Dataset Information

Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE)

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.

Methods

We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).

Results

Logistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.

Conclusions

PE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Weekes A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8601564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo construct and validate a simple and easily administered scoring tool for the prediction of short-term prognostic survival in adult patients with sepsis.MethodsThis study is a retrospective and prospective cohort study. A total of 382 patients with sepsis. 274 sepsis patients from January 2020 to December 2020 were collected as the modeling group and 54 sepsis patients from January 2021 to December 2021 and April to May 2022 in the hospital were randomly collected as the validation group. They were divided into survival and non-survival groups according to the outcome. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted with subgroup analysis. The resulting models were tested using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The prognostic value of the variables on prognosis was expressed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A scoring tool was constructed and tested for the prognostic value of this score in the validation group.ResultsThe model had an AUC of 0.880 [95% CI (0.838-0.922), P < 0.001], model sensitivity of 81.15%, and specificity of 80.26% for predicting short-term prognosis in patients with sepsis. Further simplifying the model scoring rules and adding the lactate variable, the AUCs was 0.876 [95% CI (0.833-0.918)], P < 0.001], sensitivity was 78.69%, specificity was 82.89%, and scoring criteria were established. the AUCs of the internally validated model in 2021 and 2022 were 0.968 [95% CI (0.916 to 1.000), P < 0.001] and 0.943 [95% CI (0.873 to 1.000), P < 0.001], indicating that the constructed scoring tool has a good predictive value for short-term survival outcomes in patients with sepsis.ConclusionsAge, shock, lactate, lactate/albumin ratio (L/A), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) are five risk factors for adult sepsis prognosis in an early emergency. This scoring tool is developed to quickly assess the short-term survival outcome in adult sepsis patients. It is straightforward and easy to administer. It also has a high prognostic predictive value.The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200058375).

Project description:Objectives:Acute pulmonary embolism can be a life-threatening condition with a high mortality. The treatment choice is a matter of debate. The early and late outcomes of patients treated with surgical pulmonary embolectomy for acute pulmonary embolism in a single center were analyzed. Methods:All consecutive patients operated on for pulmonary embolism between January 2002 and March 2017 were reviewed. Patient demographics and pre- and postoperative clinical data were retrieved from our patient registry, and risk factors for in-hospital and long-term mortality were identified. Results:In total, 175 patients (mean age 59±3 years, 50% male) were operated on for acute pulmonary embolism. In-hospital mortality was 19% (34/175). No differences were found when comparing surgery utilizing a beating heart or cardioplegic arrest. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were age >70 years [odds ratio (OR) 4.8, confidence interval (CI) 1.7-13.1, p=0.002], body surface area <2 m2 (OR 4.7, CI 1.6-13.7, p=0.004), preoperative resuscitation (OR 14.1, CI 4.9-40.8, p<0.001), and the absence of deep vein thrombosis (OR 9.6, CI 2.5-37.6, p<0.001). Follow-up was 100% complete with a 10-year survival rate of 66.4% in 141/175 patients surviving to discharge. Once discharged from hospital, none of the risk factors identified for in-hospital mortality were relevant for long-term survival except the absence of deep vein thrombosis (OR 3.2, CI 1.2-8.2, p=0.019). The presence of malignancy was a relevant risk factor for long-term mortality (OR 4.3, CI 1.8-10.3, p=0.001). Conclusion:Surgical pulmonary embolectomy as a therapy for acute pulmonary embolism demonstrates excellent short- and long-term results in patients with an otherwise life-threatening disease, especially in younger patients with a body surface area >2 m2 and pulmonary embolism caused by deep vein thrombosis. Pulmonary embolectomy should therefore not be reserved as a treatment of last resort for clinically desperate circumstances.