Pulmonary Vascular Disease |

DVT/PE Risk Assessments: All Are Not Equal, Quantitative Assessments Are Superior FREE TO VIEW

Lisa Shimotake, MD; Fakhri Kalolwala, BS; Anthony Lepere, DDS; Akella Chendrasekhar, MD
Author and Funding Information

Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, NY

Chest. 2013;144(4_MeetingAbstracts):845A. doi:10.1378/chest.1691539
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TITLE: DVT/PE/Pulmonary Hypertension Posters

SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Poster

PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 01:30 PM - 02:30 PM

PURPOSE: Deep venous thrombosis [DVT] and Pulmonary Embolism [PE] are preventable complications. The joint commission mandates routine risk assessment in hospitalized patients. No comparison data between quantitative [Q] and non-quantitative [NQ] assessments is available.

METHODS: we retrospectively analyzed 141 adult trauma patients seen at our level 1 center. All patients had NQ risk assessment performed and recorded. Risk category assignment using NQ was at physician discretion. We performed an additional Q risk assessment to compare with NQ and categorize accordingly. We compared Q versus NQ with regard to diagnostic accuracy as well as appropriateness of prophylaxis using one-way analysis of Variance {ANOVA}

RESULTS: The NQ assessment uniformly underestimated risk, with the low risk NQ actually being moderate risk Q, the moderate risk NQ being High risk Q, the high risk NQ being Very High risk Q grouping. Using the NQ data to assess prophylaxis success in patients with no contraindication, we found that low, moderate and high risk groups had rates of 72 ± 11 %, 65 ± 8 %, and 58± 14% respectively [p=n.s.]. However when we looked at the same patients using Q data we found the prophylactic success more problematic especially with the very high risk group [prophylactic success of 100 % for the low risk, 83 ± 11% for the moderate risk, 74 ± 9% for the high risk but only 29± 9% for the very high risk group (p=0.001). symptomatic DVTs only occurred in high and very high risk groups [4± 3 %, and 6 ± 3 % respectively] although statistical significance was not reached.

CONCLUSIONS: A quantitative risk assessment provides greater accuracy and better therapeutic success assessment than non-quantitative assessments

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Uniform quantitative risk assessments allow for better identification and less variable treatment of high risk patients

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: Lisa Shimotake, Fakhri Kalolwala, Anthony Lepere, Akella Chendrasekhar

No Product/Research Disclosure Information




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543