Dataset Information

Is the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Being Routinely Used in Clinical Practice?

ABSTRACT: Background. The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score can risk-stratify patients with PE but its widespread use is uncertain. With the PESI, we compared length of hospital stay between low, moderate, and high risk PE patients and determined the number of low risk PE patients who were discharged early. Methods. PE patients admitted to St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital from January 2005 to August 2010 were screened. PESI score stratified acute PE patients into low (<85), moderate (86-105), and high (>105) risk categories and their length of hospital stay was compared. Patients with low risk PE discharged early (≤3 days) were calculated. Results. Among 315 PE patients, 51.7% were at low risk. No significant difference in hospital stay between low (7.11 ± 3 d) and moderate (6.88 ± 2.9 d) risk, p > 0.05, as well as low and high risk (7.28 ± 3.0 d), p > 0.05, was found. 9% of low risk patients were discharged ≤ 3 days. Conclusions. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between low and high risk groups and only a small number of low risk patients were discharged from the hospital early suggesting that risk tools like PESI may not have a widespread use.

SUBMITTER: Shafiq A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4532959 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Being Routinely Used in Clinical Practice?

Shafiq Ali A Lodhi Hamza H Ahmed Zaheer Z Bajwa Ata A

Thrombosis 20150729

Background. The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score can risk-stratify patients with PE but its widespread use is uncertain. With the PESI, we compared length of hospital stay between low, moderate, and high risk PE patients and determined the number of low risk PE patients who were discharged early. Methods. PE patients admitted to St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital from January 2005 to August 2010 were screened. PESI score stratified acute PE patients into low (<85), moderate (86-105) ...[more]

PMID: 26294971

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic assessment is important for the management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE). Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simple PESI (sPESI) are new emerged prognostic assessment tools for APE. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of the PESI and the sPESI to predict prognostic outcomes (all-cause and PE-related mortality, serious adverse events) in APE patients, and compare between these two PESIs.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE database were searched up to June 2012 using the terms "Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index" and "pulmonary embolism". Summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for prognostic outcomes in low risk PESI versus high risk PESI were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) used to estimate overall predicting accuracies of prognostic outcomes.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed low-risk PESI was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.15), PE-related mortality (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17) and serious adverse events (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.41), with no homogeneity across studies. In sPESI subgroup, the OR of all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, and serious adverse events was 0.10 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.14), 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.26) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.51), respectively; while in PESI subgroup, the OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.16), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.21), and 0.30 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.38), respectively. For accuracy analysis, the pooled sensitivity, the pooled specificity, and the overall weighted AUC for PESI predicting all-cause mortality was 0.909 (95% CI: 0.900 to 0.916), 0.411 (95% CI: 0.407 to 0.415), and 0.7853±0.0058, respectively; for PE-related mortality, it was 0.953 (95% CI: 0.913 to 0.978), 0.374 (95% CI: 0.360 to 0.388), and 0.8218±0.0349, respectively; for serious adverse events, it was 0.821 (95% CI: 0.795 to 0.845), 0.389 (95% CI: 0.384 to 0.394), and 0.6809±0.0208, respectively. In sPESI subgroup, the AUC for predicting all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, and serious adverse events was 0.7920±0.0117, 0.8317±0.0547, and 0.6454±0.0197, respectively. In PESI subgroup, the AUC was 0.7856±0.0075, 0.8158±0.0451, and 0.6609±0.0252, respectively.ConclusionsPESI has discriminative power to predict the short-term death and adverse outcome events in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, the PESI and the sPESI have similar accuracy, while sPESI is easier to use. However, the calibration for predicting prognosis can't be calculated from this meta-analysis, some prospective studies for accessing PESI predicting calibration can be recommended.

Dataset Information

Is the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Being Routinely Used in Clinical Practice?

Publications

Is the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Being Routinely Used in Clinical Practice?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets