Pediatric trauma venous thromboembolism prediction algorithm outperforms current anticoagulation prophylaxis guidelines: a pilot study
link.springer.com shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on link.springer.com ↗Article · Jan 2020 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
Retrospective study of 8,271 pediatric trauma patients validates a VTE prediction algorithm that outperforms current age-based prophylaxis guidelines, achieving 0.93 AUROC while requiring anticoagulation in significantly fewer patients (373 vs 1,935). The algorithm stratifies risk using clinical variables and demonstrates superior sensitivity and specificity compared to blanket treatment of all patients over 15 years.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
Abstract
Purpose
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in injured children is rare, but sequelae can be morbid and life-threatening. Recent trauma society guidelines suggesting that all children over 15 years old should receive thromboprophylaxis may result in overtreatment. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of a previously published VTE prediction algorithm and compare it to current recommendations.
Methods
Two institutional trauma registries were queried for all pediatric (age < 18 years) patients admitted from 2007 to 2018. Clinical data were applied to the algorithm and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was calculated to test algorithm efficacy.
Results
A retrospective review identified 8271 patients with 30 episodes of VTE (0.36%). The VTE prediction algorithm classified 51 (0.6%) as high risk (> 5% risk), 322 (3.9%) as moderate risk (1–5% risk) and 7898 (95.5%) as low risk (< 1% risk). AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.97). In our population, prophylaxis of the ‘moderate-’ and ‘high-risk’ cohorts would outperform the sensitivity (60% vs. 53%) and specificity (96% vs. 77%) of current guidelines while anticoagulating substantially fewer patients (373 vs. 1935, p < 0.001).
Conclusion
A VTE prediction algorithm using clinical variables can identify injured children at risk for venous thromboembolic disease with more discrimination than current guidelines. Prospective studies are needed to investigate the validity of this model.
Level of evidence
III—Clinical decision rule evaluated in a single population.