Prospective validation of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

Summary

Practice guidelines recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive pulmonary embolism (PE), but fail to specify how these low-risk patients should be identified. Using data from U.S. patients, we previously derived the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), a prediction rule that risk stratifies patients with PE. We sought to validate the PESI in a European patient cohort. We prospectively validated the PESI in patients with PE diagnosed at six emergency departments in three European countries. We used baseline data for the rule’s 11 prognostic variables to stratify patients into five risk classes (I-V) of increasing probability of mortality. The outcome was overall mortality at 90 days after presentation.To assess the accuracy of the PESI to predict mortality, we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for low- (risk classes I/II) versus higher- risk patients (risk classes III-V), and the discriminatory power using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Among 357 patients with PE, overall mortality was 5.9%, ranging from 0% in class I to 17.9% in class V. The 186 (52%) low-risk patients had an overall mortality of 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1–3.8%) compared to 11.1% (95% CI: 6.8–16.8%) in the 171 (48%) higher- risk patients. The PESI had a high sensitivity (91%,95% CI: 71–97%) and a negative predictive value (99%, 95% CI: 96–100%) for predicting mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI:0.70–0.86). The PESI reliably identifies patients with PE who are at low risk of death and who are potential candidates for outpatient care. The PESI may help physicians make more rational decisions about hospitalization for patients with PE.

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism - prediction rule - prognosis - risk - validation study

• References

• 1 Kozak LJ, DeFrances CJ, Hall MJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2004 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2006; 13: 1-209.
• 2 Wells PS, Kovacs MJ, Bormanis J. et al. Expanding eligibility for outpatient treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism with low-molecular-weight heparin: a comparison of patient self-injection with homecare injection. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1809-1812.
• 3 Kovacs MJ, Anderson D, Morrow B. et al. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism with dalteparin. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 209-211.
• 4 Beer JH, Burger M, Gretener S. et al. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism is feasible and safe in a substantial proportion of patients. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 01: 186-187.
• 5 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger MA. et al. Arandomized trial comparing 2 lowmolecular-weight heparins for the outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary mbolism. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 733-738.
• 6 Ong BS, Karr MA, Chan DK. et al. Management of pulmonary embolism in the home. Med J Aust 2005; 183: 239-242.
• 7 Olsson CG, Bitzen U, Olsson B. et al. Outpatient tinzaparin therapy in pulmonary embolism quantified with ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy. Med Sci Monit 2006; 12: PI9-13.
• 8 Davies CW, Wimperis J, Green ES. et al. Early discharge of patients with pulmonary embolism: a twophase observational study. Eur Respir J 2007; 30: 708-714.
• 9 Harrison L, McGinnis J, Crowther M. et al. Assessment of outpatient treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2001-2003.
• 10 Aujesky D, Smith KJ, Cornuz J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for treatment of pulmonary embolism. Chest 2005; 128: 1601-1610.
• 11 Snow V, Qaseem A, Barry P. et al. Management of venous thromboembolism: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 204-210.
• 12 Aujesky D, Stone RA, Kim S. et al. Length of hospital stay and postdischarge mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism: a statewide perspective. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 706-712.
• 13 Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA. et al. Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 172: 1041-1046.
• 14 Aujesky D, Roy PM, Le Manach CP. et al. Validation of a model to predict adverse outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 476-481.
• 15 Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 515-524.
• 16 Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 1343-1352.
• 17 Le Gal G, Righini M, Sanchez O. et al. A positive compression ultrasonography of the lower limb veins is highly predictive of pulmonary embolism on computed tomography in suspected patients. Thromb Haemost 2006; 95: 963-966.
• 18 Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM. et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 243-250.
• 19 McGee S. Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med 2002; 17: 646-649.
• 20 Jimenez D, Yusen RD, Otero R. et al. Prognostic models for selecting patients with acute pulmonary embolism for initial outpatient therapy. Chest 2007; 132: 24-30.
• 21 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: 597-604.
• 22 McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC. et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 284: 79-84.
• 23 Wells PS. Outpatient treatment of patients with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2001; 07: 360-364.
• 24 British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Thorax. 2003; 58: 470-483.
• 25 Rhodes S, Bond S. Shifting pulmonary embolism management to primary care. Nurs Times 2006; 102: 23-24.
• 26 Laporte S, Mismetti P, Decousus H. et al. Clinical predictors for fatal pulmonary embolism in 15,520 patients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica venosa (RIETE) Registry. Circulation 2008; 117: 1711-1716.
• 27 Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA. et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Int Med 2006; 166: 169-175.
• 28 Wicki J, Perrier A, Perneger TV. et al. Predicting adverse outcome in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a risk score. Thromb Haemost 2000; 84: 548-552.
• 29 Nendaz MR, Bandelier P, Aujesky D. et al. Validation of a risk score identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism, who are at low risk of clinical adverse outcome. Thromb Haemost 2004; 91: 1232-1236.
• 30 ten Wolde M, Sohne M, Quak E. et al. Prognostic value of echocardiographically assessed right ventricular dysfunction in patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1685-1689.
• 31 Gibson NS, Sohne M, Buller HR. Prognostic value of echocardiography and spiral computed tomography in patients with pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2005; 11: 380-384.
• 32 Sohne M, Ten Wolde M, Buller HR. Biomarkers in pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Cardiol 2004; 19: 558-562.