Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are patient-completed instruments that capture patient-perceived health status and well-being. PROMs measure disease impact and outcomes of care as... Show morePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are patient-completed instruments that capture patient-perceived health status and well-being. PROMs measure disease impact and outcomes of care as reported by those who experience the disease. After pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, patients may face a broad spectrum of complications and long-term sequelae beyond the usual quality-of-care indicators of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), bleeding complications, and survival. The full impact of VTE on individual patients can only be captured by assessing all relevant health outcomes from the patient’s perspective in addition to the traditionally recognized complications. Defining and measuring all important outcomes will help facilitate treatment tailored to the needs and preferences of patients and may improve health outcomes. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee Subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease endorsed the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) VTE project on development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures for patients with VTE. In this communication, the course and result of the project are summarized, and based on these findings, we propose recommendations for the use of PROMs during clinical follow-up of patients with VTE. We describe challenges to implementation of PROMs and explore barriers and enablers. Show less
AimsRisk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that... Show moreAimsRisk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that provides an individualized, accurate probability estimate for the presence of acute PE in patients with suspected disease based on readily available clinical items and D-dimer concentrations.Methods and resultsAn individual patient data meta-analysis was performed based on sixteen cross-sectional or prospective studies with data from 28 305 adult patients with clinically suspected PE from various clinical settings, including primary care, emergency care, hospitalized and nursing home patients. A multilevel logistic regression model was built and validated including ten a priori defined objective candidate predictors to predict objectively confirmed PE at baseline or venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up of 30 to 90 days. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Backward elimination was performed with a P-value <0.10. Discrimination (c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals [CI] and prediction intervals [PI]) and calibration (outcome:expected [O:E] ratio and calibration plot) were evaluated based on internal-external cross-validation. The accuracy of the model was subsequently compared with algorithms based on the Wells score and D-dimer testing. The final model included age (in years), sex, previous VTE, recent surgery or immobilization, haemoptysis, cancer, clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, inpatient status, D-dimer (in µg/L), and an interaction term between age and D-dimer. The pooled c-statistic was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85–0.89; 95% PI, 0.77–0.93) and overall calibration was very good (pooled O:E ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87–1.14; 95% PI, 0.55–1.79). The model slightly overestimated VTE probability in the lower range of estimated probabilities. Discrimination of the current model in the validation data sets was better than that of the Wells score combined with a D-dimer threshold based on age (c-statistic 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70–0.75) or structured clinical pretest probability (c-statistic 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76–0.81).ConclusionThe present model provides an absolute, individualized probability of PE presence in a broad population of patients with suspected PE, with very good discrimination and calibration. Its clinical utility needs to be evaluated in a prospective management or impact study. Show less
The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled an international working group of venous thromboembolism experts and patient representatives to develop a standardised minimum... Show moreThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled an international working group of venous thromboembolism experts and patient representatives to develop a standardised minimum set of outcomes and outcome measurements for integration into clinical practice and potentially research to support clinical decision making and benchmarking of quality of care. 15 core outcomes important to patients and health-care professionals were selected and categorised into four domains: patient-reported outcomes, long term consequences of the disease, disease-specific complications, and treatment-related complications. The outcomes and outcome measures were designed to apply to all patients with venous thromboembolism aged 16 years or older. A measurement tool package was selected for inclusion in the core standard set, with a minimum number of items to be measured at predefined timepoints, which capture all core outcomes. Additional measures can be introduced to the user by a cascade opt-in system that allows for further assessment if required. This set of outcomes and measurement tools will facilitate the implementation of the use of patient-centred outcomes in daily practice. Show less
Background Thrombosis is reported to occur more often among patients with COVID-19 than otherwise expected in the setting of viral pneumonia and sepsis. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers may be... Show moreBackground Thrombosis is reported to occur more often among patients with COVID-19 than otherwise expected in the setting of viral pneumonia and sepsis. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers may be associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. The ISTH subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease aimed to report the evidence on prognostic biomarkers for VTE in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods Using a standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis methodology, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies reporting prognostic biomarkers for VTE among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Eligible studies included adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and reported the prognostic associations between any biomarker measured on admission, and the subsequent diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and three authors extracted study data and performed review of bias. Results were displayed descriptively. Meta-analysis was not possible. Results From the initial 196 identified studies, full-text review was performed for 72 studies. Admission D-dimer levels were associated with VTE during hospitalization in five studies, and elevated platelet count was associated with VTE during hospitalization in one study. The risk of bias ranged from low to high for included studies. Overall, there was a paucity of high-quality prognostic studies. Studies on other biomarkers did not meet the systematic review inclusion criteria. Conclusions Admission D-dimer was associated with VTE diagnosis during hospitalization for COVID-19; however, prospective validation of this finding is needed to identify optimal D-dimer thresholds to guide VTE prophylaxis measures. Show less
Patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) require anticoagulant therapy to prevent recurrent VTE and death, which exposes them to an inherent increased risk of bleeding. Identification of... Show morePatients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) require anticoagulant therapy to prevent recurrent VTE and death, which exposes them to an inherent increased risk of bleeding. Identification of patients at high risk of bleeding, and mitigating this risk, is an essential component of the immediate and long-term therapeutic management of VTE. The bleeding risk can be estimated by either implicit judgment, weighing individual predictors (clinical variables or biomarkers), or by risk prediction tools developed for this purpose. Management of bleeding risk in clinical practice is, however, far from standardized. International guidelines are contradictory and lack clear and consistent guidance on the optimal management of bleeding risk. This report of the ISTH subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease summarizes the evidence on the prediction of bleeding in VTE patients. We systematically searched the literature and identified 34 original studies evaluating either predictors or risk prediction models for prediction of bleeding risk on anticoagulation in VTE patients. Based on this evidence, we provide recommendations for the standardized management of bleeding risk in VTE patients. Show less
Background: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown.... Show moreBackground: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds, as well as the YEARS algorithm, for ruling out acute PE in these subgroups. Data Sources: MEDLINE from 1 January 1995 until 1 January 2021. Study Selection: 16 studies assessing at least 1 diagnostic strategy. Data Extraction: Individual-patient data from 20553 patients. Data Synthesis: Safety was defined as the diagnostic failure rate (the predicted 3-month VTE incidence after exclusion of PE without imaging at baseline). Efficiency was defined as the proportion of individuals classified by the strategy as "PE con -sidered excluded" without imaging tests. Across all strategies, efficiency was highest in patients younger than 40 years (47% to 68%) and lowest in patients aged 80 years or older (6.0% to 23%) or patients with cancer (9.6% to 26%). However, efficiency improved considerably in these subgroups when pretest probabil-ity-dependent D-dimer thresholds were applied. Predicted failure rates were highest for strategies with adapted D-dimer thresh-olds, with failure rates varying between 2% and 4% in the pre-defined patient subgroups. Limitations: Between-study differences in scoring predictor items and D-dimer assays, as well as the presence of differential verifica-tion bias, in particular for classifying fatal events and subsegmental PE cases, all of which may have led to an overestimation of the predicted failure rates of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Conclusion: Overall, all strategies showed acceptable safety, with pretest probability-dependent D-dimer thresholds having not only the highest efficiency but also the highest predicted failure rate. From an efficiency perspective, this individual-patient data meta-analysis supports application of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Primary Funding Source: Dutch Research Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018089366) Show less
Robert-Ebadi, H.; Mostaguir, K.; Hovens, M.M.; Kare, M.; Verschuren, F.; Girard, P.; ... ; Gal, G. le 2017
