Open Access
27-09-2024 | Central Venous Catheter | IM - ORIGINAL
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
Published in:
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Login to get access
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.