Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1942-2526
The Accuracy of Hestia and Simplified PESI to Predict the Prognosis in Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Abstract
Introduction Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding.
Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6th January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
Results This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843–0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262–0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905–12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917–0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209–0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979–40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3–11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1–6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality.
Conclusion The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data supports methods for this purpose.
Publication History
Received: 19 October 2022
Accepted: 19 April 2022
Accepted Manuscript online:
13 September 2022
Article published online:
23 October 2022
© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (04) 543-603
- 2 Keller K, Hobohm L, Ebner M. et al. Trends in thrombolytic treatment and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in Germany. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (04) 522-529
- 3 de Miguel-Díez J, Jiménez-García R, Jiménez D. et al. Trends in hospital admissions for pulmonary embolism in Spain from 2002 to 2011. Eur Respir J 2014; 44 (04) 942-950
- 4 Jiménez D, Aujesky D, Moores L. et al; RIETE Investigators. Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170 (15) 1383-1389
- 5 Zondag W, Mos ICM, Creemers-Schild D. et al; Hestia Study Investigators. Outpatient treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: the Hestia Study. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 9 (08) 1500-1507
- 6 Aujesky D, Perrier A, Roy PM. et al. Validation of a clinical prognostic model to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism. J Intern Med 2007; 261 (06) 597-604
- 7 Yamashita Y, Morimoto T, Amano H. et al. Validation of simplified PESI score for identification of low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism: From the COMMAND VTE Registry. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 9 (04) 262-270
- 8 Weeda ER, Caranfa JT, Zeichner SB, Coleman CI, Nguyen E, Kohn CG. External validation of generic and cancer-specific risk stratification tools in patients with pulmonary embolism and active cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15 (12) 1476-1482
- 9 Weeda ER, Kohn CG, Fermann GJ. et al. External validation of prognostic rules for early post-pulmonary embolism mortality: assessment of a claims-based and three clinical-based approaches. Thromb J 2016; 14: 7
- 10 Vanni S, Becattini C, Nazerian P. et al. Early discharge of patients with pulmonary embolism in daily clinical practice: A prospective observational study comparing clinical gestalt and clinical rules. Thromb Res 2018; 167: 37-43
- 11 Quezada CA, Bikdeli B, Villén T. et al. Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. Acad Emerg Med 2019; 26 (04) 394-401
- 12 Roy PM, Penaloza A, Hugli O. et al; HOME-PE Study Group. Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (33) 3146-3157
- 13 Hendriks SV, Den Exter PL, Zondag W. et al. Kruip MJHA, Mairuhu ATA, Melissant CF. Reasons for Hospitalization of Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism Based on the Hestia Decision Rule. 2020: 2-5
- 14 Marques Antunes M, Alves M, Pinto FJ, Agnelli G, Caldeira D. The high-risk bleeding category of different scores in patients with venous thromboembolism: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Intern Med 2021; 94: 45-55