Advertisement

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 108–112 | Cite as

Appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in patients in the acute care setting and an evaluation of the associated costs

  • Riddhi VirpariaEmail author
  • Luigi Brunetti
  • Stuart Vigdor
  • Christopher D. Adams
Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Thrombophilia testing is rarely recommended in acute care settings due to the high likelihood of false-positive and false-negative results. Inappropriately performing these tests in the acute care setting is associated with inaccurate interpretation and an increased economic burden. In this retrospective analysis, the appropriateness of thrombophilia tests ordered for patients in an acute care setting was evaluated in terms of both clinical utility and economic costs. This analysis included adult inpatients discharged from an academic community medical center from November 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017 who received thrombophilia testing. Patients were stratified into two groups: appropriately tested and inappropriately tested based on data abstracted directly from the electronic health record. The primary outcome, the appropriateness of the tests, was based on published criteria for thrombophilia testing and included concurrent anticoagulation use, patient admitting diagnosis, and/or comorbidities associated with thrombosis risk. The secondary endpoint was the financial burden of inappropriate thrombophilia testing based on assay charges. The analytic sample included 200 patients and 1393 thrombophilia tests. In 179 patients (89.5%), 1168 tests (83.8%) were inappropriately conducted. From 179 patients, tests in 85 were inappropriate due to concurrent anticoagulant use and/or provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), and tests in 94 were inappropriate due to a lack of 2 or more risk factors for thrombophilia. Only 21 patients (10.5%) had appropriate testing with 225 tests (16.2%). The financial impact of inappropriate testing was estimated as excess charges amounting to $148,151.16/year. Restricting testing to avoid unnecessary risks and costs warrants further analysis.

Keywords

Thrombophilia testing Recurrent thromboembolism Thrombosis risk Anticoagulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Drs. Adams and Brunetti for their constant support throughout the research process.

Author contribution

All authors were involved in designing the study, analyzing the results, and constructing the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was necessary to conduct this retrospective study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This retrospective study was conducted in compliance with the ethical principles outlined by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Somerset and Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences.

References

  1. 1.
    Colucci G, Tsakiris DA (2017) Thrombophilia Screening: Universal, Selected, or Neither? Clin Appl Thromb/Hem.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1076029616683803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer MR, Witt DM, Delate T et al (2015) Thrombophilia testing patterns amongst patients with acute venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res 136(6):1160–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2015.10.019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cox N, Johnson SA, Vazquez S, et al (2017) Patterns and appropriateness of thrombophilia testing in an academic medical center. J Hosp Med 12(9):705–709.  https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2804 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shen YM, Tsai J, Taiwo E et al (2016) Analysis of thrombophilia test ordering practices at an academic center: a proposal for appropriate testing to reduce harm and cost. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0155326.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155326 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia-Horton A, Kovacs MJ, Abdulrehman J et al (2017) Impact of thrombophilia screening on venous thromboembolism management practices. Thromb Res 149:76–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2016.11.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chong LY, Fenu E, Stansby G et al (2012) Management of venous thromboembolic diseases and the role of thrombophilia testing: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 344:e3979.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3979 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard LS, Hughes RJ (2013) NICE guideline: management of venous thromboembolic diseases and role of thrombophilia testing. Thorax 68(4):391–393.  https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202376 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stevens SM, Woller SC, Bauer KA et al (2016) Guidance for the evaluation and treatment of hereditary and acquired thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis 41(1):154–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-015-1316-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kudo M, Lee HL, Yang IA, et al (2016) Utility of thrombophilia testing in patients with venous thrombo-embolism. J Thorac Dis 8(12): 3697–3703.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.12.40 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith TW, Pi D, Hudoba M et al (2014) Reducing inpatient heritable thrombophilia testing using a clinical decision-making tool. J Clin Pathol 67(4):345–349.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2013-201840 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Favaloro EJ (2014) The futility of thrombophilia testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 52(4):499–503.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0560 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Stefano V, Rossi E (2013) Testing for inherited thrombophilia and consequences for antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with venous thromboembolism and their relatives. Thromb Haemost 110(4):697–705.  https://doi.org/10.1160/th13-01-0011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox JL, Shunkwiler SM, Koepsell SA (2017) Requirement for a pathologist’s second signature limits inappropriate inpatient thrombophilia testing. Lab Med 48(4):367–371.  https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmx040 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwon AJ, Roshal M, DeSancho MT (2016) Clinical adherence to thrombophilia screening guidelines at a major tertiary care hospital. J Thromb Haemost 14(5):982–986.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13284 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stevens SM, Ansell JM (2017) Thrombophilic evaluation in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 38(1):107–120.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1597564 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jun T, Kwang H, Berube C et al (2019) An electronic best practice alert based on choosing wisely guidelines reduces thrombophilia testing in the outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med 34(1):29–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4663-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Favaloro Emmanuel J (2019) Danger of false negative (exclusion) or false positive (diagnosis) for ‘congenital thrombophilia’ in the age of anticoagulants. Clin Chem Lab Med 57(6):873–882.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-1041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ernest Mario School of PharmacyRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of PharmacyRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital SomersetRWJBarnabas HealthSomervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations