We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
Risk prediction of recurrent venous thrombosis; where are we now and what can we add?
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis : JTH 2019 September
BACKGROUND: Several models are available to predict recurrent venous thrombosis (VT) in patients with unprovoked first events.
OBJECTIVES: To validate these prediction models externally.
METHODS: Within the MEGA follow-up study (n = 3750), we externally validated the Vienna and DASH score. These models were validated (a) by using the original study's criteria for patients with unprovoked VT and (b) by using our own criteria for unprovoked VT. In addition, absolute recurrence risks based on individual VT risk factors were calculated.
RESULTS: The recurrence rate was 5.2 (95% CI, 4.6-5.9) per 100 patient-years in those who had a first unprovoked VT according to our definition. For the Vienna model it was 3.4 per 100 patient-years and for DASH 3.8 per 100 patient-years. The C-statistic was 0.62 for Vienna and 0.65 for DASH. The C-statistic declined to 0.58 for both Vienna and DASH when we used our own definition of "unprovoked VT." Within the provoked group a strong gradient in risk was found dependent on the presence of traditional risk factors or biomarkers in a patient.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to distinguish patients' recurrence risks is lower than proposed in the original prediction model studies and dependent on the definition that is used for an unprovoked first event. Furthermore, our results suggest that a more-refined risk estimation is possible, also in patients with a provoked first event, who are currently all classified as low risk.
OBJECTIVES: To validate these prediction models externally.
METHODS: Within the MEGA follow-up study (n = 3750), we externally validated the Vienna and DASH score. These models were validated (a) by using the original study's criteria for patients with unprovoked VT and (b) by using our own criteria for unprovoked VT. In addition, absolute recurrence risks based on individual VT risk factors were calculated.
RESULTS: The recurrence rate was 5.2 (95% CI, 4.6-5.9) per 100 patient-years in those who had a first unprovoked VT according to our definition. For the Vienna model it was 3.4 per 100 patient-years and for DASH 3.8 per 100 patient-years. The C-statistic was 0.62 for Vienna and 0.65 for DASH. The C-statistic declined to 0.58 for both Vienna and DASH when we used our own definition of "unprovoked VT." Within the provoked group a strong gradient in risk was found dependent on the presence of traditional risk factors or biomarkers in a patient.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to distinguish patients' recurrence risks is lower than proposed in the original prediction model studies and dependent on the definition that is used for an unprovoked first event. Furthermore, our results suggest that a more-refined risk estimation is possible, also in patients with a provoked first event, who are currently all classified as low risk.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app