Comparative validation study of risk assessment models for pediatric hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism.
pediatrics
risk assessment
risk factors
validation studies
venous thromboembolism
Journal
Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH
ISSN: 1538-7836
Titre abrégé: J Thromb Haemost
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170508
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
20
08
2019
accepted:
02
12
2019
pubmed:
7
12
2019
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
7
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to identify children at high risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE). None have been externally validated nor compared. The objective was to compare performance of these RAMs by externally validating them using the Children's Hospital-Acquired Thrombosis (CHAT) Registry, ie, a multicenter database of children with radiographic-confirmed HA-VTE and corresponding controls. Risk assessment models were included if the full logistic regression equation was available and all RAM variables were collected in the CHAT Registry. A random sample of 200 cases and 200 controls was selected. The performance of the RAMs was assessed for discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), and calibration using plots, slopes, and intercepts, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Three RAMs were included. Each had excellent discrimination with AUROC ≥ 0.85. However, calibration was generally poor, with calibration slopes significantly different from 1 (0.71, P < .001; 1.44, P = .002; 0.68, P < .001), intercepts significantly different from 0 (-1.64, P < .001; -0.62, P < .001; 0.78, P < .001), and Hosmer-Lemeshow test P < .001 for each. Exceptions included the Arlikar et al and Atchison et al RAMs for pediatric HA-VTE in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients and ICU patients, respectively, despite derivation from ICU and non-ICU patients, respectively. In these subpopulations, both showed excellent discrimination and good calibration. Given the lack of adequate calibration for evaluated RAMs, further investigation and refinement of RAMs for pediatric HA-VTE is needed prior to application of a RAM in a clinical setting or risk-stratified clinical trial of primary thromboprophylaxis against HA-VTE in children.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to identify children at high risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE). None have been externally validated nor compared.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to compare performance of these RAMs by externally validating them using the Children's Hospital-Acquired Thrombosis (CHAT) Registry, ie, a multicenter database of children with radiographic-confirmed HA-VTE and corresponding controls.
PATIENTS/METHODS
Risk assessment models were included if the full logistic regression equation was available and all RAM variables were collected in the CHAT Registry. A random sample of 200 cases and 200 controls was selected. The performance of the RAMs was assessed for discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), and calibration using plots, slopes, and intercepts, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
RESULTS
Three RAMs were included. Each had excellent discrimination with AUROC ≥ 0.85. However, calibration was generally poor, with calibration slopes significantly different from 1 (0.71, P < .001; 1.44, P = .002; 0.68, P < .001), intercepts significantly different from 0 (-1.64, P < .001; -0.62, P < .001; 0.78, P < .001), and Hosmer-Lemeshow test P < .001 for each. Exceptions included the Arlikar et al and Atchison et al RAMs for pediatric HA-VTE in non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients and ICU patients, respectively, despite derivation from ICU and non-ICU patients, respectively. In these subpopulations, both showed excellent discrimination and good calibration.
CONCLUSION
Given the lack of adequate calibration for evaluated RAMs, further investigation and refinement of RAMs for pediatric HA-VTE is needed prior to application of a RAM in a clinical setting or risk-stratified clinical trial of primary thromboprophylaxis against HA-VTE in children.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31808292
doi: 10.1111/jth.14697
pii: S1538-7836(22)03800-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticoagulants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
633-641Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
Références
Raffini L, Huang YS, Witmer C, Feudtner C. Dramatic increase in venous thromboembolism in children's hospitals in the United States from 2001 to 2007. Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):1001-1008.
Mahajerin A, Croteau SE. Epidemiology and risk assessment of pediatric venous thromboembolism. Front Pediatr. 2017;5:68.
Goudie A, Dynan L, Brady PW, Fieldston E, Brilli RJ, Walsh KE. Costs of venous thromboembolism, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and pressure ulcer. Pediatrics. 2015;136(3):432-439.
Faustino EV, Raffini LJ. Prevention of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism in children: a review of published guidelines. Front Pediatr. 2017;5:9.
Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Advances. 2018;2(22):3198-3225.
Mitchell L, Lambers M, Flege S, et al. Validation of a predictive model for identifying an increased risk for thromboembolism in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of a multicenter cohort study. Blood. 2010;115(24):4999-5004.
Connelly CR, Laird A, Barton JS, et al. A Clinical tool for the prediction of venous thromboembolism in pediatric trauma patients. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(1):50-57.
Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KI, et al. External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges. BMJ. 2016;353:i3140.
Jaffray J, Mahajerin A, Young G, et al. A multi-institutional registry of pediatric hospital-acquired thrombosis cases: The Children's Hospital-Acquired Thrombosis (CHAT) project. Thromb Res. 2018;161:67-72.
Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):55-63.
Male C, O'Brien S, Rodriguez V, Mitchell L. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis and thromboprophylaxis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Discussion. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;13(4):688-690.
Branchford BR, Mahajerin A, Raffini L, et al. Recommendations for standardized risk factor definitions in pediatric hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism to inform future prevention trials: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15(11):2274-2278.
Noonan C, Quigley S, Curley MA. Using the Braden Q Scale to predict pressure ulcer risk in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Nurs. 2011;26(6):566-575.
Reiter PD, Wathen B, Valuck RJ, Dobyns EL. Thrombosis risk factor assessment and implications for prevention in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012;13(4):381-386.
Branchford BR, Mourani P, Bajaj L, Manco-Johnson M, Wang M, Goldenberg NA. Risk factors for in-hospital venous thromboembolism in children: a case-control study employing diagnostic validation. Haematologica. 2012;97(4):509-515.
Kerlin BA, Stephens JA, Hogan MJ, Smoyer WE, O'Brien SH. Development of a pediatric-specific clinical probability tool for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism: a feasibility study. Pediatr Res. 2015;77(3):463-471.
Sharathkumar AA, Mahajerin A, Heidt L, et al. Risk-prediction tool for identifying hospitalized children with a predisposition for development of venous thromboembolism: Peds-Clot clinical Decision Rule. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(7):1326-1334.
Arlikar SJ, Atchison CM, Amankwah EK, et al. Development of a new risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism in critically-ill children not undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Thromb Res. 2015;136(4):717-722.
Atchison CM, Arlikar S, Amankwah E, et al. Development of a new risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism in noncritically ill children: findings from a large single-institutional case-control study. J Pediatr. 2014;165(4):793-798.
Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M, et al. The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(2):270-276.
Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(29):1925-1931.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845.
Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Graphical assessment of internal and external calibration of logistic regression models by using loess smoothers. Stat Med. 2014;33(3):517-535.