Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is suboptimal in American hospitals despite long-standing evidence-based recommendations. Data from observational studies indicate a lower uptake of effective prophylaxis in patients hospitalized with medical versus surgical conditions. Reluctance to use prophylaxis in medical patients has been attributed to difficulty in identifying at-risk patients and balancing risks of bleeding against occurrence of VTE. Several risk-assessment models (RAMs) have been proposed to assist physicians in identifying non-surgical patients who need prophylaxis. We conducted a systematic review of published RAMs, based on objective criteria, to determine whether any RAM is validated sufficiently to be employed in clinical practice. We identified 11 RAMs, six derived from primary data and five based on expert opinion. The number, types, and strength of association of VTE risk predictors were highly variable. The variability in methods and outcome measurement precluded pooled estimates of these different models. Published RAMs for VTE lack generalizability and adequate validation. As electronic health records become more ubiquitous, validated dynamic RAMs are needed to assess VTE risk at the point-of-care in real time.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence-based guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA), many patients may not receive effective prophylaxis. Our objective was to analyze data from the multinational Global Orthopaedic Registry (GLORY) to evaluate the compliance of surgeons with the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines for VTE prevention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 8160 patients who had undergone a primary, unilateral, elective THA (n = 3950) or TKA (n = 4210), and had at least 3 months of follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: Almost all patients received a form of recommended prophylaxis. Compliance with guidelines in terms of type, duration, start time, and dose was achieved for 47% of THA and 61% of TKA patients in the USA, and 62% of THA and 69% of TKA patients outside the USA. Warfarin use, mostly in the USA, was fully compliant in 33% of THA and 48% of TKA patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin use was fully compliant in 63% of THA and 72% of TKA patients in the USA, and 67% of THA and 73% of TKA patients outside the USA. CONCLUSION: Although almost all THA and TKA patients both inside and outside the USA received prophylaxis, a large proportion did not receive treatment in accordance with the ACCP guidelines. Our study may have overestimated the use of recommended prophylaxis as some participating investigators may have had a specific interest in VTE prophylaxis. Furthermore, although analyses were restricted to approximately three-quarters of patients who had outpatient follow-up data, their characteristics were similar to those in the entire population.