Risk Scores in Venous Thromboembolism Guidelines of ESC,ACCP,and ASH: An Updated Review

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Risk scores associated with VTE have been widely used in clinical practice. Among numerous scores published, those included in guidelines are usually typical risk scores which have been extensively validated and globally recognized. This review provides an updated overview of the risk scores associated with VTE endorsed by 3 guidelines which are highly recognized in the field of VTE including the European Society of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, and American Society of Hematology, focusing on the development, modification, validation, and comparison of these scores, to provide a comprehensive and updated understanding of all the classic risk scores associated with VTE to medical readers including but not limited to cardiologists, pulmonologists, hematologists, intensivists, physicians, surgeons, and researchers. Although each score recommended by these guidelines was more or less validated, there may still be room for further improvement. It may still be necessary to seek simpler, more practical, and more universally applicable VTE-related risk scores in the future.

Keywords

venous thromboembolism risk score guidelines

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) broadly comprises pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT), superficial vein thrombosis, and splanchnic vein thrombosis, although generally refers to PE and DVT. VTE is the third most frequent acute cardiovascular disease behind myocardial infarction and stroke globally. Annual incidence rates for PE range from 39 to 115 per 100 000 population, whereas that for DVT range from 53 to 162 per 100 000 population. PE may cause 300 000 deaths per year in the US, and cause more than 370 000 deaths per year in European countries. The recurrence rate after discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment may range from 2.5% to 4.5% per year. The annual incidence of major bleeding could reach 3% during anticoagulation. In a word, VTE is a serious global hazard.^1–5

Various risk scores have been developed for the prediction, prophylaxis, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of VTE. These scores can help clinicians understand the status quo of patients more accurately, compared with subjective gestalt, so as to make further correct decisions. There are 2 types of risk scores which are general risk model and nomogram. General risk scores that account for the vast majority of all risk scores usually yield a dichotomous or more risk strata, whereas nomograms yield a time-dependent risk probability. General risk scores usually have 6 essential elements which are items in risk scores, points for each item, cutoff points for risk strata, efficiency of scores, user-friendliness to clinicians, and generalizability to patients (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Essential elements of general risk sores of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Based on the ESC (European Society of Cardiology), ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians), and ASH (American Society of Hematology) guidelines which are highly recognized in the field of VTE, the current review was dedicated to provide cardiologists, pulmonologists, hematologists, intensivists, physicians, surgeons, and researchers, etc, an updated overview of all risk scores associated with VTE recommended by these guidelines, in terms of PE risk, DVT risk, medical thromboprophylaxis, surgical thromboprophylaxis, PE severity, VTE recurrence risk, and bleeding risk. The current review does not cover specialized VTE risk scores such as cancer-associated VTE or COVID-19-related VTE.

Methods

We searched PubMed between March, 1987 and November, 2023, for clinical literature in English by using various combinations of “venous thromboembolism,” “pulmonary embolism,” “deep vein thrombosis,” “guidelines,” “score,” “model,” “recurrence,” “bleeding,” and all names of scores involved (please see the Supplemental Files for the detailed literature retrieval records). We preferentially selected all randomized controlled trials (RCT) available and meta-analyses with high GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)⁶ from the past 5 years as much as possible. When selecting references, we also took into account the impact factor of journal, the number of citations, and the academic background and reputation of authors, for the considered literature. Guidelines and authoritative comprehensive narrative reviews that were published within the past 5 years were also thoroughly read. The bibliography in these publications was reviewed one by one.

Results

The relevant risk scores we retrieved comprised Wells PE, Geneva, PERC, YEARS, Wells DVT, Padua, IMPROVE VTE, Caprini, Rogers, PESI, Bova, FAST, Hestia, Vienna, HERDOO2, DASH, DAMOVES, Ottawa, OBRI, Kuijer, RIETE, HAS-BLED, VTE-BLEED, ACCP, and IMPROVE bleeding scores. The major characteristics of each score reviewed are demonstrated in Table 1. The scoring items and risk strata of all the above-mentioned risk scores are displayed in Table S1 of the Supplemental Files.

Table 1.

Major Characteristics of all Risk Scores Associated With Venous Thromboembolism in Guidelines.

	Initial development (authors, year)	Number of items	Risk strata	Targeted population	Modifiedor simplified	External validation	ESC	ACCP	ASH
PE
Wells PE	Wells et al, 2000	7	3- or 2-level	General	+	+	+	+	+
Geneva	Wicki et al, 2001	8	3- or 2-level	General	+	+	+	+	+
PERC	Kline et al, 2004	8	2-level	Low probability of PE	−	+	+	−	+
YEARS	van der Hulle et al, 2017	4	2-level	General	−	+	+	−	−
DVT
Wells DVT	Wells et al, 1995	10	2-level	General	+	−	−	+	+
Medical thromboprophylaxis
Padua	Barbar et al, 2010	11	2-level	General	+	+	−	+	+
IMPROVE VTE	Spyropoulos et al, 2011	7	2-level	General	+	+	−	−	+
Surgical thromboprophylaxis
Caprini	Caprini, 2005	14	4-level	Non-orthopedic	+	+	−	+	+
Rogers	Rogers et al, 2007	7	3-level	Non-orthopedic	+	+	−	+	+
PE severity
PESI	Aujesky et al, 2005	11	5- or 2-level	General	+	+	+	+	−
Bova	Bova et al, 2014	4	3- or 2-level	Normotensive	+	+	+	−	−
FAST	Lankeit et al, 2013	3	2-level	Normotensive	+	+	+	−	−
Hestia	Zondag et al, 2011	11	2-level	Stay-at-home	−	+	+	−	−
VTE recurrence
Vienna	Eichinger et al, 2010	3	N/A	General	+	+	+	−	+
HERDOO2	Rodger et al, 2008	4	2-level	Women	−	+	+	−	+
DASH	Tosetto et al, 2012	4	2-level	General	−	+	+	−	+
DAMOVES	Moreno et al, 2016	7	N/A	General	−	+	+	−	−
Ottawa	Louzada et al, 2012	5	2-level	Cancer	+	+	+	−	−
Bleeding risk
OBRI	Beyth et al, 1998	4	3-level	Outpatients	−	+	+	−	−
Kuijer	Kuijer et al, 1999	3	3-level	General	−	+	+	−	−
RIETE	Ruíz-Giménez et al, 2008	6	3-level	General	+	+	+	−	−
HAS-BLED	Pisters et al, 2010	7	2-level	AF, VTE	+	+	+	−	−
VTE-BLEED	Klok et al, 2016	6	2-level	General	+	+	+	−	−
ACCP	Kearon et al, 2012	17	3-level	General	+	+	−	+	−
IMPROVE bleeding	Decousus et al, 2011	13	2-level	General	−	+	−	−	+

Abbreviations: ESC, European Society of Cardiology; ACCP, American College of Chest Physicians; ASH, American Society of Hematology; VTE, venous thromboembolism; PE, pulmonary embolism; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; AF, atrial fibrillation; N/A, not applicable.

“+” denotes “yes” or positive answer. “−” denotes “no” or negative answer.

PE Risk

To date, the scores for pretest prediction (PTP) of PE diagnosis comprising Wells, Geneva, PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria), and YEARS scores are more or less endorsed by the latest ESC,² ACCP,⁷ and ASH⁸ guidelines. These scores have been validated in a series of studies. In previous studies, although each one among these 4 scores combined with D-dimer (DD) yields considerable sensitivity or safety and varying specificity in different healthcare settings or subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous VTE,^9,10 their diagnostic efficiency for VTE occurrence is moderate provided not combined with DD.^11,12

Wells

Wells score that was first created by Wells et al in 2000 could be the first PE risk score globally recognized.^13,14 Wells score was validated in a series of studies^9,10 and frequently applied in large-scale international clinical trials,^15,16 as well as incorporated into the PEGeD strategy.¹⁷ Despite this, a controversial issue regarding Wells score is that it has a subjective item which is “pulmonary embolism is the most likely diagnosis,” thereby it is not highly favored by ESC guidelines² and a latest authoritative state-of-the-art review of VTE.¹⁸

Geneva

The original Geneva score was first derived by Wicki et al in 2001.¹⁹ Due to the poor accessibility of blood gas analysis and chest x-ray in it, it was revised in 2006.²⁰ It was then modified into a simplified version with comparable efficiency by assigning each item 1 point in the score for improving user-friendliness.²¹ Revised Geneva score was also validated in a series of studies^9,10 and frequently applied in cutting-edge clinical trials.^22,23

PERC

PERC score or rule was first derived by Kline et al in 2004. This rule is applicable to PE-suspected patients with low or very low risk of PE.²⁴ In a multicenter, prospective, observational study (PERCEPIC), PERC can exclude PE with a low percentage of false-negative results in 1757 European patients with low implicit clinical probability.²⁵ In a crossover cluster-randomized clinical non-inferiority trial (PROPER) among 1749 patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE, the randomization to PERC strategy versus conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events, at baseline and 3-month follow-up.²⁶

YEARS

YEARS score which is actually an algorithm was firstly proposed by van der Hulle et al in 2017.²⁷ In the Artemis Study, PE was safely ruled out in 498 pregnant women with suspected PE, by the pregnancy-adapted YEARS diagnostic algorithm across all trimesters of pregnancy.²⁸ In a cluster-randomized, crossover, non-inferiority trial, compared with a conventional diagnostic strategy, the use of YEARS rule combined with an age-adjusted DD threshold in PERC-positive patients did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events, among 1414 emergency patients with suspected PE.²⁹

Comparison

There is no identification without comparison. Besides the validation studies for each score, many previous studies compared the performance among these similar scores. In a meta-analysis comparing the performance of Wells, revised Geneva, YEARS, and PERC in different healthcare settings among over 35 000 patients suspected of PE, the Youden index of Wells + PTP-adjusted DD were all highest in the health settings of primary care, referred secondary care, and hospitalized or nursing home care, respectively.⁹ In addition, many studies compared Wells and Geneva scores which are similar with each other. In a systematic review that compared the efficiency of original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models in primary care, the Wells rules performed better than Geneva rules in terms of lower failure rates, although efficiency was comparable for all 5 rules.³⁰

In a prospective multicenter study which compared the efficiency of Wells and revised Geneva scores predicting PE in 1757 outpatients over 65 years, the area under curve (AUC) for Wells and revised Geneva was 0.632 and 0.610, respectively (P = .441).³¹ In a retrospective study which compared the predictive power for VTE diagnosis among the Wells, Geneva, YEARS, and PERC scores in 3168 non-surgical hospitalized patients with suspected VTE, Wells score (AUC = 0.694) and revised Geneva score (AUC = 0.697) both performed best among the 4 scores.¹¹ In another retrospective study which derived a new PE prediction rule prior to imaging tests by synthesizing the scores of Wells, PERC, and Geneva, as well as DD then compared with Wells + DD, PERC + DD, Geneva + DD, and YEARS + DD in patients with suspected PE, the C-index of Wells + DD, PERC + DD, Geneva + DD, and YEARS + DD were 0.759, 0.466, 0.742, and 0.734 in 388 patients of the validation cohort, respectively.³²

DVT Risk

The score for the prediction of DVT occurrence prior to imaging test is Wells DVT score which is endorsed by ACCP³³ and ASH guidelines.⁸ The Wells DVT score was first invented by Wells et al in 1995.³⁴ The prevalence of DVT is approximately 5% in patients with the lowest Wells DVT score of −2, suggesting that DVT cannot be excluded by using the Wells DVT score alone.³⁵ In a cohort study of 1135 inpatients, the discriminatory accuracy of the Wells DVT score for the risk prediction of DVT was low (AUC = 0.60).³⁶ In the R-WITT study including 415 patients, the Wells DVT score performed poorly for discriminating the risk of proximal DVT in inpatients with anticoagulation, whereas performed well among patients without anticoagulation, with low inter-rater reliability between physicians.³⁷ The Wells DVT score is considered to be insufficient to rule out DVT or influence management decisions in the inpatient setting.³⁸

Medical Thromboprophylaxis

To date, the risk scores for medical thromboprophylaxis of VTE approved by guidelines are Padua and IMPROVE VTE scores. Padua score was recommended by the ACCP guidelines for the prevention of VTE in non-surgical patients,³⁹ and by the ASH guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized and non-hospitalized medical patients.⁴⁰ IMPROVE VTE score was recommended by the ASH guidelines.⁴⁰

Padua

Padua score that was first established by Barbar et al in 2010 could be the first and most classic VTE risk score globally recognized for medical patients.^39–41 In a quasi-RCT, the use of Padua score was associated with a reduced VTE incidence in 235 hospitalized medical patients, compared with the use of clinical judgment in 393 ones (8.5% vs 15.5%, odds ratio [OR] 0.51[0.30-0.86]).⁴²

IMPROVE VTE

IMPROVE VTE score that was first created by Spyropoulos et al in 2011 has also been extensively used in clinical practice.^40,43 A modified version of the IMPROVE VTE score named IMPROVEDD which combined IMPROVE score with DD ≥ 2× the upper limit of normal showed improved risk assessment. An IMPROVEDD score ≥2 identifies hospitalized, medically ill patients with a heightened risk for VTE through 77 days.^40,44 In an external validation study of IMPROVE VTE score using a risk score of ≥3 among a total of 19 217 patients, the AUC was 0.702, which was in line with the findings from its derivation cohort.⁴⁵ In an external validation study of IMPROVEDD score for VTE risk among 9407 inpatients with COVID-19, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.971, 0.215, and 0.702, respectively.⁴⁶

Comparison

In a retrospective analysis of 14 660 patients hospitalized for at least 2 days on a medical ward and followed for 3 months in the PREVENU trial, the AUC was 0.63 (0.60-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.67) for IMPROVE and Padua scores, respectively, both underperforming to identify VTE risk in non-critically ill medical inpatients.⁴⁷ In the study of Xiong et al, the AUC of Padua and IMPROVE scores for identifying VTE risk were 0.607 (0.533-0.681) and 0.609 (0.538-0.680), respectively. Consistency was significant between Padua and IMPROVE scores (kappa 0.789, P = .812).¹¹

Surgical Thromboprophylaxis

To date, the risk scores of surgical thromboprophylaxis for non-orthopedic surgical patients endorsed by guidelines are Caprini and Rogers scores. Caprini and Rogers scores were both approved by ACCP⁴⁸ and ASH⁴⁹ guidelines, respectively.

Caprini

Caprini score that was first invented by Caprini in 2005 could be the first and most classic VTE risk score globally recognized for surgical patients. It has 14 variables that each one represents 1 point, 8 variables that each one represents 2 points, 10 variables that each one represents 3 points, and 5 variables that each one represents 5 points.⁵⁰ There were slight modification made to the Caprini score in the ACCP guidelines.⁴⁸ In a retrospective cohort study validating Caprini score among 4844 critically ill surgical patients, patients with Caprini score greater than 8 were more likely to develop VTE events in hospitalization, compared with patients with Caprini scores of 7 to 8 (OR 1.37[1.02-1.85], P = .04), 5 to 6 (OR 1.35[1.16-1.57], P < .001), 3 to 4 (OR 1.30[1.16-1.47], P < .001), or 0 to 2 (OR 1.37[1.16-1.64], P < .001). Similarly, patients with Caprini score of 7 to 8 were more likely to develop inpatient VTE when compared with patients with Caprini score of 5 to 6, 3 to 4, or 0 to 2. Use of Caprini score in critically ill surgical patients was valid.⁵¹

Rogers

Rogers score that was first invented by Rogers et al in 2007 has also been extensively endorsed.^48,52 In a retrospective single-center study on 533 patients who underwent thoracic surgery, the AUC of Rogers score for VTE risk assessment was 0.52 (P = .62) which is mediocre.⁵³

Comparison

In a retrospective study comparing the performance of Caprini and Rogers scores in 17 713 patients undergoing surgery for gynecological oncology, the Caprini score was more limited to discriminate VTE risk among gynecological oncology patients because 97% are in the highest-risk category, compared with Rogers score which was actually also mediocre.⁵⁴ In the study of Tian et al, the AUC of Caprini score was 0.74 (P < .0001), which was better than that of the Rogers score.⁵³

PE Severity

To date, the acknowledged scores for the assessment of PE severity are PESI (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index), Bova, FAST (heart-type fatty acid binding protein [H-FABP] or high-sensitivity troponin T [hsTnT], Syncope, Tachycardia), and Hestia scores, which are all endorsed by the latest ESC guidelines.² PESI score is also endorsed by the latest ACCP guidelines.⁵⁵ Because the ESC classification of PE severity does not have points,² it is not regarded as a score herein.

PESI

PESI score that was first invented by Aujesky et al in 2005 has 5 classes of risk strata.⁵⁶ It was then simplified to sPESI (Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index) by Jiménez et al in 2010, in order to improve user-friendliness.⁵⁷ In a meta-analysis including 44 298 PE patients from 71 studies which constructed, validated, updated, or studied prognostic models to predict all-cause or PE-related death for PE patients, both PESI and sPESI scores were most validated.⁵⁸

Bova

Bova score was first established by Bova et al in 2014.⁵⁹ It is a score for advanced stratification of 30-day PE-related death, hemodynamic collapse, or recurrent PE in patients with acute intermediate-risk symptomatic PE without hemodynamic instability.^2,59 In a meta-analysis which evaluated the prognostic performance of Bova score among 8342 acute normotensive PE patients, the weighted AUC for predicting composite adverse outcome was 0.73 ± 0.09.⁶⁰

FAST

Similar to the Bova score, FAST which is also a score for advanced stratification of PE-related risk in patients without hemodynamic instability was first devised by Lankeit et al in 2013.⁶¹ In 2014, H-FABP >7 ng·ml^–1 by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the FAST score was modified into H-FABP ≥6 ng·ml^–1 by immunoturbidimetry, because immunoturbidimetry provided prognostic information superior to ELISA, when integrated into FAST score.⁶² In 2016, a modified FAST score with an age-adjusted hsTnT cut-off value instead of H-FABP demonstrated good prognostic performance, because H-FABP is not routinely available in the majority of hospitals.⁶³ In a post-hoc analysis of 868 normotensive PE patients to validate the FAST score, the C-index was similar between the modified FAST score (AUC = 0.67) and the 2019 ESC algorithm (AUC = 0.69).⁶⁴

Hestia

Hestia score that was actually a criterion including 11 questions was first created by Zondag et al in 2011. It was designed to assess whether the severity of PE is mild enough to be treated at home.⁶⁵ In a randomized non-inferiority trial involving 550 PE patients, the outpatient treatment of patients with PE selected on the basis of the Hestia criteria alone was associated with a low risk of adverse events.⁶⁶

Comparison

In the PERGO (Pulmonary Embolism Registry of Göttingen) study which compared the performance of modified FAST and Bova scores in 388 normotensive PE patients, the AUC of modified FAST and Bova scores was comparable (0.82[0.75-0.89] vs 0.80[0.73-0.87]).⁶³ In a prospective multicenter study comparing the performance for early discharge among PESI score, sPESI score, and Hestia criteria in 547 PE patients, Hestia criteria (41.7%) identified a higher proportion of candidates for early discharge than PESI (24.1%) and sPESI (18.3%). The incidence of a composite of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, or all-cause mortality within 30 days was 2.3%, 3.0%, and 2.6% according to PESI, sPESI, and Hestia criteria, without statistical differences.⁶⁷ In the HOME-PE randomized trial comparing Hestia rule and sPESI score in triaging 1970 PE patients for home treatment, the 30-day composite of recurrent VTE, major bleeding, or all-cause death occurred in 3.82% in the Hestia arm and 3.57% in the sPESI arm (P = .004 for non-inferiority) in the per-protocol population, suggesting they have similar safety and effectiveness.⁶⁸

VTE Recurrence

To date, the risk scores for VTE recurrence endorsed by guidelines are Vienna, HERDOO2 (Hyperpigmentation, Edema, or Redness in either leg; D-dimer level ≥250 µg·L⁻¹; Obesity [body mass index ≥30]; or Older age [≥65 years]), DASH (D-dimer, Age, Sex, Hormonal therapy), DAMOVES (D-dimer, Age, Mutation, Obesity, Varicose veins, Eight, Sex), and Ottawa scores. All of these scores are recommended by the latest ESC guidelines,² whereas Vienna, HERDOO2, and DASH are also recommended by the latest ASH guidelines.⁶⁹

Vienna

Vienna score that was a nomogram was first created by Eichinger et al in 2010.^2,70

In a prospective cohort study investigating the performance of Vienna score to identify low recurrence risk in 818 VTE patients, the recalibration of Vienna score improved identification of patients at low risk of VTE recurrence and stratification into distinct low-risk strata.⁷¹ Nevertheless, in an RCT validating the clinical impact of Vienna on reducing VTE recurrence risk compared to usual care in 883 patients with unprovoked VTE, the application of the Vienna score was unlikely to reduce overall recurrence risk.⁷²

HERDOO2

HERDOO2 score that is only applicable for female patients was first created by Rodger et al in 2008.^2,73 In the REVERSE II Study that prospectively validated the HERDOO2 score in 3155 consecutive female participants with a first unprovoked VTE, patients with none or one of the HERDOO2 criteria had a low risk of recurrent VTE and could safely discontinue anticoagulants after completing 5-12 months of short-term anticoagulation.⁷⁴

DASH

DASH score was first established by Tosetto et al in 2012.⁷⁵ In a retrospective cohort study for the external validation of DASH score in 827 patients with unprovoked VTE receiving anticoagulation and follow-up for at least 3 months, the results confirmed the validity of DASH score, particularly in young patients.⁷⁶

DAMOVES

DAMOVES score that is a nomogram was first created by Moreno et al in 2016.⁷⁷ In the only retrospective study validating DAMOVES score in 121 patients with unprovoked VTE completing at least 3 months of anticoagulation, the AUC was 0.83 (P < .001).⁷⁸

Ottawa

Ottawa score that is only applicable for cancer patients was invented by Louzada et al in 2012.⁷⁹ The original Ottawa score was modified and validated in 2016 for improving the convenience of clinical use.⁸⁰ In a meta-analysis investigating the accuracy of Ottawa score among14 963 patients with cancer-associated VTE, the Ottawa score either in its original or modified form is a useful tool to stratify the 6-month VTE recurrence risk during anticoagulation.⁸¹

Comparison

In a systematic review comparing HERDOO2, Vienna, and DASH scores, although the Vienna score was most promising based on strong development methodology, applicability, and external validation, none of these models can be considered ready for use.⁸²

In a post-hoc analysis of the PADIS-PE trial validating HERDOO2, DASH, and Vienna scores in 371 patients with first unprovoked PE initially treated for 6 months of anticoagulation, the C-statistics of the aforementioned scores were 0.61, 0.60, and 0.58, respectively. HERDOO2 score was the only one that identified patients with low risk of VTE recurrence after anticoagulation discontinuance.⁸³

Bleeding Risk

To date, the risk scores for bleeding approved by VTE guidelines are OBRI (Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index), Kuijer, RIETE (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad Thromboembolica venosa), HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly [>65 years], Drugs/alcohol concomitantly), VTE-BLEED (actiVe cancer, male with uncontrolled hyperTension at baseline, anaEmia, history of BLeeding, agE > _60 years, rEnal Dysfunction), ACCP, and IMPROVE bleeding scores. ACCP score and IMPROVE bleeding score are endorsed by the ACCP^84,85 and ASH⁴⁰ guidelines, respectively, whereas the rest of scores are all endorsed by the ESC guidelines.²

OBRI

OBRI score that is specific for outpatients was first established by Beyth et al in 1998.⁸⁶ In a prospective study validating OBRI score in 222 consecutive VTE outpatients who were about to undergo standard warfarin anticoagulation, the OBRI score did discriminate between low- and moderate-risk groups (P = .03), and could be used to guide decisions on the optimal duration of anticoagulation.⁸⁷

Kuijer

Kuijer score was first invented by Kuijer et al in 1999.⁸⁸ In a retrospective study validating Kuijer score in 1 204 895 VTE patients receiving anticoagulant therapy for at least 3 months, a higher Kuijer risk strata was predictive for intracerebral bleeding (OR 1.28, P < .001), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 1.56, P < .001) as well as necessity of transfusion of blood constituents (OR 2.94, P < .001), independently.⁸⁹

RIETE bleeding

RIETE bleeding score was first invented by Ruíz-Giménez et al in 2008.⁹⁰ In a prospective multicenter cohort study validating several bleeding scores including the RIETE bleeding for predicting major bleeding in 1034 consecutive VTE patients at the initiation of direct oral anticoagulants treatment, the C-statistics of RIETE bleeding score was modest (0.604).⁹¹

HAS-BLED

HAS-BLED score was first invented by Pisters et al for the assessment of 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation in 2010.⁹² In a retrospective cohort study validating HAS-BLED score in 132 280 VTE patients receiving the first 6 months of anticoagulant treatment, the C-index of HAS-BLED score was 0.722 for major bleeding, and 0.710 for all bleeding.⁹³

VTE-BLEED

VTE-BLEED score was first invented by Klok et al in 2016.⁹⁴ In a post-hoc analysis of 8240 VTE patients receiving stable anticoagulation in the Hokusai-VTE study, patients identified as high bleeding risk by VTE-BLEED score had a 4-fold increased risk of major bleeding during the chronic phase of treatment.⁹⁵

ACCP

ACCP score was first derived by Kearon et al in the CHEST guideline of antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease in 2012.⁸⁴ Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug was added into its modified version in 2016.⁸⁵ In a prospective study validating ACCP score in 2263 VTE patients on long-term anticoagulation in the Italian START2 Register, the C-statistic of the ACCP score was 0.55, 0.50, and 0.56 in the low, moderate, and high bleeding risk strata, respectively. ACCP score has an insufficiently predictive value for bleeding and cannot be used to guide decisions on extended anticoagulation.⁹⁶

IMPROVE bleeding

IMPROVE bleeding score was first invented by Decousus et al in 2011.⁹⁷ In a prospective study validating IMPROVE bleeding score in 1668 medical inpatients, Kaplan–Meier curves showed a higher cumulative incidence of major bleeding within 14 days in patients with an IMPROVE score ≥7.0 (P = .02).⁹⁸

Comparison

In a post-hoc analysis comparing several bleeding scores, including VTE-BLEED, Kuijer, RIETE bleeding, ACCP, OBRI, and HAS-BLED, in 743 patients aged ≥65 years receiving extended treatment with vitamin K antagonists after VTE diagnosis, the scores in order of AUC from largest to smallest were RIETE bleeding (0.63), ACCP (0.59), VTE-BLEED (0.57), Kuijer (0.55), HAS-BLED (0.54), and OBRI (0.47).⁹⁹

In a prospective multinational cohort study involving the comparison among modified ACCP, RIETE bleeding, VTE-BLEED, HAS-BLED, and OBRI scores for predicting major bleeding in 2516 patients with unprovoked VTE receiving extended anticoagulation, the scores in order of C-statistics from largest to smallest were ACCP (0.65), VTE-BLEED (0.61), HAS-BLED (0.57), RIETE (0.51), and OBRI (0.51).¹⁰⁰

Discussion

The current review introduces all risk scores associated with VTE recommended by 3 acknowledged guidelines, focusing on the development, modification, validation, and comparison of the scores. It aims to provide medical readers with a basic understanding of classic VTE risk scores, and to provide relevant researchers with an updated status quo of the scores. Despite their validation, the absolute efficiency and generalizability to different patient populations of some scores are still insufficient, and may need further improvement. Meanwhile, the cumbersome or inaccessible items and complicated risk calculation algorithm in some scores may compromise their user-friendliness and limit their widespread generalizability in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, clinicians may also be dazzled by various similar scores. Sometimes less is more, it could be imperative to identify the globally recognized VTE scores that are simple, efficient, user-friendly, and applicable to broad patient populations. In addition, with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, its application in the establishment of VTE scores or in the direct risk assessment of VTE patients may become a tendency in the future.

Limitations

The current review has some limitations. First, this review only covers risk scores associated with VTE recommended by the ESC, ACCP, and ASH guidelines, notwithstanding there are still many other relevant guidelines or other excellent VTE-related scores which are not endorsed by guidelines. Second, the quality of cited literature was not deeply evaluated in the current review. Third, no systematic review was performed in the current work. Fourth, despite our maximum endeavor not to leave out a single important literature, some relevant articles may still have been missed. Fifth, although there was a general criterion for the selection of literature, there were no absolute rules. Accordingly, the determination of literature selection was eventually at the discretion of the authors most of the time.

Conclusions

The current review provides a comprehensive overview of classic VTE risk scores in the VTE guidelines of ESC, ACCP, and ASH and is intended to provide medical readers with a comprehensive understanding of the related field. Although these risk scores are generally creditable, the search for simpler, more practical, and more universal scores may remain important work in the future.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296241263856 - Supplemental material for Risk Scores in Venous Thromboembolism Guidelines of ESC, ACCP, and ASH: An Updated Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296241263856 for Risk Scores in Venous Thromboembolism Guidelines of ESC, ACCP, and ASH: An Updated Review by Wei Xiong, Yi Cheng and Yunfeng Zhao in Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Concept and design: WX. Literature search: all authors. Drafting of the manuscript: WX, YZ. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors. Supervision: WX, YZ. Guarantor: WX, YZ.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the international talent training program of Shanghai Xinhua Hospital (2023YGJRC04), the key sub-specialty construction funding of the Pudong Health System (PWZy2020-15), and the construction funding of clinical characteristic discipline of Pudong Health System (PWYts2021-04).

ORCID iD

Wei Xiong

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Streiff

Holmstrom

Angelini

, et al. Cancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(10):1181-1201.

Konstantinides

Meyer

Becattini

, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.

Raskob

Angchaisuksiri

Blanco

, et al. Thrombosis: A major contributor to global disease burden. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34(11):2363-2371.

Wendelboe

Raskob

. Global burden of thrombosis: Epidemiologic aspects. Circ Res. 2016;118(9):1340-1347.

Keller

Hobohm

Ebner

, et al. Trends in thrombolytic treatment and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in Germany. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):522-529.

Muka

Glisic

Milic

, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(1):49-60.

Kearon

Akl

Comerota

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2):e419S-e496S.

Lim

Le Gal

Bates

, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3226-3256.

Geersing

Takada

Klok

, et al. Ruling out pulmonary embolism across different healthcare settings: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2022;19(1):e1003905.

10.

Stals

MAM

Takada

Kraaijpoel

, et al. Safety and efficiency of diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism in clinically relevant patient subgroups: A systematic review and individual-patient data meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(2):244-255.

11.

Xiong

Zhao

Cheng

, et al. Comparison of VTE risk scores in guidelines for VTE diagnosis in nonsurgical hospitalized patients with suspected VTE. Thromb J. 2023;21(1):8.

12.

Pandor

Tonkins

Goodacre

, et al. Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e045672.

13.

Wells

Anderson

Rodger

, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: Increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83(3):416-420. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1613830

14.

Gibson

Sohne

Kruip

, et al. Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost. 2008;99(1):229-234. doi:https://doi.org/10.1160/TH07-05-0321

15.

Anderson

Kahn

Rodger

, et al. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography vs ventilation-perfusion lung scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(23):2743-2753.

16.

Prandoni

Lensing

Prins

, et al. Prevalence of pulmonary embolism among patients hospitalized for Syncope. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1524-1531.

17.

Kearon

de Wit

Parpia

, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with D-dimer adjusted to clinical probability. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2125-2134.

18.

Khan

Tritschler

Kahn

Rodger

. Venous thromboembolism. Lancet. 2021;398(10294):64-77.

19.

Wicki

Perneger

Junod

Bounameaux

Perrier

. Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: A simple score. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(1):92-97.

20.

Le Gal

Righini

Roy

, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: The revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):165-171.

21.

Klok

Mos

Nijkeuter

, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136.

22.

Righini

Le Gal

Aujesky

, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: A randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9621):1343-1352.

23.

Couturaud

Bertoletti

Pastre

, et al. Prevalence of pulmonary embolism among patients with COPD hospitalized with acutely worsening respiratory symptoms. JAMA. 2021;325(1):59-68.

24.

Kline

Mitchell

Kabrhel

Richman

Courtney

. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2(8):1247-1255.

25.

Penaloza

Soulié

Moumneh

, et al. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule in European patients with low implicit clinical probability (PERCEPIC): A multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(12):e615-e621.

26.

Freund

Cachanado

Aubry

, et al. Effect of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: The PROPER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(6):559-566.

27.

van der Hulle

Cheung

Kooij

, et al. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): A prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2017;390(10091):289-297.

28.

van der Pol

Tromeur

Bistervels

, et al. Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(12):1139-1149.

29.

Freund

Chauvin

Jimenez

, et al. Effect of a diagnostic strategy using an elevated and age-adjusted D-dimer threshold on thromboembolic events in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326(21):2141-2149.

30.

Hendriksen

Geersing

Lucassen

, et al. Diagnostic prediction models for suspected pulmonary embolism: Systematic review and independent external validation in primary care. BMJ. 2015;351:h4438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4438

31.

Coelho

Divernet-Queriaud

Roy

Penaloza

Le Gal

Trinh-Duc

. Comparison of the Wells score and the revised Geneva score as a tool to predict pulmonary embolism in outpatients over age 65. Thromb Res. 2020;196(2020):120-126.

32.

Zhao

Cheng

Wang

, et al. The Legend score synthesizes Wells, PERC, Geneva, D-dimer and predicts acute pulmonary embolism prior to imaging tests [published online ahead of print, 2023 Nov 10]. Pulmonology. 2023;S2531–0437(23):00195-2.

33.

Bates

Jaeschke

Stevens

, et al. Diagnosis of DVT: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2):e351S-e418S.

34.

Wells

Hirsh

Anderson

, et al. Accuracy of clinical assessment of deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1995;345(8961):1326-1330.

35.

Geersing

Zuithoff

Kearon

, et al. Exclusion of deep vein thrombosis using the Wells rule in clinically important subgroups: Individual patient data meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2014;348(mar10 3):g1340.

36.

Silveira

Goldhaber

Piazza

Benson

Khorasani

. Performance of wells score for deep vein thrombosis in the inpatient setting. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(7):1112-1117.

37.

Trihan

Adam

Jidal

, et al. Performance of the Wells score in predicting deep vein thrombosis in medical and surgical hospitalized patients with or without thromboprophylaxis: The R-WITT study. Vasc Med. 2021;26(3):288-296.

38.

Chopard

Albertsen

Piazza

. Diagnosis and treatment of lower extremity venous thromboembolism: A review. JAMA. 2020;324(17):1765-1776.

39.

Kahn

Lim

Dunn

, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2):e195S-e226S.

40.

Schünemann

Cushman

Burnett

, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv. 2018;2(22):3198-3225.

41.

Barbar

Noventa

Rossetto

, et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(11):2450-2457.

42.

Germini

Agnelli

Fedele

, et al. Padua prediction score or clinical judgment for decision making on antithrombotic prophylaxis: A quasi-randomized controlled trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;42(3):336-339.

43.

Spyropoulos

Anderson

Jr FitzGerald

, et al. Predictive and associative models to identify hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. Chest. 2011;140(3):706-714.

44.

Gibson

Spyropoulos

Cohen

, et al. The IMPROVEDD VTE risk score: Incorporation of D-dimer into the IMPROVE score to improve venous thromboembolism risk stratification. TH Open. 2017;1(1):e56-e65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1603929

45.

Rosenberg

Eichorn

Alarcon

McCullagh

McGinn

Spyropoulos

. External validation of the risk assessment model of the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) for medical patients in a tertiary health system. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(6):e001152.

46.

Goldin

Lin

Kohn

, et al. External validation of the IMPROVE-DD risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism among inpatients with COVID-19. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2021;52(4):1032-1035.

47.

Moumneh

Riou

Douillet

, et al. Validation of risk assessment models predicting venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical inpatients: A cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18(6):1398-1407.

48.

Gould

Garcia

Wren

, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2):e227S-e277S.

49.

Anderson

Morgano

Bennett

, et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv. 2019;3(23):3898-3944.

50.

Caprini

. Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis Mon. 2005;51(2-3):70-78.

51.

Obi

Pannucci

Nackashi

, et al. Validation of the Caprini venous thromboembolism risk assessment model in critically ill surgical patients. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(10):941-948.

52.

Rogers

Jr Kilaru

Hosokawa

Henderson

Zinner

Khuri

. Multivariable predictors of postoperative venous thromboembolic events after general and vascular surgery: Results from the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(6):1211-1221.

53.

Tian

Cui

Song

. A novel risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism after major thoracic surgery: A Chinese single-center study. J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(5):1903-1910. doi:https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.05.11

54.

Barber

Clarke-Pearson

. The limited utility of currently available venous thromboembolism risk assessment tools in gynecological oncology patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):445.e1-445.e9

55.

Stevens

Woller

Kreuziger

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Second update of the CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2021;160(6):e545-e608.

56.

Aujesky

Obrosky

Stone

, et al. Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(8):1041-1046.

57.

Jiménez

Aujesky

Moores

, et al. Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1383-1389.

58.

Elias

Mallett

Daoud-Elias

Poggi

Clarke

. Prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010324.

59.

Bova

Sanchez

Prandoni

, et al. Identification of intermediate-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(3):694-703.

60.

Chen

Shao

Zhang

, et al. Assessment of the Bova score for risk stratification of acute normotensive pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;193(2020):99-106.

61.

Lankeit

Friesen

Schäfer

Hasenfuß

Konstantinides

Dellas

. A simple score for rapid risk assessment of non-high-risk pulmonary embolism. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102(1):73-80.

62.

Dellas

Tschepe

Seeber

, et al. A novel H-FABP assay and a fast prognostic score for risk assessment of normotensive pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(5):996-1003.

63.

Hobohm

Hellenkamp

Hasenfuß

Münzel

Konstantinides

Lankeit

. Comparison of risk assessment strategies for not-high-risk pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2016;47(4):1170-1178.

64.

Hobohm

Becattini

Konstantinides

Casazza

Lankeit

. Validation of a fast prognostic score for risk stratification of normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(8):1008-1017.

65.

Zondag

Mos

Creemers-Schild

, et al. Outpatient treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: The Hestia study. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(8):1500-1507.

66.

den Exter

Zondag

Klok

, et al. Efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment based on the Hestia clinical decision rule with or without N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide testing in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. A randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(8):998-1006.

67.

Vanni

Becattini

Nazerian

, et al. Early discharge of patients with pulmonary embolism in daily clinical practice: A prospective observational study comparing clinical gestalt and clinical rules. Thromb Res. 2018;167(2018):37-43.

68.

