Search...

⌘K

Try AI Medical Scribe

Save 2+ hours daily with instant clinal dicumentation.

Start Free Trial

Padua Prediction Score for Risk of VTE

Padua Prediction Score for VTE

Identifies hospitalized medical patients at high risk for VTE who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis

Padua Prediction Score for Risk of VTE

Padua Prediction Score for VTE

Identifies hospitalized medical patients at high risk for VTE who may benefit from thromboprophylaxis

Padua Prediction Score
Active cancer (local or distant metastases and/or chemotherapy or radiotherapy in previous 6 months)
Previous VTE (excluding superficial vein thrombosis)
Reduced mobility (bedrest with bathroom privileges for ≥3 days)
Thrombophilic condition (defects of antithrombin, protein C or S, factor V Leiden, G20210A prothrombin mutation, antiphospholipid syndrome)
Recent (≤1 month) trauma and/or surgery
Age ≥70 years
Heart and/or respiratory failure
Acute myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke
Acute infection and/or rheumatologic disorder
Obesity (BMI ≥30)
Ongoing hormonal treatment
Answer all questions to see your score
0/11 answered · select options to update

Instructions

The Padua Prediction Score helps clinicians estimate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients. To use it, review the patient’s history and current condition for each risk factor included in the tool. Assign the specified points for each present factor and calculate the total score. A threshold score determines whether a patient is considered high risk and may benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation. This score supports clinical judgment but should not replace individualized patient assessment.

Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences

Interpretation

Score

Risk Category

< 4

Low Risk

≥ 4

High Risk

 

Inputs are recorded for 11 risk factors with explicit definitions (e.g., reduced mobility as bedrest with bathroom privileges for at least 3 days), summed to a total ranging from 0 to 20 points, reflecting cumulative risk burden. Output is the total PPS; scores of 0–3 are low risk and ≥4 high risk, which in the derivation cohort stratified markedly different symptomatic VTE incidence without prophylaxis during 90‑day follow‑up.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20738765/ 

0–3 points: Low risk; routine pharmacological prophylaxis is generally not indicated in guidelines absent other drivers, with decisions individualized and bleeding risk also considered.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6258910/

≥4 points: High risk; consider pharmacological prophylaxis if bleeding risk is acceptable, or mechanical methods if bleeding risk is high, consistent with guideline statements for acutely ill medical inpatients.
https://www.hematology.org/education/clinicians/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-practice-guidelines/venous-thromboembolism-guidelines/prophylaxis-for-medical-patients

Subsequent expert summaries and narrative reviews consistently cite the 2010 Padua study as the seminal RAM for medical inpatients, framing later comparisons with IMPROVE-VTE and other tools.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10786708/

East Asian full‑cohort external validation (2023) evaluated PPS and IMPROVE-VTE in general medical inpatients, reporting discrimination and recalibration approaches; this cohort study provides contemporary performance data outside Western derivation populations.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10064295/

A 2024 comparative guideline-focused review reported AUC values around 0.61–0.64 for PPS and IMPROVE in large medical inpatient cohorts, noting modest discrimination and underscoring the need for combined clinical judgment and local calibration when deploying RAMs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11185021/

Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences

Venous thromboembolism is a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. The Padua Prediction Score was developed to systematically assess the risk of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, particularly those who are immobilized. The score incorporates multiple risk factors such as active cancer, history of VTE, reduced mobility, thrombophilia, recent trauma or surgery, advanced age, heart or respiratory failure, obesity, and ongoing infections or rheumatologic conditions. By summing the weighted points, clinicians can identify patients at higher risk for VTE events like deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

This tool is especially valuable because many hospitalized patients have overlapping comorbidities that individually may not seem significant but collectively raise VTE risk. The Padua Score improves patient safety by guiding prophylactic anticoagulation decisions while helping to avoid unnecessary treatment in low-risk patients. Unlike surgical patients, where thromboprophylaxis is standard, medical patients often require careful risk stratification due to bleeding risks. The score provides a structured, evidence-based approach to balance prevention with safety.

Validated in large studies, the Padua Score demonstrates strong predictive ability and has been incorporated into international guidelines for hospital medicine. It highlights the importance of systematic risk assessment rather than relying on clinical impression alone. By applying this tool, clinicians can reduce hospital-acquired VTE and improve patient outcomes through timely preventive strategies.

Overview
When to use
Why use
Evidences

Interpretation

Score

Risk Category

< 4

Low Risk

≥ 4

High Risk

 

Inputs are recorded for 11 risk factors with explicit definitions (e.g., reduced mobility as bedrest with bathroom privileges for at least 3 days), summed to a total ranging from 0 to 20 points, reflecting cumulative risk burden. Output is the total PPS; scores of 0–3 are low risk and ≥4 high risk, which in the derivation cohort stratified markedly different symptomatic VTE incidence without prophylaxis during 90‑day follow‑up.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20738765/ 

0–3 points: Low risk; routine pharmacological prophylaxis is generally not indicated in guidelines absent other drivers, with decisions individualized and bleeding risk also considered.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6258910/

≥4 points: High risk; consider pharmacological prophylaxis if bleeding risk is acceptable, or mechanical methods if bleeding risk is high, consistent with guideline statements for acutely ill medical inpatients.
https://www.hematology.org/education/clinicians/guidelines-and-quality-care/clinical-practice-guidelines/venous-thromboembolism-guidelines/prophylaxis-for-medical-patients

Subsequent expert summaries and narrative reviews consistently cite the 2010 Padua study as the seminal RAM for medical inpatients, framing later comparisons with IMPROVE-VTE and other tools.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10786708/

East Asian full‑cohort external validation (2023) evaluated PPS and IMPROVE-VTE in general medical inpatients, reporting discrimination and recalibration approaches; this cohort study provides contemporary performance data outside Western derivation populations.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10064295/

A 2024 comparative guideline-focused review reported AUC values around 0.61–0.64 for PPS and IMPROVE in large medical inpatient cohorts, noting modest discrimination and underscoring the need for combined clinical judgment and local calibration when deploying RAMs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11185021/

Frequently Asked Questions

Features and Services FAQs

Discover the full range of features and services we offer and how to use them.

Who should be assessed with the Padua Prediction Score?+
Is the Padua Score used in surgical patients?+
What is considered a high-risk threshold?+
Does the score account for bleeding risk?+
Can mechanical prophylaxis be used in high-risk patients?+
How often should the Padua Score be reassessed?+

Ready to Transform Your Practice?

Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.

14-day free trial • No setup fees

Ready to Transform Your Practice?

Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.

14-day free trial • No setup fees

Ready to Transform Your Practice?

Join thousands of clinicians saving hours daily with AI-powered documentation.

14-day free trial • No setup fees

DocScrib

AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.

© 2025 DocScrib. All rights reserved.

DocScrib

AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.

© 2025 DocScrib. All rights reserved.

DocScrib

AI-powered medical documentation platform revolutionizing clinical workflows through intelligent patient management and secure documentation.

© 2025 DocScrib. All rights reserved.

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (Combined MELD)