Abstract
Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the leading cause of preventable hospital death in the US. Guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians and American Society for Hematology recommend providing pharmacological VTE prophylaxis to acutely or critically ill medical patients at acceptable bleeding risk, but there is currently only one validated risk assessment model (RAM) for estimating bleeding risk. We developed a RAM using risk factors at admission and compared it with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) model.
Methods A total of 46,314 medical patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Health System hospital from 2017-2020 were included. Data were split into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets with equivalent bleeding event rates in each set. Potential risk factors for major bleeding were identified from the IMPROVE model and literature review. Penalized logistic regression using LASSO was performed on the training set to select and regularize important risk factors for the final model. The validation set was used to assess model calibration and discrimination and compare performance with IMPROVE. Bleeding events and risk factors were confirmed through chart review.
Results The incidence of major in-hospital bleeding was 0.58%. Active peptic ulcer (OR = 5.90), prior bleeding (OR = 4.24), and history of sepsis (OR = 3.29) were the strongest independent risk factors. Other risk factors included age, male sex, decreased platelet count, increased INR, increased PTT, decreased GFR, ICU admission, CVC or PICC placement, active cancer, coagulopathy, and in-hospital antiplatelet drug, steroid, or SSRI use. In the validation set, the Cleveland Clinic Bleeding Model (CCBM) had better discrimination than IMPROVE (0.86 vs. 0.72, p < .001) and, at equivalent sensitivity (54%), categorized fewer patients as high-risk (6.8% vs. 12.1%, p < .001).
Conclusions From a large population of medical inpatients, we developed and validated a RAM to accurately predict bleeding risk at admission. The CCBM may be used in conjunction with VTE risk calculators to decide between mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis for at-risk patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded in part by NIH grants 5T32GM007250-45 and 5TL1TR002549-04.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
