Although the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended for acutely ill medical patients at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), it remains unclear which risk assessment model (RAM) should be routinely used to identify at-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. We therefore aimed to describe existing RAMs, and to compare these tools in terms of validity and applicability for clinical decision-making. We performed a comprehensive systematic search in MEDLINE from the date of initiation until May 2016 for studies in acutely ill medical patients investigating validity of RAMs for VTE. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text, and evaluated the characteristics of studies, and the composition, evidence of validation, and results on validity of the RAMs. We included 11 studies assessing eight RAMs: 4-Element RAM, Caprini RAM, a full logistic model, Geneva risk score, IMPROVE-RAM, Kucher Model, a "Multivariable Model", and Padua Prediction Score. The 4-Element RAM, IMPROVE-RAM, Multivariable Model, and full logistic model had derivation by identifying factors with predictive power. The other four RAMs were empirically generated based on consensus guidelines, published data, and clinical expertise. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, the Geneva Risk Score and the IMPROVE-RAM underwent multicenter external validation. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, and the Geneva Risk Score improved rates of thromboprophylaxis or clinical outcomes. In conclusion, existing RAMs to evaluate the need of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients are difficult to compare and none fulfills the criteria of an ideal RAM. Nevertheless, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis may be improved by implementing one of the validated RAMs.

Background In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT), catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) aims to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Adding intravascular high-frequency, low-power ultrasound energy to CDT does not seem to improve the immediate thrombolysis results but its impact on clinical outcomes at 12 months is not known. Patients/Methods In this randomized-controlled trial, 48 patients (mean age 50 ± 21 years; 52% women) with acute IFDVT were randomized to conventional CDT (n = 24) or ultrasound-assisted CDT (USAT; n = 24). In both groups, a fixed-dose thrombolysis regimen (20 mg r-tPA over 15 h) was used, followed by routine stenting of residual venous obstruction. At 12 months, PTS and venous disease severity (Villalta score and revised Venous Clinical Severity Score [rVCSS]), disease-specific quality of live (QOL; CIVIQ-20) and duplex-sonographic outcomes were assessed. Results Among the 45 surviving patients, 40 (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 76-96%) patients were free from PTS (defined as Villalta score < 5 points; 83%, 95% CI 61-95% in the USAT and 96%, 95% CI 77-100% in the CDT group), with a similar mean total Villalta score of 2.3 ± 2.9 vs. 1.7 ± 1.6, and a mean total rVCSS of 3.0 ± 3.5 vs. 2.7 ± 2.9 in the USAT and the CDT groups, respectively. Both groups had good disease-specific QOL with a CIVIQ-20 score of 29.4 ± 11.8 vs. 26.1 ± 7.8, respectively. Primary (100% vs. 92%) and secondary (100% vs. 96%) iliofemoral patency rates and presence of femoro-popliteal venous reflux (39% vs. 33%) were similar in both groups. Conclusion The addition of intravascular ultrasound energy to conventional CDT for the treatment of acute IFDVT did not have any impact on relevant clinical or duplex sonographic outcomes, which were favorable in both study groups. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier:NCT01482273.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough gait speed is a widely used measure in older people, testing methods are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of testing procedures on resulting gait speed. MethodsWe followed the PRISMA checklist for this systematic review. Two independent reviewers screened Pubmed and Embase for publications on pairwise comparisons of testing procedures of usual gait speed. Descriptives were abstracted from the included publications using a predefined extraction tool by two independent reviewers. We defined the cut-off for the minimal clinically imporant diffence in gait speed as 0.1 m/sec. ResultsOf a total of 2109 records identified for screening, 29 reports on 53 pairwise comparisons were analyzed. The median (range) difference in gait speed for dynamic versus static start was 0.06 (-0.02 to 0.35) m/sec (14 reports); for longer versus shorter test distance 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.23) m/sec (14 reports); for automatic versus manual timing 0.00 (-0.05 to 0.07) m/sec (12 reports), for hard versus soft surfaces -0.11 (-0.18 to 0.08) m/sec (six reports), and electronic walkways versus usual walk test 0.04 (-0.08 to 0.14) m/sec (seven reports), respectively. No report compared the effect of finishing procedures. ConclusionsThe type of starting procedure, the length of the test distance, and the surface of the walkway may have a clinically relevant impact on measured gait speed. Manual timing resulted in statistically significant differences of measured gait speed as compared to automatic timing, but was below the level of clinical importance. These results emphasize that it is key to use a strictly standardized method for obtaining a reliable and valid measurement of gait speed.