Standardization of risk prediction model reporting in cancer-associated thrombosis: Communication from the ISTH SSC subcommittee on hemostasis and malignancy.

Since the development of the Khorana score to predict risk of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), many modified and de novo risk prediction models (RPMs) have been proposed. Comparison of the prognostic performance across models requires comprehensive reporting and standardized methods for model development, validation and evaluation. To improve the standardization of RPM reporting, the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) tool was published in 2015. To better understand the quality of reporting and development of RPMs for cancer-associated VTE, we performed a literature search of published RPMs and assessed each model using the TRIPOD checklist. Our results yielded 29 RPMs for which 30 items were evaluated. There was a non-significant (p = 0.15) improvement in reporting of the 30 items in the post-TRIPOD era (81%) versus the pre-TRIPOD era (75%). Of seven items (title, sample size, missing data handling, baseline demographics, methods and results for model performance, and supplemental resources) with the lowest reporting in the pre-TRIPOD era (<70%), there was an average improvement of 22% in the post-TRIPOD era. Only two of the 22 studies published in the post-TRIPOD era acknowledged compliance with TRIPOD. Informed by the results of this assessment, the Scientific and Standardization Committee (SSC) Subcommittee on Hemostasis & Malignancy of the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) advocates for standardization of four key elements of RPMs for cancer-associated VTE: (1) inclusion of the TRIPOD checklist, (2) clear definition of the derivation population, with justification of sample size, (3) clear definition of predictors, and (4) external validation prior to implementation.

Post-thrombotic syndrome, functional disability and quality of life after upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in adults.

The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) after upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) has not been well characterized. The objective of our study was to describe and quantify residual symptoms, functional disability and quality of life associated with PTS after UEDVT in adults. Twenty-four patients with objectively diagnosed UEDVT (bilateral in 1 patient) at least 6 months previously were recruited from two Canadian thrombosis clinics. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, DVT risk factors and affected venous segments. The Villalta PTS scale, modified for the upper extremity, was used to diagnose PTS. Patients completed questionnaires on degree of functional disability (DASH questionnaire), and generic (SF-36) and disease-specific (VEINES-QOL) quality of life. Results were compared in patients with and without PTS. Patients were assessed a median of 13 months after the diagnosis of UEDVT. Daily ipsilateral arm or hand swelling was reported by 52% of patients and daily ipsilateral arm pain by 20% of study patients, compared with 0% and 0%, respectively, in the contralateral arm. PTS was present in 11/25 (44%) limbs (11/24 patients). One patient had severe PTS. Patients with PTS, compared with those without PTS, had significantly more functional disability (mean DASH score 20.9 vs. 3.7, p=0.009) and poorer quality of life (mean VEINES-QOL score 45.6 vs. 53.6; p=0.001; mean SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) 40.8 vs. 50.2; p=0.12). PTS scores were higher and quality of life was poorer when PTS involved the dominant arm. In conclusion, PTS occurs frequently after UEDVT and is associated with significant functional disability and reduced quality of life. Patients with dominant arm PTS appear to fare worse than those with non-dominant arm PTS. Larger, prospective studies to identify prognostic factors that lead to PTS after UEDVT are warranted.

Deep venous thrombosis: clinically silent in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The reliability of clinical signs and the physical examination in the evaluation of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the critically ill is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic properties of clinical examination for signs of DVT in a cohort of medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients using screening compression ultrasonography as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively included patients older than 18 years with an expected length of ICU stay of more than 72 hours. Patients underwent bilateral lower limb screening compression ultrasound twice weekly and structured physical examination twice weekly by 2 independent trained research coordinators blinded to the ultrasonography results. We classified patients according to 2 methods: method 1, a DVT Risk Stratification System of 3 categories and method 2, a DVT Risk Score, both of which use the history and physical examination to stratify patients for their risk of DVT. RESULTS: We included 239 patients in our study, 32 of whom had DVT based on the results of their compression ultrasound. We excluded 7 patients with DVT on ICU admission and 2 who did not undergo any structured examinations. We matched controls with cases (9:1) based on duration of ICU stay. Cases and controls were then allocated to low, moderate, and high risk strata for DVT. Using method 1, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.33-0.78, P = .01). Using method 2, the AUC was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.75, P = .02). An AUC of 1.0 indicates an ideal test, and AUC of 0.50 indicates a test with no diagnostic utility. CONCLUSIONS: The history and physical examination for DVT are not useful in detecting lower limb DVT in the ICU.