Dataset Information

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years.

ABSTRACT: In young patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the predictive value of currently available prognostic tools has not been evaluated. Our objective was to compare prognostic value of 7 available tools (GPS, PESI, sPESI, Prognostic Algorithm, PREP, shock index and RIETE) in patients aged <50 years. We used the RIETE database, including PE patients from 2001 to 2017. The major outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Of 34,651 patients with acute PE, 5,822 (17%) were aged <50 years. Of these, 83 (1.4%) died during the first 30 days. Number of patients deemed low risk with tools was: PREP (95.9%), GPS (89.6%), PESI (87.2%), Shock index (70.9%), sPESI (59.4%), Prognostic algorithm (58%) and RIETE score (48.6%). The tools with a highest sensitivity were: Prognostic Algorithm (91.6%; 95% CI: 85.6-97.5), RIETE score (90.4%; 95%CI: 84.0-96.7) and sPESI (88%; 95% CI: 81-95). The RIETE, Prognostic Algorithm and sPESI scores obtained the highest overall sensitivity estimates for also predicting 7- and 90-day all-cause mortality, 30-day PE-related mortality, 30-day major bleeding and 30-day VTE recurrences. The proportion of low-risk patients who died within the first 30 days was lowest using the Prognostic Algorithm (0.2%), RIETE (0.3%) or sPESI (0.3%) scores. In PE patients less 50 years, 30-day mortality was low. Although sPESI, RIETE and Prognostic Algorithm scores were the most sensitive tools to identify patients at low risk to die, other tools should be evaluated in this population to obtain more efficient results.

SUBMITTER: Jara-Palomares L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6934558 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years.

Jara-Palomares Luis L Alfonso Maria M Maestre Ana A Jimenez David D Garcia-Bragado Fernando F Font Carme C Reyes Raquel Lopez RL Blasco Luis Hernandez LH Vidal Gemma G Otero Remedios R Monreal Manuel M

Scientific reports 20191227 1

In young patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the predictive value of currently available prognostic tools has not been evaluated. Our objective was to compare prognostic value of 7 available tools (GPS, PESI, sPESI, Prognostic Algorithm, PREP, shock index and RIETE) in patients aged <50 years. We used the RIETE database, including PE patients from 2001 to 2017. The major outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Of 34,651 patients with acute PE, 5,822 (17%) were aged <50 years. Of these, ...[more]

PMID: 31882805

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is low diagnostic accuracy of the proxy restrictive spirometric pattern (RSP) to identify true pulmonary restriction. This knowledge is based on patients referred for spirometry and total lung volume determination by plethysmograpy, single breath nitrogen washout technique or gas dilution and selected controls. There is, however, a lack of data from general populations analyzing whether RSP is a valid proxy for true pulmonary restriction. We have validated RSP in relation to true pulmonary restriction in a general population where we have access to measurements of total lung capacity (TLC) and spirometry.MethodsThe data was from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS Pilot), a general population-based study, comprising 983 adults aged 50-64. All subjects answered a respiratory questionnaire. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were obtained before and after bronchodilation. TLC and residual volume (RV) was recorded using a body plethysmograph. All lung function values are generally expressed as percent predicted (% predicted) or in relation to lower limits of normal (LLN). True pulmonary restriction was defined as TLC < LLN5 defined as a Z score < - 1.645, i e the fifth percentile. RSP was defined as FEV1/FVC ≥ LLN and FVC < LLN after bronchodilation. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsThe prevalence of true pulmonary restriction was 5.4%, and the prevalence of RSP was 3.4%. The sensitivity of RSP to identify true pulmonary restriction was 0.34 (0.20-0.46), the corresponding specificity was 0.98 (0.97-0.99), and the positive likelihood ratio was 21.1 (11.3-39.4) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.67 (0.55-0.81).ConclusionsRSP has low accuracy for identifying true pulmonary restriction. The results support previous observations that RSP is useful for ruling out true pulmonary restriction.

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.

Project description:AimsThe non-invasive calculation of right ventricular (RV) haemodynamics as pulmonary artery (PA) capacitance (PAC) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) have proved to be feasible, easy to perform, and of high prognostic value. We, therefore, evaluated whether baseline PAC and PVR could predict clinical outcomes for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE).Methods and resultsWe prospectively followed 373 patients [mean (standard deviation) age, 64.1 (14.9) years; 58.4% were men, and 27.9% had cancer] who had acute PE and transthoracic echocardiography within 1 day of diagnosis from 1 March 2013 through 30 June 2020. Pulmonary artery capacitance was calculated as left ventricular stroke volume/(PA systolic pressure - PA diastolic pressure). Pulmonary vascular resistance was calculated as (tricuspid regurgitant velocity/RV outflow tract velocity time integral) × 10 + 0.16. These two variables were calculated retrospectively from the values obtained with transthoracic echocardiography. Pulmonary artery capacitance was acquired in 99 (27%) patients and PVR in 65 (17%) patients. Univariable and bivariable logistic regression analyses, and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the ability of these haemodynamic measurements to predict mortality up to 6 months. After using bivariable models to adjust individually for age, cancer, and pulmonary hypertension. Pulmonary vascular resistance was associated with all-cause mortality at 3 months [area under the curve (AUC) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.86; P = 0.01], and 6 months (AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.91; P ≤ 0.03). Pulmonary artery capacitance was associated with all-cause mortality at 30 days (AUC 0.95; 95% CI 0.82-0.99; P < 0.001) and 3 months (AUC 0.84; 95% CI 0.65-0.99; P = 0.003).ConclusionNon-invasive measurement of RV haemodynamics could provide prognostic information of patients with acute PE. Pulmonary artery capacitance and PVR are potentially important predictors of all-cause mortality in these patients and should be explored in future studies.

Dataset Information

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years.

Publications

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets