were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.43-0.52) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.33-0.42), respectively; 322 (26.8%) and 384 patients (31.9%), respectively, had discordant scores. Variables associated with starting thromboprophylaxis in the ED were a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.26), immobility in the last 2 months (aOR, 2.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 1.97), ischemic heart disease (aOR, 1.51), reduced mobility of 3 days or longer (aOR, 1.14), body mass index (aOR, 1.04), age (aOR, 1.02), recent trauma or surgery (aOR, 0.40), and risk for bleeding (aOR, 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: There is disagreement among the recommended models for predicting risk for VTE in patients hospitalized for medical conditions. The basis for emergency physicians' clinical judgment regarding thromboprophylaxis extends beyond risk scales to include multiple risk factors for VTE and bleeding.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la concordancia entre las escalas de riesgo de enfermedad tromboembólica venosa (ETV) de pacientes médicos hospitalizados y analizar las variables asociadas a la decisión de instaurar tromboprofilaxis farmacológica en los servicios de ur gencias(SUH). METODO: Se trata de un estudio de cohorte observacional prospectivo multicéntrico que incluyó pacientes adultos atendidos en 15 SUH españoles que requerían ingreso por patología médica. Se calculó la puntuación según las escalas IMPROVE, PADUA y NICE. Se evaluó la concordancia entre ellas, y las variables asociadas a la indicación de tromboprofilaxis en urgencias. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 1.203 pacientes. Las escalas PADUA, IMPROVE y NICE clasificaron de riesgo alto al 68,7%, 47,4% y 69,5% de los pacientes, respectivamente. PADUA y NICE mostraron un índice Kappa de 0,80 (IC 95%: 0,76-0,84) y discordancia del 8,5% (102 pacientes). IMPROVE con PADUA y NICE mostró un índice Kappa de 0,47 (IC 95%:0,43-0,52) y 0,37 (0,33-0,42), con una discordancia del 26,8% (322 pacientes) y 31,9% (384 pacientes), respectivamente. Las variables asociadas con la instauración de tromboprofilaxis fueron infarto agudo de miocardio o ictus (odss ratio ajustada ­ORa­ 4,26), inmovilidad 2 meses previos (ORa 2,19), enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (ORa 1,97), cardiopatía isquémica (ORa 1,51), movilidad reducida $ 3 días (ORa 1,14), índice masa corporal (ORa 1,04), edad (ORa 1,02), trauma o cirugía recientes (ORa 0,40) y factores de riesgo hemorrágicos (ORa 0,56). CONCLUSIONES: Existe disconcordancia entre las escalas recomendadas para valorar el riesgo de ETV en pacientes médicos hospitalizados. El juicio clínico del urgenciólogo para decidir la tromboprofilaxis se basa en la presencia de múltiples factores de riesgo de ETV y sangrado, más allá de las escalas.

[Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism]. / Profilaxis de la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa.

The recommendations on venous thromboprophylaxis have been updated on the basis of current evidence reviewed by a multidisciplinary team. The problem has been approached with regard to its relevance in both surgical and nonsurgical patients. It should be noted that these recommendations were drawn up for use in Spain and, therefore, should be implemented with the drugs and therapeutic practices authorized and generally accepted in this country.

Prognostic significance of delays in diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic significance of a diagnostic delay of greater than 1 week after symptom onset in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. LOCATION: Emergency Department of Ramón y Cajal Hospital, a 1500-bed tertiary-care center in Madrid, Spain. PATIENTS: Diagnosed with PE by objective testing between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received standard anticoagulation therapy during follow-up. ENDPOINTS: Death from any cause or symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), confirmed by standard objective testing, within 3 months after PE diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 397 patients with acute PE, 72 (18%) had a diagnostic delay while 325 (82%) did not. The all-cause mortality rate was 13.1% at 3 months (95% CI=9.8-16.4%); due to 9 (12.5%) deaths in the diagnostic delay group and 43 (13.2%) deaths in the group without diagnostic delay (OR 0.9; 95% CI=0.4-2.0). Though multivariate analysis of clinical variables at the time of PE diagnosis identified active cancer, heart failure and immobility for more than 4 days as independent risk factors for death, diagnostic delay was not predictive. Recurrent VTE was observed in 3 (4.2%) of 72 patients with diagnostic delay and in 15 (4.6%) of 325 patients without diagnostic delay (odds ratio: 0.9; 95% CI=0.2-3.2). None of the variables analysed, including diagnostic delay, was associated with an increased risk of recurrent VTE during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among survivors diagnosed with acute PE in the Emergency Department, we did not detect an association between a delay in diagnosis and an increased risk of death or VTE recurrence during the ensuing 3 months of treatment.