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.
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.
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.
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,to check access.
Access this article
All additional data set and analysis related to tis study are available upon request. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
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
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
Jorgensen EM et al (2018) Incidence of venous thromboembolism after different modes of gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 132(5):1275–1284
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
Bartlett MA et al (2020) Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Mayo Clin Proc 95(12):2775–2798
Cronin M et al (2019) Completion of the updated caprini risk assessment model (2013 version). Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 25:1076029619838052
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
Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Gynecologic Surgery (2021) ACOG practice bulletin, number 232. Obstet Gynecol 138(1):e1–e15
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
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
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
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
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
Yu HT et al (2007) Hospitals’ compliance with prophylaxis guidelines for venous thromboembolism. Am J Health Syst Pharm 64(1):69–76
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
Dowdy SC et al (2012) Factors predictive of postoperative morbidity and cost in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 120(6):1419–1427
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
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
Lau BD et al (2018) Venous thromboembolism quality measures fail to accurately measure quality. Circulation 137(12):1278–1284
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
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
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
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.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
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