Clinical gestalt versus prognostic scores for prognostication of patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism

Impact of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) in the prognosis of patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

The effect of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) in the short-term prognosis of patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) lacks clarity. We therefore aimed at evaluating the effect of a PERT team on short-term mortality among patients with acute PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with acute symptomatic PE enrolled in a single-center registry between 2007 and 2022. We used propensity score matching to compare treatment effects for patients with similar predicted probabilities of receiving management by the PERT team. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days following the diagnosis of PE. The secondary outcome was 30-day PE-related mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 2,902 eligible patients who had acute symptomatic PE, 223 (7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7%-8.7%) were managed by the PERT team. Two hundred and seven patients who were treated by the PERT were matched with 207 patients who were not. Matched pairs did not show a statistically significant lower all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.63-1.89) or PE-related death (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.47-3.62) for PERT management compared with no PERT management through 30 days after diagnosis of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that multidisciplinary care of patients with acute symptomatic PE by a PERT team is not associated with a significant reduction in short-term all-cause or PE-related mortality.

Prediction of in-hospital deterioration in normotensive pulmonary embolism remains elusive: external validation of the calgary acute pulmonary embolism score

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequently diagnosed condition. Prediction of in-hospital deterioration is challenging with current risk models. The Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism (CAPE) score was recently derived to predict in-hospital adverse PE outcomes but has not yet been externally validated. Retrospective cohort study of normotensive acute pulmonary embolism cases diagnosed in our emergency department between 2017 and 2019. An external validation of the CAPE score was performed in this population for prediction of in-hospital adverse outcomes and a secondary outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality. Performance of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Bova score was also evaluated. 712 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 536 patients having a sPESI score of 1 or more. Among this population, the CAPE score had a weak discriminative power to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes, with a calculated c-statistic of 0.57. In this study population, an external validation study found weak discriminative power of the CAPE score to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes among normotensive PE patients. Further efforts are needed to define risk assessment models that can identify normotensive PE patients at risk for in hospital deterioration. Identification of such patients will better guide intensive care utilization and invasive procedural management of PE.

Gestalt clinical severity score (GCSS) as a predictor of patient severity of illness or injury

OBJECTIVE

To determine if clinical judgement is accurate to predict the severity of injury or illness, and can be used at patient arrival when other formal scoring systems are not yet available.

DESIGN

A multicenter pilot study using a prospective observational convenience sample of patients arriving by EMS to the emergency department (ED) or Trauma Center.

SETTING

Two urban, Level 1 trauma centers at academic tertiary care hospitals.

PATIENTS

Medical and trauma patients age 18 and older transported by EMS (N = 216). Exclusion criteria (prior to arrival): intubation, assisted ventilation (BVM or NPPV), CPR in progress, prisoners, or previously present motor or speech deficits.

MEASUREMENTS

Completion of a novel 15-point scale of Verbal, Motor, and Facial Expression within 1-2 min of arrival by a clinician outside of the treatment team. Primary endpoint was the immediate disposition from the ED or Trauma Center: Home, Brief Observation (<24 h), Admission to Floor, ICU (OR and IR as surrogates since these patients ultimately go to the ICU), or Morgue.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis revealed a strong, positive monotonic correlation between GCSS and disposition (Rho = 0.693, p < .0001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed the "best" model included GCSS and age (group 18-44 years old versus all the other age groups) (p < .0001). There was a 156% increase in the odds of being discharged home (versus being admitted) for a one-unit increase in GCSS (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.94, 3.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians can make accurate predictions of severity of injury and illness using a gestalt method and the scoring system we have developed as patient disposition correlates well with GCSS score. GCSS is most accurate with the 18-44 age group.

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams

IMPORTANCE

The risk of death from acute pulmonary embolism can range as high as 15%, depending on patient factors at initial presentation. Acute treatment decisions are largely based on an estimate of this mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study was conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 at 8 hospitals participating in the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium registry. Included patients were adults who presented with acute pulmonary embolism and had sufficient information in the medical record to calculate risk scores. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause mortality (7- and 30-day) and associated discrimination were assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 416 patients with acute pulmonary embolism (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [17.6] years; 207 men [49.8%]), 7-day mortality in the low-risk groups ranged from 1.3% (1 patient) to 3.1% (4 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 2.6% (1 patient) to 10.2% (13 patients). Among patients in the highest-risk groups, the 7-day mortality ranged from 7.0% (18 patients) to 16.3% (7 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 14.4% (37 patients) to 26.3% (26 patients). Each of the risk stratification tools had modest discrimination for 7-day mortality (AUC range, 0.616-0.666) with slightly lower discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC range, 0.550-0.694).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that commonly used risk tools for acute pulmonary embolism have modest estimating ability. Future studies to develop and validate better risk assessment tools are needed.

Risk adapted management of acute pulmonary embolism in women

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third most common cause of cardiovascular death worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prompt risk stratification of patients with acute PE. Prognostication may accurately identify: 1) hemodynamically unstable (i.e., high-risk) patients with PE, who might benefit from recanalization therapies (i.e., thrombolysis, embolectomy); 2) intermediate- to high-risk patients with PE, who might require monitoring and recanalization procedures if early hemodynamic decompensation occurs; and 3) low-risk patients with PE, who might benefit from an abbreviated hospital stay or outpatient therapy. A fourth group of patients should not undergo escalated or home therapy (intermediate- to low-risk PE). Studies of patients with proven acute PE have shown conflicting data regarding the association between sex and presentation and short-term clinical course in patients with acute symptomatic PE. Therefore, at this time sex differences should not dictate different approaches to prognostication and management.

Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and the Hestia criteria for predicting short-term mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive eligible adults with PE diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) at a large, tertiary, academic medical center in the era January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2017. We assessed and compared sPESI and Hestia criteria prognostic accuracy for 30-day all-cause mortality after PE diagnosis and their interobserver reliability for classifying patients as low risk or high risk. Two clinician investigators scored both prediction tools during the ED evaluation. We used the kappa statistic to test for agreement.

RESULTS

The 488-patient cohort had a mean (±SD) age of 69.0 (±17.1) years and an approximately even sex distribution. The investigators classified one-quarter of patients as low risk using the sPESI and Hestia criteria (28% vs. 27%, respectively). During the 30-day follow-up, 31 of the 488 (6.4%) patients died. Patients classified as low risk according to the sPESI and the Hestia criteria had a similar 30-day mortality (sPESI 0.7% [1/135], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0%-4.0%; Hestia 2.3% [3/132], 95% CI = 0.5%-6.5%). The two observers had good agreement (κ = 0.80) for the Hestia criteria and very good agreement (κ = 0.97) for the sPESI.

CONCLUSION

The sPESI and the Hestia criteria had similar risk classification determination and prognostic accuracy for 30-day mortality after PE. However, the succinct and more objective sPESI had higher interobserver reliability than the Hestia criteria.