Roy

Penaloza

Hugli

, et al. Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: The HOME-PE randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(33):3146-3157.

69.

Ortel

Neumann

Ageno

, et al. American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Blood Adv. 2020;4(19):4693-4738.

70.

Eichinger

Heinze

Jandeck

Kyrle

. Risk assessment of recurrence in patients with unprovoked deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism: The Vienna prediction model. Circulation. 2010;121(14):1630-1636.

71.

Kyrle

Eischer

Šinkovec

, et al. The Vienna prediction model for identifying patients at low risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: A prospective cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(1):45-53.

72.

Geersing

Hendriksen

JMT

Zuithoff

NPA

, et al. Effect of tailoring anticoagulant treatment duration by applying a recurrence risk prediction model in patients with venous thromboembolism compared to usual care: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(6):e1003142.

73.

Rodger

Kahn

Wells

, et al. Identifying unprovoked thromboembolism patients at low risk for recurrence who can discontinue anticoagulant therapy. CMAJ. 2008;179(5):417-426.

74.

Rodger

Le Gal

Anderson

, et al. Validating the HERDOO2 rule to guide treatment duration for women with unprovoked venous thrombosis: Multinational prospective cohort management study. BMJ. 2017;356:j1065. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1065

75.

Tosetto

Iorio

Marcucci

, et al. Predicting disease recurrence in patients with previous unprovoked venous thromboembolism: A proposed prediction score (DASH). J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(6):1019-1025.

76.

Tosetto

Testa

Martinelli

, et al. External validation of the DASH prediction rule: A retrospective cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(10):1963-1970.

77.

Franco Moreno

García Navarro

Ortiz Sánchez

, et al. A risk score for prediction of recurrence in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (DAMOVES). Eur J Intern Med. 2016;29(2016):59-64.

78.

Franco Moreno

García Navarro

Ortiz Sánchez

Ruiz Giardín

. Predicting recurrence after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Retrospective validation of the DAMOVES score. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;41(2017):e15-e16.

79.

Louzada

Carrier

Lazo-Langner

, et al. Development of a clinical prediction rule for risk stratification of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2012;126(4):448-454.

80.

Astruc

Ianotto

Metges

Lacut

Delluc

. External validation of the modified Ottawa score for risk stratification of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;36(2016):e11-e12.

81.

Delluc

Miranda

Exter

, et al. Accuracy of the Ottawa score in risk stratification of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Haematologica. 2020;105(5):1436-1442.

82.

Ensor

Riley

Moore

Snell

Bayliss

Fitzmaurice

. Systematic review of prognostic models for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) post-treatment of first unprovoked VTE. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011190.

83.

Raj

Presles

Le Mao

, et al. Evaluation of venous thromboembolism recurrence scores in an unprovoked pulmonary embolism population: A post-hoc analysis of the PADIS-PE trial. Am J Med. 2020;133(8):e406-e421.

84.

Kearon

Akl

Comerota

85.

Kearon

Akl

Ornelas

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.

86.

Beyth

Quinn

Landefeld

. Prospective evaluation of an index for predicting the risk of major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin. Am J Med. 1998;105(2):91-99.

87.

Wells

Forgie

Simms

, et al. The outpatient bleeding risk index: Validation of a tool for predicting bleeding rates in patients treated for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(8):917-920.

88.

Kuijer

Hutten

Prins

Büller

. Prediction of the risk of bleeding during anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(5):457-460.

89.

Keller

Münzel

Hobohm

Ostad

. Predictive value of the Kuijer score for bleeding and other adverse in-hospital events in patients with venous thromboembolism. Int J Cardiol. 2021;329(2021):179-184.

90.

Ruíz-Giménez

Suárez

González

, et al. Predictive variables for major bleeding events in patients presenting with documented acute venous thromboembolism. Findings from the RIETE registry. Thromb Haemost. 2008;100(07):26-31.

91.

Vedovati

Mancuso

Pierpaoli

, et al. Prediction of major bleeding in patients receiving DOACs for venous thromboembolism: A prospective cohort study. Int J Cardiol. 2020;301(2020):167-172.

92.

Pisters

Lane

Nieuwlaat

de Vos

Crijns

Lip

. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: The Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010;138(5):1093-1100.

93.

Brown

Goodin

Lip

GYH

Adams

. Risk stratification for bleeding complications in patients with venous thromboembolism: Application of the HAS-BLED bleeding score during the first 6 months of anticoagulant treatment. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(6):e007901.

94.

Klok

Hösel

Clemens

, et al. Prediction of bleeding events in patients with venous thromboembolism on stable anticoagulation treatment. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(5):1369-1376.

95.

Klok

Barco

Konstantinides

. External validation of the VTE-BLEED score for predicting major bleeding in stable anticoagulated patients with venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(6):1164-1170.

96.

Palareti

Antonucci

Mastroiacovo

, et al. The American College of Chest Physician score to assess the risk of bleeding during anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(10):1994-2002.

97.

Decousus

Tapson

Bergmann

, et al. Factors at admission associated with bleeding risk in medical patients: Findings from the IMPROVE investigators. Chest. 2011;139(1):69-79.

98.

Hostler

Marx

Moores

, et al. Validation of the International Medical Prevention Registry on venous thromboembolism bleeding risk score. Chest. 2016;149(2):372-379.

99.

Frei

Stalder

Limacher

, et al. Comparison of bleeding risk scores in elderly patients receiving extended anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists for venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost. 2021;121(11):1512-1522.

100.

Wells

Tritschler

Khan

, et al. Predicting major bleeding during extended anticoagulation for unprovoked or weakly provoked venous thromboembolism. Blood Adv. 2022;6(15):4605-4616.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB