Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Caprini assessment utilization and impact on patient safety in gynecologic surgery

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) can potentially be associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to determine the utilization of Caprini guideline indicated VTE in elective gynecologic surgery patients and its impact on postoperative VTE and bleeding complications.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of elective gynecologic surgical procedures performed between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. Two study cohorts were generated: (1) those who received and (2) those who did not receive VTE prophylaxis based on Caprini score risk stratification. Outcome measures were then compared between the study cohorts and included the development of a VTE up to 90-days postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative bleeding events.

Results

A total of 5471 patients met inclusion criteria and the incidence of VTE up to 90 days postoperatively was 1.04%. Overall, 29.6% of gynecologic surgery patients received Caprini score-based guideline VTE prophylaxis. 39.2% of patients that met high-risk VTE criteria (Caprini > 5) received appropriate Caprini score-based prophylaxis. In multivariate regression analysis, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR 2.37, CI 1.27–4.45, p < 0.0001) and Caprini score (OR 1.13, CI 1.03–1.24, p = 0.008) predicted postoperatively VTE occurrence. Increasing Charlson comorbidity score (OR 1.39, CI 1.31–1.47, P < 0.001) ASA score (OR 1.36, CI 1.19–1.55, P < 0.001) and Caprini score (OR 1.10, CI 1.08–1.13, P < 0.001) were associated with increased odds of receiving appropriate inpatient VTE prophylaxis.

Conclusion

While the overall incidence of VTE was low in this cohort, enhanced adherence to risk-based practice guidelines may provide more patient benefit than harm to postoperative gynecologic patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All additional data set and analysis related to tis study are available upon request. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Yang T et al (2019) Evaluation of risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients who underwent gynecological surgery and validation of a fast-rating assessment table. Med Sci Monit 25:8814–8819

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang Z, Tang L, Hu Y (2017) Progress in the research on venous thromboembolism. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 37(6):811–815

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jorgensen EM et al (2018) Incidence of venous thromboembolism after different modes of gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 132(5):1275–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barber EL, Clarke-Pearson DL (2016) The limited utility of currently available venous thromboembolism risk assessment tools in gynecological oncology patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(4):445.e1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartlett MA et al (2020) Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Mayo Clin Proc 95(12):2775–2798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cronin M et al (2019) Completion of the updated caprini risk assessment model (2013 version). Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 25:1076029619838052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Brummer TH et al (2012) Pharmaceutical thrombosis prophylaxis, bleeding complications and thromboembolism in a national cohort of hysterectomy for benign disease. Hum Reprod 27(6):1628–1636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Gynecologic Surgery (2021) ACOG practice bulletin, number 232. Obstet Gynecol 138(1):e1–e15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leonardi MJ, McGory ML, Ko CY (2006) The rate of bleeding complications after pharmacologic deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis: a systematic review of 33 randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 141(8):790–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Borzecki AM et al (2011) How valid is the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator “postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma”? J Am Coll Surg 212(6):946–953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moriarty JP et al (2017) Going beyond administrative data: retrospective evaluation of an algorithm using the electronic health record to help identify bleeding events among hospitalized medical patients on warfarin. Am J Med Qual 32(4):391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen AT et al (2008) Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 371(9610):387–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kahn SR et al (2007) Multicenter evaluation of the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Canada. Thromb Res 119(2):145–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu HT et al (2007) Hospitals’ compliance with prophylaxis guidelines for venous thromboembolism. Am J Health Syst Pharm 64(1):69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tapson VF et al (2007) Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients: findings from the international medical prevention registry on venous thromboembolism. Chest 132(3):936–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dowdy SC et al (2012) Factors predictive of postoperative morbidity and cost in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 120(6):1419–1427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gould MK et al (2012) 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 141(2 Suppl):e227S-e277S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Raskob GE et al (2016) The MARINER trial of rivaroxaban after hospital discharge for medical patients at high risk of VTE Design, rationale and clinical implications. Thromb Haemost 115(6):1240–1248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lau BD et al (2018) Venous thromboembolism quality measures fail to accurately measure quality. Circulation 137(12):1278–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barber EL, Gehrig PA, Clarke-Pearson DL (2016) Venous thromboembolism in minimally invasive compared with open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 128(1):121–126

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen NT et al (2007) Laparoscopic surgery is associated with a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism compared with open surgery. Ann Surg 246(6):1021–1027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Alix School of Medicine, 4500 San Pablo Road S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Gregory K. Lewis & Tri A. Dinh

  2. Mayo Clinic Florida, Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Aaron C. Spaulding & Emily Brennan

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez

  4. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Dorin T. Colibaseanu

  5. Department of Otolaryngology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    John D. Casler

  6. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Alix School of Medicine, 4500 San Pablo Road S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Michael A. Edwards

Authors
  1. Gregory K. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron C. Spaulding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tri A. Dinh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dorin T. Colibaseanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John D. Casler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael A. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GL: preparing original manuscript draft, manuscript revisions, and preparing drafts of result tables and figures. AS: statistical analysis and preparation of methodology. EB: data acquisition from the electronic health records and generation of result outputs. TD: critical review of original and revised manuscript drafts. JB: critical review of original and revised manuscript drafts. DC primary collaborator on the project and provided critical review of original and revised manuscript drafts. JC: critical review of original and revised manuscript drafts. ME: study conceptualization, data validation, manuscript outline, creation of final result tables, critical review and editing of multiple manuscript drafts and approval of final submitted manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Gregory K. Lewis or Michael A. Edwards.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

All authors involved in this study declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, G.K., Spaulding, A.C., Brennan, E. et al. Caprini assessment utilization and impact on patient safety in gynecologic surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 308, 901–912 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07038-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07038-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation