Key result
ESC guidelines and PE-SCORE predict PE clinical deterioration with superior ~99% sensitivity over sPESI.
Why the study?
Existing pulmonary embolism risk scores were developed to predict death within weeks but not more proximate adverse events such as 5-day clinical deterioration after ED diagnosis of PE.
Do ESC and PE-SCORE risk stratification tools improve prediction of 5-day clinical deterioration compared to sPESI in ED patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=1,569)
Yes
Do ESC and PE-SCORE risk stratification tools improve prediction of 5-day clinical deterioration compared to sPESI in ED patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
The ESC and PE-SCORE risk stratification tools demonstrated higher sensitivity and negative predictive value than sPESI for detecting short-term (5-day) clinical deterioration in ED patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ESC and PE-SCORE may better flag low-risk PE for outpatient consideration; leaves open prospective validation versus sPESI.
Objectives: Existing pulmonary embolism (PE) risk scores were developed to predict death within weeks, but not more proximate adverse events. We determined the ability of 3 PE risk stratification tools (simplified pulmonary embolism severity index [sPESI], 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines [ESC], and PE short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation [PE-SCORE]) to predict 5-day clinical deterioration after emergency department (ED) diagnosis of PE. Methods: We analyzed data from six EDs on ED patients with confirmed PE. Clinical deterioration was defined as death, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension requiring vasopressors or volume resuscitation, or escalated intervention within 5 days of PE diagnosis. We determined sensitivity and specificity of sPESI, ESC, and PE-SCORE for predicting clinical deterioration. Results: Of 1569 patients, 24.5% had clinical deterioration within 5 days. sPESI, ESC, and PE-SCORE classifications were low-risk in 558 (35.6%), 167 (10.6%), and 309 (19.6%), respectively. Sensitivities of sPESI, ESC, and PE-SCORE for clinical deterioration were 81.8 (78, 85.7), 98.7 (97.6, 99.8), and 96.1 (94.2, 98), respectively. Specificities of sPESI, ESC, and PE-SCORE for clinical deterioration were 41.2 (38.4, 44), 13.7 (11.7, 15.6), and 24.8 (22.4, 27.3). Areas under the curve were 61.5 (59.1, 63.9), 56.2 (55.1, 57.3), and 60.5 (58.9, 62.0). Negative predictive values were 87.5 (84.7, 90.2), 97 (94.4, 99.6), and 95.1 (92.7, 97.5). Conclusions: ESC and PE-SCORE were better than sPESI for detecting clinical deterioration within 5 days after PE diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weekes et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary embolism (n=1,569). ESC and PE-SCORE risk stratification tools vs. sPESI was evaluated on Clinical deterioration within 5 days of PE diagnosis. The ESC and PE-SCORE tools demonstrated higher sensitivity for predicting 5-day clinical deterioration (98.7% and 96.1%, respectively) compared to sPESI (81.8%) in ED patients with confirmed PE.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: