External validation of the IMPROVE bleeding Risk Assessment Model in medical patients

David J. Rosenberg, Anne Press, Joanna Fishbein, Martin Lesser, Lauren McCullagh, Thomas McGinn, Alex C. Spyropoulos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

The IMPROVE Bleed Risk Assessment Model (RAM) remains the only bleed RAM in hospitalised medical patients using 11 clinical and laboratory factors. The aim of our study was to externally validate the IMPROVE Bleed RAM. A retrospective chart review was conducted between October 1, 2012 and July 31, 2014. We applied the point scoring system to compute risk scores for each patient in the validation sample. We then dichotomised the patients into those with a score <7 (low risk) vs ≥ 7 (high risk), as outlined in the original study, and compared the rates of any bleed, non-major bleed, and major bleed. Among the 12,082 subjects, there was an overall 2.6 % rate of any bleed within 14 days of admission. There was a 2.12 % rate of any bleed in those patients with a score of < 7 and a 4.68 % rate in those with a score ≥ 7 [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.3 (95 % CI=1.8–2.9), p<0.0001]. MB rates were 1.5 % in the patients with a score of < 7 and 3.2 % in the patients with a score of ≥ 7, [OR 2.2 (95 % CI=1.6–2.9), p<0.0001]. The ROC curve was 0.63 for the validation sample. This study represents the largest externally validated Bleed RAM in a hospitalised medically ill patient population. A cut-off point score of 7 or above was able to identify a high-risk patient group for MB and any bleed. The IMPROVE Bleed RAM has the potential to allow for more tailored approaches to thromboprophylaxis in medically ill hospitalised patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)530-536
Number of pages7
JournalThrombosis and Haemostasis
Volume116
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2016
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Anticoagulants
  • Bleeding risk
  • Medical patients
  • Risk Assessment Model
  • Validation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'External validation of the IMPROVE bleeding Risk Assessment Model in medical patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this