Dataset Information

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The risk of death from acute pulmonary embolism can range as high as 15%, depending on patient factors at initial presentation. Acute treatment decisions are largely based on an estimate of this mortality risk.

Objective

To assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter cohort study was conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 at 8 hospitals participating in the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium registry. Included patients were adults who presented with acute pulmonary embolism and had sufficient information in the medical record to calculate risk scores. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

All-cause mortality (7- and 30-day) and associated discrimination were assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC).

Results

Among 416 patients with acute pulmonary embolism (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [17.6] years; 207 men [49.8%]), 7-day mortality in the low-risk groups ranged from 1.3% (1 patient) to 3.1% (4 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 2.6% (1 patient) to 10.2% (13 patients). Among patients in the highest-risk groups, the 7-day mortality ranged from 7.0% (18 patients) to 16.3% (7 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 14.4% (37 patients) to 26.3% (26 patients). Each of the risk stratification tools had modest discrimination for 7-day mortality (AUC range, 0.616-0.666) with slightly lower discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC range, 0.550-0.694).

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that commonly used risk tools for acute pulmonary embolism have modest estimating ability. Future studies to develop and validate better risk assessment tools are needed.

SUBMITTER: Barnes GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7450352 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

Barnes Geoffrey D GD Muzikansky Alona A Cameron Scott S Giri Jay J Heresi Gustavo A GA Jaber Wissam W Wood Todd T Todoran Thomas M TM Courtney D Mark DM Tapson Victor V Kabrhel Christopher C

JAMA network open 20200803 8

<h4>Importance</h4>The risk of death from acute pulmonary embolism can range as high as 15%, depending on patient factors at initial presentation. Acute treatment decisions are largely based on an estimate of this mortality risk.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This multicenter cohort study was conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 at 8 hospita ...[more]

PMID: 32845326

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is an important complication of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 is associated with respiratory impairment and a pro-coagulative state, rendering PE more likely and difficult to recognize. Several decision algorithms relying on clinical features and D-dimer have been established. High prevalence of PE and elevated Ddimer in patients with COVID-19 might impair the performance of common decision algorithms. Here, we aimed to validate and compare five common decision algorithms implementing age adjusted Ddimer, the GENEVA, and Wells scores as well as the PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.MethodsIn this single center study, we included patients who were admitted to our tertiary care hospital in the COVID-19 Registry of the LMU Munich. We retrospectively selected patients who received a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) or pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q) for suspected PE. The performances of five commonly used diagnostic algorithms (age-adjusted D-dimer, GENEVA score, PEGeD-algorithm, Wells score, and YEARS-algorithm) were compared.ResultsWe identified 413 patients with suspected PE who received a CTPA or V/Q confirming 62 PEs (15%). Among them, 358 patients with 48 PEs (13%) could be evaluated for performance of all algorithms. Patients with PE were older and their overall outcome was worse compared to patients without PE. Of the above five diagnostic algorithms, the PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms performed best, reducing diagnostic imaging by 14% and 15% respectively with a sensitivity of 95.7% and 95.6%. The GENEVA score was able to reduce CTPA or V/Q by 32.2% but suffered from a low sensitivity (78.6%). Age-adjusted D-dimer and Wells score could not significantly reduce diagnostic imaging.ConclusionThe PEGeD- and YEARS-algorithms outperformed other tested decision algorithms and worked well in patients admitted with COVID-19. These findings need independent validation in a prospective study.

Dataset Information

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets