Key result
The Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score predicted in-hospital adverse outcomes with a C-statistic of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91), compared to 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86) for the Bova score.
Why the study?
Acute PE has a wide spectrum of outcomes, but the best method to risk-stratify normotensive patients for adverse outcomes remains unclear.
Does the Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score accurately predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute normotensive pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=2,067)
Yes
Does the Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score accurately predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute normotensive pulmonary embolism?
Effect estimate: C-statistic 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91)
A simple four-variable risk score using clinical and CT data immediately available at diagnosis can accurately predict in-hospital adverse outcomes in normotensive acute pulmonary embolism.
Background Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has a wide spectrum of outcomes, but the best method to risk-stratify normotensive patients for adverse outcomes remains unclear. Methods A multicentre retrospective cohort study of acute PE patients admitted from emergency departments in Calgary, Canada, between 2012 and 2017 was used to develop a refined acute PE risk score. The composite primary outcome of in-hospital PE-related death or haemodynamic decompensation. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping and the prognostic value of the derived risk score was compared to the Bova score. Results Of 2067 patients with normotensive acute PE, the primary outcome (haemodynamic decompensation or PE-related death) occurred in 32 (1.5%) patients. In simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index high-risk patients (n=1498, 78%), a multivariable model used to predict the primary outcome retained computed tomography (CT) right–left ventricular diameter ratio ≥1.5, systolic blood pressure 90–100 mmHg, central pulmonary artery clot and heart rate ≥100 beats·min−1with a C-statistic of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82–0.93). Three risk groups were derived using a weighted score (score, prevalence, primary outcome event rate): group 1 (0–3, 73.8%, 0.34%), group 2 (4–6, 17.6%, 5.8%), group 3 (7–9, 8.7%, 12.8%) with a C-statistic 0.85 (95% CI 0.78–0.91). In comparison the prevalence (primary outcome) by Bova risk stages (n=1179) were stage I 49.8% (0.2%); stage II 31.9% (2.7%); and stage III 18.4% (7.8%) with a C-statistic 0.80 (95% CI 0.74–0.86). Conclusions A simple four-variable risk score using clinical data immediately available after CT diagnosis of acute PE predicts in-hospital adverse outcomes. External validation of the Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Solverson et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in acute normotensive pulmonary embolism (n=2,067). Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score vs. Bova score was evaluated on in-hospital PE-related death or haemodynamic decompensation (C-statistic 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.91). The Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism score predicted in-hospital adverse outcomes with a C-statistic of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91), compared to 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86) for the Bova score.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: