The Thresholds of Caprini Score Associated With Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Across Different Specialties: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Estimation of the specific thresholds of the Caprini risk score (CRS) that are associated with the increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) across different specialties, including identifying the highest level of risk. BACKGROUND: Accurate risk assessment remains an important but often challenging aspect of VTE prophylaxis. One well-established risk assessment model is CRS, which has been validated in thousands of patients from many different medical and surgical specialties. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library was performed in March 2022. Manuscripts that reported on (1) patients admitted to medical or surgical departments and (2) had their VTE risk assessed by CRS and (3) reported on the correlation between the score and VTE incidence, were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4562 references were identified, and the full text of 202 papers was assessed for eligibility. The correlation between CRS and VTE incidence was reported in 68 studies that enrolled 4,207,895 patients. In all specialties, a significant increase in VTE incidence was observed in patients with a CRS of ≥5. In most specialties thresholds of ≥7, ≥9, and ≥11 to 12 were associated with dramatically increased incidences of VTE. In COVID-19, cancer, trauma, vascular, general, head and neck, and thoracic surgery patients with ≥9 and ≥11 to 12 scores the VTE incidence was extremely high (ranging from 13% to 47%). CONCLUSION: The Caprini score is being used increasingly to predict VTE in many medical and surgical specialties. In most cases, the VTE risk for individual patients increases dramatically at a threshold CRS of 7 to 11.

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19).  The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.

Perioperative Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

Development of a Novel Composite Process Measure for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important clinically, and VTE quality metrics are used in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs. However, current VTE outcome measures are not valid due to surveillance bias, and the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP-VTE-2) process measure only requires prophylaxis within 24 hours of surgery. OBJECTIVES: We sought to (1) develop a novel measure of VTE prophylaxis that requires early ambulation, mechanical prophylaxis, and chemoprophylaxis throughout the hospitalization, and (2) compare hospital performance on the SCIP-VTE-2 process measure to this novel measure. RESEARCH DESIGN: A new composite measure of ambulation, sequential compression device (SCD), and chemoprophylaxis component measures was developed. The ambulation component required daily ambulation, the SCD component required documentation of continuous use, and the chemoprophylaxis component required patient-appropriate and medication-appropriate dosing and administration. Requirements could also be met with component-specific exceptions. Surgical patients at an academic center from 2012 to 2013 were assessed for SCIP-VTE-2 and composite measure adherence. RESULTS: Of 786 patients, 589 (74.9%) passed the ambulation measure, 494 (62.8%) passed the SCD measure, and 678 (86.3%) passed the chemoprophylaxis measure. A total of 268 (91.8%) SCD failures and 46 (42.6%) chemoprophylaxis failures were ordered but not administered. When comparing the 2 measures, 784 (99.7%) passed SCIP-VTE-2, whereas only 364 (46.3%) passed the composite measure (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This new measure incorporates the critical aspects of VTE prevention to ensure defect-free care. After additional evaluation, this composite VTE prophylaxis measure with appropriate exclusion criteria may be a better alternative to existing VTE process and outcome measures.

