CLOT+

BACKGROUND: Lack of practicality is a common barrier to the use of clinical prognostic models for acute pulmonary embolism (PE).

OBJECTIVES: This study compared easy-to-use prognostic models with <10 readily available variables to identify low-risk patients with PE who are candidates for home care.

METHODS: Based on prospective cohort data from 677 patients with acute PE from 9 Swiss hospitals, we calculated 11 easy-to-use prognostic models (simplified version of Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [sPESI], Geneva Prognostic Score, shock index [SI], BOVA, modified H-FABP, Syncope, Tachycardia [FAST], eStiMaTe, Platelets, Age, Troponin, Heart rate, Oxygenation, and Systolic blood pressure, Uresandi, Agterof, Huang, and European Society of Cardiology [ESC]-2019) and classified patients as low vs higher risk. The primary outcome was 30-day overall mortality. For each model, we examined test characteristics and the weighted clinical net benefit, ie, the percentage of avoided hospitalizations in low-risk patients minus the percentage of deceased low-risk patients, assuming that death is 100 times worse than a not avoided hospitalization.

RESULTS: Overall, 21 of 677 patients (3.1%) died within 30 days. The proportion of patients classified as low risk varied widely from 18.9% (eStiMaTe) to 95.8% (SI). Mortality among low-risk patients ranged from 0% (sPESI, eStiMaTe, and ESC-2019) to 3.0% (modified FAST), with sensitivities varying from 100% (sPESI, eStiMaTe, and ESC-2019) to 9.5% (SI). Similarly, the negative likelihood ratios for mortality ranged from 0.06 (sPESI) to 0.95 (modified FAST). The weighted net benefit was highest for the sPESI (35.9%) and lowest for the SI (-187.6%).

CONCLUSION: The sPESI, the eStimMaTe score, and the ESC-2019 model most accurately identified patients with PE who are at low risk of mortality. The sPESI showed the highest clinical net benefit.

No subscriber has commented on this article yet.