Comparative evaluation of venous thromboembolic risk in urologic inpatients using different risk assessment models

Authors

  • Konstantinos Douroumis First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Evangelos Fragkiadis First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Napoleon Moulavasilis First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Panagiota Stratigopoulou Anesthesiology Department, Laikon General Hospital of Athens
  • Ioannis Adamakis First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Ioannis Anastasiou First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Dionysios Mitropoulos First Department of Urology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8907

Keywords:

Venous thromboembolic events, Urologic surgery, Complications

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONS: The process for determining thromboprophylaxis decisions in urologic surgery entails assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in comparison to the risk of bleeding. Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been created to systematically calculate an individual’s risk of VTE. In our study, we evaluated the risk of VTE in urologic inpatients using two RAMs specifically designed for urology by the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA), the Caprini score, and the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

METHODS: The study group consisted of 136 inpatients within the urology department. Data from medical records included information on various factors, such as age, gender, and body mass index, as well as personal and family history of the patients. The risk of VTE was determined using the RAMs provided by EAU and AUA, the Caprini score, and the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

RESULTS: Chemical prophylaxis was advised for 48 (35.3%) patients according to the EAU model, 47 patients (34.6%) according to the AUA model, 128 (94.1%) patients based on the Caprini score, and 80 (58.8%) patients according to the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and lack of post-surgery venous thromboembolic events recording.

CONCLUSIONS: The VTE RAMs developed by the EAU and AUA provide consistent recommendations for thromboembolism prophylaxis in urologic patients, while the Caprini model’s strict adherence may lead to excessive prophylaxis recommendations. The EAU approach is user-friendly but urologists must judiciously weigh bleeding and VTE risks on an individual basis, ensuring optimal prophylaxis use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-01-14

How to Cite

Douroumis, K., Fragkiadis, E., Moulavasilis, N., Stratigopoulou, P., Adamakis, I., Anastasiou, I., & Mitropoulos, D. (2025). Comparative evaluation of venous thromboembolic risk in urologic inpatients using different risk assessment models. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(5), E179–82. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8907

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 5 (2025): CUAJ May

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.