MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prevalence and Incidence of Arterial and Venous Thrombosis in Critically Ill Patients.

2004· article· en· W2549268160 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Lim, Mark Crowther, P.J. Devereaux

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)ThrombosisPulmonary embolismIntensive care unitPopulationMedical recordProspective cohort studyVenous thrombosisRetrospective cohort studyDeep veinCohortCohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Critically ill patients have multiple risk factors for developing thrombosis, yet little is known about the prevalence and incidence of arterial and venous thrombotic events in this patient population. The development of thrombosis is likely to be frequently unrecognized and thus untreated, which may affect clinical outcomes. Purpose: To document the prevalence and incidence of clinically recognized thrombotic events in critically ill adult patients. Methods: We undertook a retrospective chart review of 208 patients from a cohort of 261 critically ill patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study evaluating the prevalence and incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) using twice weekly ultrasound screening. All other thrombotic events were diagnosed based on clinical suspicion and confirmed by conventional diagnostic tests. Data extraction: We reviewed daily medical records during the patient’s ICU admission for signs and symptoms of thrombosis, and abstracted laboratory and radiologic data. Results: At the time of ICU admission, ultrasound screening revealed DVT in 7 of 261 patients (prevalence 2.7%, 95% CI 1.1–5.4%) but only 3 cases (42.9%) were clinically suspected. During the ICU stay, 25 patients developed DVT (incidence 9.6%, 95% CI 6.3–13.8%), but only 3 (12.0%) were clinically suspected. Pulmonary embolism was clinically recognized on admission in 4 of 208 patients (prevalence 1.9%, 95% CI 0.5–4.9%); and was diagnosed in 1 patient during ICU stay (incidence 0.5%, 95% CI 0.0–2.6%). For arterial events, 3 of 208 patients were admitted with ischemic stroke, and 3 developed this complication in the ICU (prevalence and incidence 1.4%, 95% CI 0.3–4.2%). Cardiac troponin I was measured at least once in the first 24 hours of admission in 90% of patients. Elevated cardiac troponin I levels were observed in 69 of 208 patients on admission to ICU (prevalence 33.2%, 95% CI 26.8–40.0%) and 15 patients developed elevations in cardiac troponin I during their ICU stay (incidence 7.2%, 95% CI 4.1–11.6%). A diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (based on troponin I level, and either ECG changes or initiation of treatment for myocardial ischemia) was made in 54 of 208 patients (prevalence 26.0%, 95% CI 20.1–32.5%). Fifteen patients (7.2%, 95% 4.1–11.6%) had elevated cardiac troponin I levels without any further testing. During the ICU stay, the incidence of ACS was 5.3% (95% CI 2.7–9.3%) and isolated elevated troponin I levels were found in 1.9% (95% CI 0.5–4.9%). Conclusions: Thrombotic events in critically ill patients occurs frequently and may often be unrecognized. Typical diagnostic tests for thromboembolism have not been properly evaluated in the critically ill; moreover, the predictive value for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction has not been determined in these patients. Additional studies evaluating the long term outcome and efficacy of interventions for critically ill patients with thrombotic events is required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→