Comparison and combination of a hemodynamics/biomarkers-based model with simplified PESI score for prognostic stratification of acute pulmonary embolism: findings from a real world study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20151168Keywords:
Pulmonary embolism, Prognosis, Biomarkers, PESI, Echocardiography, Bleeding, ESCAbstract
Background: Prognostic stratification is of utmost importance for management of acute Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in clinical practice. Many prognostic models have been proposed, but which is the best prognosticator in real life remains unclear. The aim of our study was to compare and combine the predictive values of the hemodynamics/biomarkers based prognostic model proposed by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2008 and simplified PESI score (sPESI).
Methods: Data records of 452 patients discharged for acute PE from Internal Medicine wards of Tuscany (Italy) were analysed. The ESC model and sPESI were retrospectively calculated and compared by using Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Curves (AUCs) and finally the combination of the two models was tested in hemodinamically stable patients. All cause and PE-related in-hospital mortality and fatal or major bleedings were the analyzed endpoints
Results: All cause in-hospital mortality was 25% (16.6% PE related) in high risk, 8.7% (4.7%) in intermediate risk and 3.8% (1.2%) in low risk patients according to ESC model. All cause in-hospital mortality was 10.95% (5.75% PE related) in patients with sPESI score ≥1 and 0% (0%) in sPESI score 0. Predictive performance of sPESI was not significantly different compared with 2008 ESC model both for all cause (AUC sPESI 0.711, 95% CI: 0.661-0.758 versus ESC 0.619, 95% CI: 0.567-0.670, difference between AUCs 0.0916, p=0.084) and for PE-related mortality (AUC sPESI 0.764, 95% CI: 0.717-0.808 versus ESC 0.650, 95% CI: 0.598-0.700, difference between AUCs 0.114, p=0.11). Fatal or major bleedings occurred in 4.30% of high risk, 1.60% of intermediate risk and 2.50% of low risk patients according to 2008 ESC model, whereas these occurred in 1.80% of high risk and 1.45% of low risk patients according to sPESI, respectively. Predictive performance for fatal or major bleeding between two models was not significantly different (AUC sPESI 0.658, 95% CI: 0.606-0.707 versus ESC 0.512, 95% CI: 0.459-0.565, difference between AUCs 0.145, p=0.34). In hemodynamically stable patients, the combined endpoint in-hospital PE-related mortality and/or fatal or major bleeding (adverse events) occurred in 0% of patients with low risk ESC model and sPESI score 0, whilst it occurred in 5.5% of patients with low-risk ESC model but sPESI ≥1. In intermediate risk patients according to ESC model, adverse events occurred in 3.6% of patients with sPESI score 0 and 6.65% of patients with sPESI score ≥1.
Conclusions: In real world, predictive performance of sPESI and the hemodynamic/biomarkers-based ESC model as prognosticator of in-hospital mortality and bleedings is similar. Combination of sPESI 0 with low risk ESC model may identify patients with very low risk of adverse events and candidate for early hospital discharge or home treatment.
Metrics
References
Wood KE. Major pulmonary embolism. Review of a pathophysiologic approach to the golden hour of hemodinamically significant pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2002;121:877-905.
Masotti L, Righini M, Vuilleumier N, Antonelli F, Landini G, Cappelli R, et al. Prognostic stratification of acute pulmonary embolism: focus on clinical aspects, imaging, and biomarkers. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2009;5:567-75.
Becattini C, Agnelli G. Acute pulmonary embolism: risk stratification in the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med. 2007;2:119-29.
Barra SN, Paiva L, Providência R, Fernandes A, Marques AL. A review on state-of-the-art data regarding safe early discharge following admission for pulmonary embolism: what do we know? Clin Cardio. 2013;36::507-15.
Torbicki A, Perrier A, Konstantinides S, Agnelli G, Galiè N, Pruszczyk P, et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2008;29:2276-315.
Masotti L, Lorenzini G, Landini GC, Bettoni N, Panigada G, Cappelli R. New oral anticoagulants for acute and long-term treatment of haemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism. Glob J Respir Care. 2014;1:1-8.
Becattini C, Casazza F, Forgione C, Porro F, Fadin BM, Stucchi A, et al. Acute pulmonary embolism: external validation of an integrated risk stratification model. Chest. 2013;144:1539-45.
Aujesky D, Hughes R, Jiménez D. Short-term prognosis of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemos. 2009;7(Suppl 1):318-21.
Aujesky D, Perrier A, Roy PM, Stone RA, Cornuz J, Meyer G, et al. Validation of a clinical prognostic model to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism. J Intern Med. 2007;261:597-604.
Jiménez D, Aujesky D, Moores L, Gómez V, Lobo JL, Uresandi F, et al. Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1383-9.
Lankeit M, Konstantinides S. Is it time for home treatment of pulmonaryembolism? Eur Respir J. 2012 Sep;40(3):742-9.
Squizzato A, Galli M, Dentali F, Ageno W. Outpatient treatment and early discharge of symptomatic pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2009;33:1148-55.
Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Righini M, Osterwalder J, Egloff M, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011 Jul;378(9785):41-8.
Schulman S, Kearon C; The Sub Committee on Control of the Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3:692-4.
Masotti L, Mannucci A, Antonelli F, Maurini V, Testa R, Marchetti S, et al. The risk-based treatment of acute pulmonary embolism. J Clin Med Res. 2009;1:1-7.
Piran S, Le Gal G, Wells PS, Gandara E, Righini M, Rodger MA, Carrier M. Outpatient treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2013;132:515-9.
Barra S, Paiva L, Providência R, Fernandes A, Nascimento J, Marques AL. LR-PED rule: low risk pulmonary embolism decision rule - a new decision score for low risk pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res. 2012;130:327-33.
Zondag W, Hiddinga BI, Crobach MJ, Labots G, Dolsma A, Durian M, et al. Hestia criteria can discriminate high- from low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2013;41:588-92.
Jiménez D, Yusen RD. Prognostic models for selecting patients with acute pulmonary embolism for initial outpatient therapy. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2008 Sep;14(5):414-21.
Uresandi F, Otero R, Cayuela A, Cabezudo MA, Jiménez D, Laserna E, et al. A clinical prediction rule for identifying short-term risk of adverse events in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43:617-22.
Nieto JA, Solano R, Trapero Iglesias N, Ruiz-Giménez N, Fernández-Capitán C, Valero B, et al. Validation of a score for predicting fatal bleeding in patients receiving anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res. 2013 Aug;132(2):175-9.
Zhou XY, Ben SQ, Chen HL, Ni SS. The prognostic value of pulmonary embolism severity index in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Respir Res. 2012;13:111.
Sam A, Sánchez D, Gómez V, Wagner C, Kopecna D, Zamarro C, et al. The shock index and the simplified PESI for identification of low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:762-6.
Lankeit M, Gómez V, Wagner C, Aujesky D, Recio M, Briongos S, et al. A strategy combining imaging and laboratory biomarkers in comparison with a simplified clinical score for risk stratification of patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2012;141:916-22.
Ozsu S, Ozlu T, Sentürk A, Uçar EY, Kırkıl G, Kadıoğlu EE, et al. Combination and comparison of two models in prognosis of pulmonary embolism: results from TUrkey Pulmonary Embolism Group (TUPEG) study. Thromb Res. 2014;133:1006-10.
Vanni S, Nazerian P, Pepe G, Baioni M, Risso M, Grifoni G, et al. Comparison of two prognostic models for acute pulmonary embolism: clinical versus right ventricular dysfunction-guided approach. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9:1916-23.
Jiménez D, Kopecna D, Tapson V, Briese B, Schreiber D, Lobo JL, et al. Derivation and validation of multimarker prognostication for normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Mar;189:718-26.
Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, Danchin N, Fitzmaurice D, Galiè N, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Endorsed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:3033-69.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