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is an update of the review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis versus single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4)). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 22 trials (9137 participants) of which 15 were randomized trials (7762 participants). The overall risk of bias was mostly unclear or high due to selection and performance bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and this was downgraded from high to moderate or very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness.The rate of PE in the studies comparing IPC alone with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis was low, underpowering the analyses. The incidence of symptomatic PE was 0.79% with IPC, but ranged between 0.1 to 1% with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.34; 12 studies, 3017 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 4.10% in the IPC group and 2.19% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; 11 studies, 2934 participants, moderate quality evidence). The addition of an anticoagulant to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone; 0.66% (7/1053) in the IPC group and 4.0% (44/1102) in the combined group (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 10.77; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern; 0.1% (1/1053) in the IPC group to 1.5% (17/1102) in the combined group (OR 6.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 23.28; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence).We detected no difference between the type of surgery subgroups such as orthopedic and non-orthopedic participants for DVT incidence (P = 0.16). Tests for differences between type of surgery subgroups were not possible for PE incidence.Compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone, the use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 2.92% to 1.20% (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64; 10 studies, 3544 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 6.2% in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 2.9% in the combined group showing no difference between the combined and pharmacological prophylaxis groups (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.03; 11 studies, 2866 participants, moderate quality evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (bleeding: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.14, very low quality evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, very low quality evidence, 3 studies, 244 participants).No difference was detected between the type of surgery subgroups for PE incidence (P = 0.68) or for DVT incidence (P = 0.10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that combining IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis, compared with IPC or pharmacological prophylaxis alone, decreases the incidence of DVT when compared to compression, and incidence of PE when compared to anticoagulation. Moderate quality evidence suggests that there is no difference between combined and single modalities in the incidence of PE when compared with compression alone and DVT when compared with anticoagulation alone. The quality of evidence for PE or DVT was downgraded to moderate due to imprecision or risk of bias in study methodology, highlighting the need for further research. Moderate quality evidence suggests the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed for IPC when added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low quality evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The quality of evidence for bleeding was downgraded to moderate due to indirectness or very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, indirectness and imprecision highlighting the need for further research. Nevertheless, the results of the current review agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised patients (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed.

Adaptive compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a clinically effective, patient-centred approach.

A prospective, randomised, 12-week study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two compression methods for venous leg ulcers (VLUs); a new adaptive compression therapy (ACT) system, combining intermittent and sustained pneumatic compression (n = 38) and a conventional four-layer bandage system (n = 52). Primary outcomes were ulcer healing and safety. Secondary outcomes were comfort, compliance, ulcer pain, patient-perceived product performance and quality of life. Ulcer healing rate was similar (31·6% versus 42·3%, respectively, P = 0·30) between the treatments. Adverse events and patient-rated comfort were also similar. Average daily usage for the dual system was 10·5 and 1·8 hours in the sustained and intermittent modes, respectively, representing its use during 71% of waking hours. Predicted final ulcer pain was also similar (P = 0·68). Performance was subjectively better for adaptive compression and significantly higher for exudate management (P = 0·04), skin protection (P < 0·001), removal ease (P = 0·0007), bathing (P < 0·0001) and sleep comfort (P = 0·0405). The adjusted final quality-of-life score was 0·1025 higher for adaptive compression (P = 0·0375). Subjects with healed ulcers attained higher final scores than unhealed subjects (P = 0·0004). This study provides evidence that ACT is comparably efficacious to successfully heal VLUs compared with four-layer bandage management but is better accepted and achieves higher patient-reported quality-of-life scores in these challenging patients.

Dissecting the rationale for thromboprophylaxis in challenging surgical cases.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading preventable cause of death in surgical patients, and rates of fatal PE are increasing. Individual assessment, to balance the risks of thrombosis and bleeding, is the key to providing appropriate prophylaxis. The risk assessment process includes use of evidence-based guidelines, literature published since the latest guidelines, large registries, and risk scoring systems together with clinical experience and judgment. Risk assessment is a dynamic process and needs to be updated both during the hospital stay and just prior to discharge since clinical events may change the level of risk. The final assessment may identify patients who require ongoing anticoagulant prophylaxis after discharge. The Caprini risk score is widely used in surgical patients and is a composite of the number of risk factors and their relative weights. The Caprini risk score set point for risk levels requiring anticoagulant prophylaxis varies depending on the type of surgical procedure, surgical population, and number of risk factors. Mandatory implementation of evidence-based care pathways is helpful in lowering PE-related mortality. This review presents several challenging cases, emphasizing the importance of employing all available assessment tools, including dynamic assessment of risk during hospitalization. Finally, the limitations of evidence-based guidelines in complex scenarios and the need to employ all available tools to properly protect very high-risk patients are emphasized.

Current state of knowledge on oral anticoagulant reversal using procoagulant factors.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss current trends and challenges in the use of procoagulants for treating bleeding caused by use of oral anticoagulants. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed (MEDLINE), Google, and Medscape were conducted in February 2013. There were no date limitations. Search terms included anticoagulation agents, anticoagulation reversal, anticoagulation reversal agents, apixaban, clinical studies, dabigatran, 3-factor PCCs, 4-factor PCCs, FEIBA, fresh frozen plasma, human studies, pharmacology, prescribing information, rFVIIa, rivaroxaban, vitamin K, and warfarin. DATA SYNTHESIS: Warfarin has been the mainstay for the treatment and prevention of primary and secondary thrombosis in patients with cardiovascular dis orders such as atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and stroke. Three oral anticoagulants have recently become available in the US: a direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate, and 2 direct factor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Reversal strategies for anticoagulant-associated bleeding are well established for warfarin; however, strategies to stop bleeding in a patient who has taken one of the newer anticoagulants are less clear. In the US, agents available for oral anticoagulant reversal include activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC), 3-factor PCCs, and recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa). Few studies have evaluated the 3-factor PCCs, and current evidence for APCC and rFVIIa as reversal agents for dabigatran and rivaroxaban is based primarily on laboratory or animal studies, or on small studies in healthy humans and case reports. CONCLUSIONS: Patients contemplating using the new oral anticoagulants should be informed about specific clinical situations that could pose a bleeding risk such as the need for emergency surgery because no reliable antidote is available to stop the bleeding, which could prove fatal.

Using the Caprini Risk Score to Increase Awareness of Venous Thrombus Embolism in the Community: Know Your Score II.

To assess individual participants' baseline thrombosis risk calculated by Caprini Risk Score (CRS) before injury, illness, or hospitalization occur, to increase the awareness of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by viewing 2 short videos. A cross-sectional study was conducted online between August 2022 and January 2023 in the USA, UK, and India to assess the risk of thrombosis of individuals as a baseline. One nursing practitioner and 4 high school students were on the research team. Descriptive statistical methods were used in data analysis. A total of 928 usable completed questionnaires from 945 participants were analyzed. The mean CRS was 4.93 ± 3.175; 0 to 4 (N = 460, 49.6%), 5 to 8 (N = 394, 42.5%), and 9 (N = 74: 8.0%). History of blood clots (N = 247, 26.6%), <40 years old (N = 133, 52.6%); women on oral contraceptives (N = 324, 34.9%), history of smoking (30%), diabetes (26%), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; 17.3%). Top-level findings: High incidence of family history of thrombosis (26.6%), smoking, diabetes, contraceptives, and IBD. The average CRS (7.9) in patients over 75 years indicates that even a minor surgical procedure may be associated with significant VTE risk. We achieved an important goal by increasing awareness of VTE using this unique method involving high school students and a nurse working with friends and families to complete the CRS assessment. Encouraging the respondents to share information with their personal physicians prior to the event and keep these data in their medical file is a potential valuable source of saving time. This study emphasizes the importance of individuals collecting baseline information prior to illness or hospitalization.

Sclerotherapy of lower limb veins: Indications, contraindications and treatment strategies to prevent complications - A consensus document of the International Union of Phlebology-2023.

BACKGROUND: Sclerotherapy is a non-invasive procedure commonly used to treat superficial venous disease, vascular malformations and other ectatic vascular lesions. While extremely rare, sclerotherapy may be complicated by serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To categorise contraindications to sclerotherapy based on the available scientific evidence. METHODS: An international, multi-disciplinary panel of phlebologists reviewed the available scientific evidence and developed consensus where evidence was lacking or limited. RESULTS: Absolute Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the risk of harm would outweigh any benefits include known hypersensitivity to sclerosing agents; acute venous thromboembolism (VTE); severe neurological or cardiac adverse events complicating a previous sclerotherapy treatment; severe acute systemic illness or infection; and critical limb ischaemia. Relative Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the potential benefits of the proposed treatment would outweigh the risk of harm or the risks may be mitigated by other measures include pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding; hypercoagulable states with risk of VTE; risk of neurological adverse events; risk of cardiac adverse events and poorly controlled chronic systemic illness. Conditions and circumstances where Warnings and Precautions should be considered before proceeding with sclerotherapy include risk of cutaneous necrosis or cosmetic complications such as pigmentation and telangiectatic matting; intake of medications such as the oral contraceptive and other exogenous oestrogens, disulfiram and minocycline; and psychosocial factors and psychiatric comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events or compromise optimal treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Sclerotherapy can achieve safe clinical outcomes provided that (1) patient-related risk factors and in particular all material risks are (1a) adequately identified and the risk benefit ratio is clearly and openly discussed with treatment candidates within a reasonable timeframe prior to the actual procedure; (1b) when an individual is not a suitable candidate for the proposed intervention, conservative treatment options including the option of 'no intervention as a treatment option' are discussed; (1c) complex cases are referred for treatment in controlled and standardised settings and by practitioners with more expertise in the field; (1d) only suitable individuals with no absolute contraindications or those with relative contraindications where the benefits outweigh the risks are offered intervention; (1e) if proceeding with intervention, appropriate prophylactic measures and other risk-mitigating strategies are adopted and appropriate follow-up is organised; and (2) procedure-related risk factors are minimised by ensuring the treating physicians (2a) have adequate training in general phlebology with additional training in duplex ultrasound, procedural phlebology and in particular sclerotherapy; (2b) maintain their knowledge and competency over time and (2c) review and optimise their treatment strategies and techniques on a regular basis to keep up with the ongoing progress in medical technology and contemporary scientific evidence.

Fake-news-free evidence-based communication for proper vein-lymphatic disease management.

Published scientific evidence demonstrate the current spread of healthcare misinformation in the most popular social networks and unofficial communication channels. Up to 40% of the medical websites were identified reporting inappropriate information, moreover being shared more than 450,000 times in a 5-year-time frame. The phenomenon is particularly spread in infective diseases medicine, oncology and cardiovascular medicine. The present document is the result of a scientific and educational endeavor by a worldwide group of top experts who selected and analyzed the major issues and related evidence-based facts on vein and lymphatic management. A section of this work is entirely dedicated to the patients and therefore written in layman terms, with the aim of improving public vein-lymphatic awareness. The part dedicated to the medical professionals includes a revision of the current literature, summing up the statements that are fully evidence-based in venous and lymphatic disease management, and suggesting future lines of research to fulfill the still unmet needs. The document has been written following an intense digital interaction among dedicated working groups, leading to an institutional project presentation during the Universal Expo in Dubai, in the occasion of the v-WINter 2022 meeting.

Using the Caprini Risk Score to Increase VTE Awareness in the Community: The Know Your Score Project.

presented during the ISTH congress 2021Shetye, P., Gavankar, S, Saadaldin, H, et al, Using the Caprini Risk Score to Increase VTE Awareness in the Community. The Know Your Score Project. AS-ISTH-2021-02054, 2021.

A Prospective Study Evaluating Patterns of Responses to the Caprini Score to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism After Interventional Treatment for Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a critical complication of varicose vein treatments. The Caprini Score (CS) is an established tool to assess patients' VTE risks. One disadvantage is the number of questions required, some of them referring to a low incidence of disease, even lower in patients seeking an elective procedure. These elements take time and may result in filling errors if the CS is not filled out by a properly trained health professional. OBJECTIVE: To establish a response pattern in CS, with emphasis on questions that usually have a negative answer and propose a simpler adaptative digital version without changing the original structure of the tool. METHODS: two hundred and twenty-seven patients in the pre-surgical treatment of varicose veins were enrolled prospectively and submitted to the CS evaluation. RESULTS: The pattern of dichotomous responses could be divided arbitrarily into four subgroups considering the percentage of positive responses: none (11 items), less than 3% (13 items), between 3% and 20% (5 items), and more than 20% (8 items). Of the 12 CS questions related to illnesses that occurred in the last month, ten had had no responses, and 2 were less than 3%. CONCLUSION: There is a pattern in the CS responses of patients with an indication of surgical treatment of varicose veins. Many of the CS questions are not helpful in this scenario and may result in filling errors performed by untrained providers. An adaptative version of the CS might benefit varicose veins surgery VTE risk stratification.

Post-discharge venous thromboembolism after cancer surgery: extending the case for extended prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) define the frequency of overall and postdischarge venous thromboembolism (VTE) after cancer surgery, (2) identify VTE risk for individual cancer operations, and (3) assess mortality rates in patients who experienced a VTE. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Cancer is a known risk factor for VTE but less is known about VTE risk after specific cancer operations. Moreover, most cancer patients routinely receive VTE prophylaxis postoperatively while in the hospital, but few receive prolonged prophylaxis despite strong evidence it reduces postdischarge events. METHODS: From 211 ACS NSQIP hospitals, 44,656 patients undergoing surgery for 9 cancers were identified (2006-2008). The frequency of VTE within 30-days of surgery was evaluated by cancer site and categorized as occurring before or after discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess risk factors associated with VTE. RESULTS: VTE occurred in 1.6% of all patients, most frequently after esophagogastric (4.2%) and hepatopancreaticobiliary (3.6%) surgery. Overall, 33.4% of VTEs occurred postdischarge (from 17.9% for esophagogastric to 100% for endocrine operations). Factors associated with VTE were age (≥65 years), cancer/procedure type, metastatic disease, congestive heart failure, body mass index (BMI; ≥25 kg/m(2)), ascites, thrombocytosis (>400,000 cells/mm(3)), albumin (<3.0 g/dL), and operation duration (>2 hours; all P < 0.001). Overall VTE was significantly more likely after gastrointestinal, lung, prostate, and ovarian/uterine operations (all P < 0.001). In those experiencing a VTE, mortality increased over 6-fold (8.0% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: One-third of VTE events in cancer surgery patients occurred postdischarge. Postoperative VTE was associated with operation type. Routine postdischarge VTE prophylaxis should be considered for high-risk patients.

Validation of Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) with other venous severity assessment tools from the American Venous Forum, National Venous Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Several standard venous assessment tools have been used as independent determinants of venous disease severity, but correlation between these instruments as a global venous screening tool has not been tested. The scope of this study is to assess the validity of Venous Clinical Severity Scoring (VCSS) and its integration with other venous assessment tools as a global venous screening instrument. METHODS: The American Venous Forum (AVF), National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) data registry from 2007 to 2009 was queried for participants with complete datasets, including CEAP clinical staging, VCSS, modified Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life (CIVIQ) assessment, and venous ultrasound results. Statistical correlation trends were analyzed using Spearman's rank coefficient as related to VCSS. RESULTS: Five thousand eight hundred fourteen limbs in 2,907 participants were screened and included CEAP clinical stage C0: 26%; C1: 33%; C2: 24%; C3: 9%; C4: 7%; C5: 0.5%; C6: 0.2% (mean, 1.41 ± 1.22). VCSS mean score distribution (range, 0-3) for the entire cohort included: pain 1.01 ± 0.80, varicose veins 0.61 ± 0.84, edema 0.61 ± 0.81, pigmentation 0.15 ± 0.47, inflammation 0.07 ± 0.33, induration 0.04 ± 0.27, ulcer number 0.004 ± 0.081, ulcer size 0.007 ± 0.112, ulcer duration 0.007 ± 0.134, and compression 0.30 ± 0.81. Overall correlation between CEAP and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.49; P < .0001), with highest correlation for attributes reflecting more advanced disease, including varicose vein (r(s) = 0.51; P < .0001), pigmentation (r(s) = 0.39; P < .0001), inflammation (r(s) = 0.28; P < .0001), induration (r(s) = 0.22; P < .0001), and edema (r(s) = 0.21; P < .0001). Based on the modified CIVIQ assessment, overall mean score for each general category included: Quality of Life (QoL)-Pain 6.04 ± 3.12 (range, 3-15), QoL-Functional 9.90 ± 5.32 (range, 5-25), and QoL-Social 5.41 ± 3.09 (range, 3-15). Overall correlation between CIVIQ and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.43; P < .0001), with the highest correlation noted for pain (r(s) = 0.55; P < .0001) and edema (r(s) = 0.30; P < .0001). Based on screening venous ultrasound results, 38.1% of limbs had reflux and 1.5% obstruction in the femoral, saphenous, or popliteal vein segments. Correlation between overall venous ultrasound findings (reflux + obstruction) and VCSS was slightly positive (r(s) = 0.23; P < .0001) but was highest for varicose vein (r(s) = 0.32; P < .0001) and showed no correlation to swelling (r(s) = 0.06; P < .0001) and pain (r(s) = 0.003; P = .7947). CONCLUSIONS: While there is correlation between VCSS, CEAP, modified CIVIQ, and venous ultrasound findings, subgroup analysis indicates that this correlation is driven by different components of VCSS compared with the other venous assessment tools. This observation may reflect that VCSS has more global application in determining overall severity of venous disease, while at the same time highlighting the strengths of the other venous assessment tools.

Comparison of a nonpneumatic device to four currently available intermittent pneumatic compression devices on common femoral blood flow dynamics.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to compare common femoral vein blood flow enhancement during external mechanical compression using the novel, nonpneumatic Recovery Force Health Movement and Compressions (MAC) System (Recovery Force USA, Fishers, Ind), and four currently available intermittent pneumatic compression devices. METHODS: The MAC device was compared with the Kendall SCD 700 (Cardinal Health, Dublin, Ohio), Arjo Huntleigh Flowtron ACS900 (Arjo, Malmö, Sweden), ActiveCare+S.F.T. (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Ind), and Circul8 (Ortho8, Rocklin, Calif). Doppler ultrasound measurements for each device were directly obtained from the right common femoral vein by a registered vascular technologist. The peak flow velocity and the time taken to reach the peak were calculated. For the MAC system only, the subjects were asked to walk a minimum of 500 steps while wearing the system, which was then checked for slippage. Leg size measurements were obtained using the noncontact Sigvaris Legreader XT5 (Vialis Ortopedia, Turin, Italy). The MAC device is not yet commercially available, and the present study was a prequel to clinical studies of venous thromboembolism prevention. RESULTS: We recruited a broad range of 20 subjects who varied in age (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 50.5 ± 16.2 years), body mass index (mean ± SD, 26 ± 5.5 kg/m2), gender (male, 25%; female, 75%), and right calf circumference (mean ± SD, 37.2 ± 5.5 cm). The peak flow velocity compared with the baseline measurements was significantly greater for the Recovery Force Health MAC System for three (Kendall SCD 700, P = .02; ActiveCare+S.F.T., P = .003; Circul8, P < .001) of the four comparisons. Although the difference was not significant, the Arjo Huntleigh Flowtron ACS900 (SD, 3.4 cm/s) had more measurement variability in the peak flow velocity compared with baseline than did the MAC System (SD, 1.9 cm/s). The MAC had a significantly (P < .001) faster rise time to peak flow compared with the comparison devices. It was the only device to achieve the target peak flow velocity over baseline of at least three times in every body mass index group. Finally, the MAC System met the goal of <2.5 cm of movement after ambulation in 100% of the measurements, with 75% of the measurements showing no movement. CONCLUSIONS: The MAC System is a mobile device that remained in place during ambulation and provided more consistent external mechanical compression in the desired range compared with the other three devices included in the present study.

The original and modified Caprini score equally predicts venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to validate the original Caprini score and its modifications considering coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a severe prothrombotic condition in patients admitted to the hospital. METHODS: The relevant data were extracted from the electronic medical records with an implemented Caprini score and were retrospectively evaluated. The score was calculated twice: by the physician on admission and by the investigator at discharge (death). The final assessment considered additional risk factors that occurred during inpatient treatment. Besides the original Caprini score (a version of 2005), the modified version added the elevation of D-dimer and specific scores for COVID-19 as follows: two points for asymptomatic, three points for symptomatic, and five points for symptomatic infection with positive D-dimer. Cases were evaluated retrospectively. The primary end point was symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) detected during inpatient treatment and confirmed by appropriate imaging testing or autopsy. The secondary end points included those observed during hospitalization (admission to the intensive care unit, a requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, death, bleeding), and those assessed at 6-month follow-up (symptomatic VTE, bleeding, death). The association of eight different versions of the Caprini score with VTE events was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (83 males and 85 females at the age of 58.3 ± 12.7 years) were admitted to the hospital between April 30 and May 29, 2020, and were discharged or died to the time of data analysis. The original Caprini score varied between 2 and 12 (5.4 ± 1.8) at the admission and between 2 and 15 (5.9 ± 2.5) at discharge or death. The maximal score was observed with modification including specific COVID-19 points of 5 to 20 (10.0 ± 3.0). Patients received prophylactic (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily: 2.4%), intermediate (enoxaparin 80 mg once daily: 76.8%), or therapeutic (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg twice daily: 20.8%) anticoagulation. Despite this, symptomatic VTE was detected in 11 (6.5%) inpatients. Of the 168 individuals, 28 (16.7%) admitted to the intensive care unit, 8 (4.8%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8 (4.8%) died. Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was detected in two (1.2%) cases. The Caprini score of all eight versions demonstrated a significant association with inpatient VTE frequency. The highest predictability was observed for the original scale when assessed at discharge (death). Only symptomatic VTE was reported after discharge with a cumulative incidence of 7.1%. This did not affect the predictability of the Caprini score. Extended antithrombotic treatment was prescribed to 49 (29%) patients with a cumulative incidence of bleeding of 1.8% at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified a significant correlation between the Caprini score and the risk of VTE in patients with COVID-19. All models including specific COVID-19 scores showed equally high predictability, and use of the original Caprini score is appropriate for patients with COVID-19.

Prognostic Value of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Models in Patients with Severe COVID-19.

Introduction Severe novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes dysregulation of the coagulation system with arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). We hypothesize that validated VTE risk scores would have prognostic ability in this population. Methods Retrospective observational cohort with severe COVID-19 performed in NorthShore University Health System. Patients were >18 years of age and met criteria for inpatient or intensive care unit (ICU) care. The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) and Caprini scores were calculated and patients were stratified. Results This study includes 184 patients, mostly men (63.6%), Caucasian (54.3%), 63 years old (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-101), and 57.1% of them required ICU care. Twenty-seven (14.7%) thrombotic events occurred: 12 (6.5%) cases of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), 9 (4.9%) of pulmonary embolism, 5 (2.7%) of deep vein thrombosis, and 1 (0.5%) stroke. Among them, 86 patients (46.7%) died, 95 (51.6%) were discharged, and 3 (1.6%) were still hospitalized. "Moderate risk for VTE" and "High risk for VTE" by IMPROVE score had significant mortality association: (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.93-11.03; p < 0.001) and (HR = 6.22; 95% CI: 3.04-12.71; p < 0.001), respectively, with 87% sensitivity and 63% specificity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.752, p < 0.001). "High Risk for VTE" by Caprini score had significant mortality association (HR = 17.6; 95% CI: 5.56-55.96; p < 0.001) with 96% sensitivity and 55% specificity (AUC = 0.843, p < 0.001). Both scores were associated with thrombotic events when classified as "High risk for VTE" by IMPROVE (HR = 6.50; 95% CI: 2.72-15.53; p < 0.001) and Caprini scores (HR = 11.507; 95% CI: 2.697-49.104; p = 0.001). Conclusion The IMPROVE and Caprini risk scores were independent predictors of mortality and thrombotic events in severe COVID-19. With larger validation, this can be useful prognostic information.