Abstract
Background
Discharged medical patients are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is difficult to identify which discharged patients would benefit from extended duration thromboprophylaxis. The Intermountain Risk Score is a prediction score derived from discrete components of the complete blood cell count and basic metabolic panel and is highly predictive of 1‐year mortality. We sought to ascertain if the Intermountain Risk Score might also be predictive of 90‐day postdischarge hospital‐associated VTE (HA‐VTE).
Methods
We applied the Intermountain Risk Score to 60 064 medical patients who survived 90 days after discharge and report predictiveness for HA‐VTE. Area under the receiver operating curve analyses were performed. We then assessed whether the Intermountain Risk Score improved prediction of 2 existing VTE risk assessment models.
Results
The Intermountain Risk Score poorly predicted HA‐VTE (area under the curve = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56‐0.60). Each clinical risk assessment model was superior to the Intermountain Risk Score (UTAH area under the curve, 0.63; Kucher area under the curve, 0.62; Intermountain Risk Score area under the curve, 0.58; P < .001 for each comparison). Adding the Intermountain Risk Score to these scores did not substantially improve the performance of either risk assessment model (UTAH + Intermountain Risk Score, 0.65; Kucher + Intermountain Risk Score, 0.64).
Conclusion
The Intermountain Risk Score demonstrated poor predictiveness for HA‐VTE when compared to existing risk assessment models. Adding the Intermountain Risk Score to existing risk assessment models did not improve upon either risk assessment model alone to justify the added complexity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
2 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT, USA
3 Department of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT, USA
4 Department of Medical Informatics, Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, UT, USA
5 Intermountain Heart Institute, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
6 Department of Emergency Medicine Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, UT, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA