What Constitutes High Risk for Venous Thromboembolism? Comparing Approaches to Determining an Appropriate Threshold - Mittman, Benjamin G; Hu, Bo; Schulte, Rebecca; Le, Phuc; Pappas, Matthew A; Hamilton, Aaron; Rothberg, Michael B (medRxiv, 2024)
Background Guidelines recommend pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis only for high-risk patients, but the probability of VTE considered “high-risk” is not specified. Our objective was to define an appropriate probability threshold (or range) for VTE risk stratification and corresponding prophylaxis in medical inpatients.Methods Patients were adults admitted to any of 10 Cleveland Clinic Health System hospitals between December 2020 and August 2021 (N = 41,036). Hospital medicine physicians and internal medicine residents from included hospitals were surveyed between June and November 2023 (N = 214). We compared five approaches to determining a threshold: decision analysis, maximizing the sensitivity and specificity of a logistic regression model, deriving a probability from a point-based model, surveying physicians’ understanding of VTE risk, and deriving a probability from physician behavior. For each approach, we determined the probability threshold above which a patient would be considered high-risk for VTE. We applied each threshold to the Cleveland Clinic VTE risk assessment model (CCM) and calculated the percentage of the 41,036 patients in our cohort who would be considered eligible for prophylaxis due to their high-risk status. We compared these hypothetical prophylaxis rates with physicians’ observed prophylaxis rates.Results The different approaches yielded thresholds ranging from 0.3% to 5.4%, corresponding inversely with hypothetical prophylaxis rates of 0.2% to 75%. Multiple thresholds clustered between 0.52% to 0.55%, suggesting an average hypothetical prophylaxis rate of approximately 30%, whereas physicians’ observed prophylaxis rates ranged from 48% to 76%.Conclusions Multiple approaches to determining a probability threshold for VTE prophylaxis converged to suggest an optimal threshold of approximately 0.5%. Other approaches yielded extreme thresholds that are unrealistic for clinical practice. Physicians prescribed prophylaxis much more frequently than the suggested rate of 30%, indicating opportunity to reduce unnecessary prophylaxis. To aid in these efforts, guidelines should explicitly quantify high-risk.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by NIH grants 5T32GM007250-45 and 5TL1TR002549-04. The funders had no role in study design or completion.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRBs #22-321 and #14-240).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesDe-identified data may be made available upon reasonable request.