Skip to main content
Top

Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China

Unlock free access to practice-relevant journal articles

Join our community of medical professionals and register now to access a handpicked selection of journal articles from Springer's Medical portfolio. 

Looking for something specific?

Find articles from over 500 clinical journals from Springer with the search function.

About journals on Springer Medicine

The range of medical journals on Springer Medicine is extremely diverse. It includes the current editions and archives of around 500 English-language journals from almost all medical disciplines published by Springer. 

The specialist literature is usually available both online in full text and as a PDF for download. The online view is optimized in such a way that the specialist texts can be read comfortably on all screen sizes, from desktops to tablets to smartphones. We also include features to support your use of the journals for your research, such as bookmark setting.

Whether you’re interested in internal medicine, surgery, general medicine, gynecology, orthopedics, neurology, or pediatrics, there are excellent journals in almost every subject area, such as the BMC Series, Diabetologia, Breast Cancer Research, Current Obesity Reports, CNS Drugs and many others, all of which are an integral part of the everyday life of doctors across Europe. 

The breadth of content from this suite of journals allows the Springer Medicine team to collect and deliver broad-ranging content across the full spectrum of medical knowledge, with a special focus on topics highlighted by these leading journals and their editorial boards and specialist authors. This guarantees a high quality of content and ensures that our readers are offered the most relevant topics in their respective specialist area. 

Our experienced clinical content managers constantly monitor the needs of medical professionals to provide up-to-date reports from international congresses, expert interviews, and a range of digestible content on emerging topics in the field of medicine.

Published in:

21-04-2024 | Nephrotic Syndrome

Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China

Authors: Hou Yifang, Duan Jun, Yan Jingting, Shan Ying, Zhang Ping, Deng Xiaomei

Published in: Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis | Issue 5/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major contributor to hospital mortality and disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) loss. Multiple guidelines recommend using the Padua or IMPROVE scores to stratify VTE risk in hospitalized medical patients. However, the IMPROVE score is not recommended in Chinese guidelines, and there is very little evaluation of its clinical application and effectiveness in the Chinese population. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of the Padua and IMPROVE scoring models for assessing VTE risk in Chinese medical inpatients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics and thrombotic risk of 42,257 medical inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Guangdong, China, between 2021 and 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess thrombotic risk factors. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were employed to evaluate the performance of the two models. Of the 42,257 patients included, 948 (2.24%) experienced VTE during hospitalization. According to the Padua score, 3,7513 (88.78%) of patients were considered low risk, while 4,744 (18.22%) were classified as high risk. The IMPROVE score identified 20,744 (49.09%) of patients as low risk, 20799(49.22%) as intermediate risk, and 714(1.69%) as high risk. The AUC for the Padua score was 0.735 (95% CI: 0.717–0.753), with a sensitivity of 49.4% and specificity of 89.6%. For the IMPROVE score, the AUC was 0.711 (95% CI: 0.693–0.729), with a sensitivity of 32.5% and specificity of 99.0%. The DeLong test, used to compare the AUCs, yielded a z-value of 1.886 with a P-value of 0.059, indicating no statistical difference. When assessing VTE risk in patients with stroke, cancer, nephrotic syndrome, and critical illness (ICU/CCU stay), both scoring models showed comparable predictive performance with AUCs ranging between 0.7 and 0.8. Both the Padua score and IMPROVE score have good predictive ability for VTE events during hospitalization in medical patients. Among them, the IMPROVE score has objective assessment items, simpler operation, and more detailed risk stratification, which is beneficial for clinicians to take physical and pharmacological preventive measures at different levels.
ChiCTR2200056903, February 22, retrospectively registered.

Graphical Abstract

Literature
This content is only visible if you are logged in and have the appropriate permissions.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the PADUA and IMPROVE scores in assessing venous thromboembolism risk in 42,257 medical inpatients in China
Authors
Hou Yifang
Duan Jun
Yan Jingting
Shan Ying
Zhang Ping
Deng Xiaomei
Publication date
21-04-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis / Issue 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0929-5305
Electronic ISSN: 1573-742X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-024-02979-y