The most recent guidelines suggest the use of prophylaxis in patients with a high thromboembolic risk, while taking into account the risk of bleeding.
It is known that patients admitted for acute pathology have an eight-fold higher incidence of thromboembolic events than the general population.
The Padua Prediction Score (PPS) is currently considered the best score available for the evaluation of thromboembolic risk in hospitalized patients, while the IMPROVE score was developed and validated for the assessment of bleeding risk in the same population of hospitalized patients.
In a recent study, data from the real world showed us how many of the patients admitted in Internal Medicine were at high thrombotic risk according to PPS and almost 90% of these were simultaneously at low hemorrhagic risk according to the IMPROVE score: in these patients pharmacological prophylaxis could therefore be prescribed during a safe stay.
Until now only a small prospective monocentric quasi-randomized study has shown that the use of systematic PPS reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events (symptomatic and non-symptomatic) upon discharge, compared to clinical judgment alone.
For these reasons, FADOI Foundation has promoted a multicenter controlled randomized cluster study in a real-life context among patients admitted to medical area departments. The aim of the study will be to analyze the effects of a systematic evaluation of patients (in centers that do not require the use of any score for the evaluation of thromboembolic risk), using the Padua Prediction Score (PPS) and the IMPROVE Bleeding score vs only clinical judgment for the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis and clinical outcomes (thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events). The main objective of the study is therefore to evaluate the effectiveness of a systematic evaluation of the thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk in reducing the number of major complications in patients admitted to Internal Medicine, at a 90-day follow-up after hospital discharge.
