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

Performance of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index in predicting 30-day mortality after acute pulmonary embolism: Validation from a large-scale cohort

BACKGROUND

The performance of existing prognostic scores including the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for short-term mortality of non-high-risk PE in Chinese population has not been widely validated.

METHODS

Non-high-risk patients were included from the prospective cohort of the China pUlmonary Thromboembolism REgistry Study (CURES). The sPESI, RIETE, Geneva, modified FAST, and Bova score were validated. The discriminatory performance was measured by the area under the curve (AUC). We also compared the sensitivity, odds ratio, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of these scores.

RESULTS

A total of 6,873 non-high-risk patients with acute PE were included and 241 (3.5 %) patients died within 30 days. Compared to the Geneva, modified FAST, and Bova score, the AUCs for predicting 30-day death of sPESI and RIETE score were higher at 0.712 (95 % CI, 0.680, 0.743) and 0.723 (95 % CI, 0.691, 0.755) respectively. The sPESI demonstrated the highest sensitivity at 0.809, while the RIETE score, Geneva, Modified FAST and BOVA score showed sensitivities of 0.622, 0.568, 0.477 and 0.502 respectively. A sPESI ⩾1 point was associated with a 4.7-fold increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality (95 % CI, 3.427, 6.563, p < 0.001), while a RIETE score of ⩾1 point was associated with a 4.5-fold increased risk (95 % CI, 3.127, 6.341, p < 0.001). The Geneva score, modified FAST and Bova score showed inferior performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the fewer-parameter, easier-to-calculate sPESI in Chinese patients with PE can help to discriminate patients with extremely low risk of short-term mortality for home treatment or early discharge.

Pulmonary embolism management in the emergency department: part 2

Pulmonary embolism (PE) can present with a range of severity. Prognostic risk stratification is important for efficacious and safe management. This second of two review articles discusses the management of high-, intermediate- and low-risk PE. We discuss strategies to identify patients suitable for urgent outpatient care in addition to identification of patients who would benefit from thrombolysis. We discuss specific subgroups of patients where optimal treatment differs from the usual approach and identify emerging management paradigms exploring new therapies and subgroups.

Effect of Prognostic Guided Management of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism According to the European Society of Cardiology Risk Stratification Model

Background

A recent trial showed that management driven by prognostic assessment was effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) for acute stable pulmonary embolism (PE). The efficacy and safety of this strategy in each subgroup of risk stratification remains unknown.

Methods

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the randomized IPEP study to evaluate the effect of a management strategy guided by early use of a prognostic pathway in the low- and intermediate-high risk subgroups defined by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) model. These subgroups were retrospectively identified in the control arm. The primary outcome was LOS. The secondary outcomes were 30-day clinical outcomes.

Results

Of 249 patients assigned to the intervention group, 60 (24%) were classified as low-, and 30 (12%) as intermediate-high risk. Among 249 patients assigned to the control group, 66 (27%) were low-, and 13 (5%) intermediate-high risk. In the low-risk group, the mean LOS was 2.1 (±0.9) days in the intervention group and 5.3 (±2.9) days in the control group (P < 0.001). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (0% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (0% vs. 0%) and PE-related mortality rates (0% vs. 0%), or severe adverse events (0% vs. 1.5%). In the intermediate-high risk group, the mean LOS was 5.3 (±1.8) days in the intervention group and 6.5 (±2.5) days in the control group (P = 0.08). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (3.3% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (6.7% vs. 7.7%) and PE-related mortality rates (6.7% vs. 7.7%), or severe adverse events (16.7% vs. 15.4%).

Conclusion

The use of a prognostic assessment and management pathway was effective in reducing the LOS for acute PE without comprising safety across subgroups of risk stratification.

Clinical Trial Registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT02733198].

[Translated article] Multidisciplinary consensus for the management of pulmonary thromboembolism

We have updated recommendations on 12 controversial topics that were published in the 2013 National Consensus on the diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). A comprehensive review of the literature was performed for each topic, and each recommendation was evaluated in two teleconferences. For diagnosis, we recommend against using the Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) rule as the only test to rule out PE, and we recommend using a d-dimer cutoff adjusted to age to rule out PE. We suggest using computed tomography pulmonary angiogram as the imaging test of choice for the majority of patients with suspected PE. We recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (over vitamin K antagonists) for the vast majority of patients with acute PE, and we suggest using anticoagulation for patients with isolated subsegmental PE. We recommend against inserting an inferior cava filter for the majority of patients with PE, and we recommend using full-dose systemic thrombolytic therapy for PE patients requiring reperfusion. The decision to stop anticoagulants at 3 months or to treat indefinitely mainly depends on the presence (or absence) and type of risk factor for venous thromboembolism, and we recommend against thrombophilia testing to decide duration of anticoagulation. Finally, we suggest against extensive screening for occult cancer in patients with PE.

Prognostic Performance of Hestia Criteria in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have suggested that Hestia criteria could effectively identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who were at low risk of mortality for outpatient treatment or early discharge. But the performance of Hestia criteria in stratifying patients at different risk class is still unknown. We sought to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic impact of Hestia criteria for PE. The literatures search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from 1 August 2011 to 31 October 2021. Finally, Eight studies with 4110 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the pool percentage of patients classified as low-risk group and high-risk group were 41.4%% and 58.6% respectively, and the all-course mortality rates of each group were 2.3% and 10.6%, respectively. The pooled rate of PE-related composite adverse outcomes in high-risk group was increasingly higher than in low-risk group (15.7% vs 4.4%). High risk group was also markedly associated with overall mortality (OR: 7.21, 95%CI: 4.96-10.46, p < 0.00001), and PE-related adverse outcomes (OR:5.38, 95% CI:3.95-7.32, p < 0.00001). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR of Hestia criteria for overall mortality were 0.90 (95% CI:0.83-0.94), 0.43 (95% CI:0.31-0.55), 1.6 (95% CI:1.3-1.9), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.35), respectively. The area under SROC curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84). The result of our meta-analysis indicate that Hestia criteria can effectively identify PE patients at low risk of poor prognosis with high sensitivity and NPV, but its prognostic role in patients with higher risk class still need to be verified.

Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

Outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes the diagnosis of either deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). This review discusses an evidence-based approach to the outpatient treatment of VTE in the emergency care setting. Main findings: The majority of patients diagnosed with VTE in the acute care setting are at low risk for an adverse event. Outpatient treatment for patients deemed low-risk by validated clinical decision tools leads to safe, efficacious, patient-centered, and cost-effective care. From a patient perspective, outpatient treatment of VTE can been simplified by the use of direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) medications, and is supported by clinical trial evidence, and clinical practice guidelines from international societies. Outpatient treatment of patients with DVT has been more widely accepted as a best practice, while adoption of outpatient treatment of low-risk patients with acute PE has lagged. Many acute care clinicians remain wary of discharging patients with PE, concerned about drug access, adherence, and follow-up. Patients with VTE should be risk stratified identically as emerging evidence has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the interdependence of acute care protocols for the outpatient treatment of low-risk DVT and PE. Clinicians who practice in the acute care setting should be comfortable with risk stratification, anticoagulation, and discharge of low-risk VTE.

Multidisciplinary Consensus for the Management of Pulmonary Thromboembolism

We have updated recommendations on 12 controversial topics that were published in the 2013 National Consensus on the diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). A comprehensive review of the literature was performed for each topic, and each recommendation was evaluated in two teleconferences. For diagnosis, we recommend against using the Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC) rule as the only test to rule out PE, and we recommend using a D-dimer cutoff adjusted to age to rule out PE. We suggest using computed tomography pulmonary angiogram as the imaging test of choice for the majority of patients with suspected PE. We recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (over vitamin K antagonists) for the vast majority of patients with acute PE, and we suggest using anticoagulation for patients with isolated subsegmental PE. We recommend against inserting an inferior cava filter for the majority of patients with PE, and we recommend using full-dose systemic thrombolytic therapy for PE patients requiring reperfusion. The decision to stop anticoagulants at 3 months or to treat indefinitely mainly depends on the presence (or absence) and type of risk factor for venous thromboembolism, and we recommend against thrombophilia testing to decide duration of anticoagulation. Finally, we suggest against extensive screening for occult cancer in patients with PE.

A New Index for the Prediction of 30-Day Mortality in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: The Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Score (PEMS)

Our aim was to analyze possibility of combination of basic clinical and radiological signs to predict 30-day mortality after acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We included 486 patients. Age, gender, simplified pulmonary embolism index (sPESI), pH, troponin, N-terminal natriuretic peptide, minimal systolic and diastolic blood pressure, O₂ saturation, syncope, need for vasopressors, thrombotic obstruction, vessel diameter, short axis ratio right ventricle/left ventricle, and contrast medium reflux into the inferior vena cava (IVC) were analyzed. A backward algorithm in a logistic regression model was used to identify relevant risk factors. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified that sPESI, pH, minimal diastolic blood pressure, IVC reflux, and need for vasopressors influenced 30-day mortality. A score for mortality prediction was constructed (the Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Score): sPESI >2 points (1 point), pH <7.35 (1 point), minimal diastolic blood pressure <45 mm Hg (1 point), IVC reflux (1 point), and need for vasopressors (2 points). Patients with >3 points showed higher 30-day mortality (sensitivity: 84.9%, specificity: 83.0%, positive predictive value: 51.8%, negative predictive value: 96.2%). The net reclassification improvement compared with the sPESI was 0.94 (95% CI = 0.73-1.15). In conclusion, a new score can predict 30-day mortality in patients with PE and is more sensitive than sPESI.

Study protocol for a multicentre implementation trial of monotherapy anticoagulation to expedite home treatment of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, many emergency departments (EDs) have established protocols to treat patients with newly diagnosed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as outpatients. Similar treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) has been proposed, but no large-scale study has been published to evaluate a comprehensive, integrated protocol that employs monotherapy anticoagulation to treat patients diagnosed with DVT and PE in the ED.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes the implementation of the Monotherapy Anticoagulation To expedite Home treatment of Venous ThromboEmbolism (MATH-VTE) study at 33 hospitals in the USA. The study was designed and executed to meet the requirements for the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies guideline. The study was funded by investigator-initiated awards from industry, with Indiana University as the sponsor. The study principal investigator and study associates travelled to each site to provide on-site training. The protocol identically screens patients with both DVT or PE to determine low risk of death using either the modified Hestia criteria or physician judgement plus a negative result from the simplified PE severity index. Patients must be discharged from the ED within 24 hours of triage and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Overall effectiveness is based upon the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of recurrent VTE and bleeding requiring hospitalisation respectively. Target enrolment of 1300 patients was estimated with efficacy success defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI for the 30-day frequency of VTE recurrence below 2.0%. Thirty-three hospitals in 17 states were initiated in 2016-2017.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All sites had Institutional Review Board approval. We anticipate completion of enrolment in June 2020; study data will be available after peer-reviewed publication. MATH-VTE will provide information from a large multicentre sample of US patients about the efficacy and safety of home treatment of VTE with monotherapy anticoagulation.

Reducing the hospital burden associated with the treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most feared clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with PE have traditionally been treated in hospital; however, many are at low risk of adverse outcomes and current guidelines suggest outpatient treatment as an option. Outpatient treatment of PE offers several advantages, including reduced risk of hospital-acquired conditions and potential cost savings. Despite this, patients with low-risk PE are still frequently hospitalized for treatment. This narrative review summarizes current guideline recommendations for the identification of patients with low-risk PE who are potentially suitable for outpatient treatment, using prognostic assessment tools (e.g. the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and simplified PESI) and clinical exclusion criteria (e.g. Hestia criteria) alone or in combination with additional cardiac assessments. Treatment options are discussed along with recommendations for the follow-up of patients managed in the non-hospital environment. The available data on outpatient treatment of PE are summarized, including details on patient selection, anticoagulant choice, and short-term outcomes in each study. Accumulating evidence suggests that outcomes in patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients are at least as good as, if not better than, those of patients treated in the hospital. With mounting pressures on health care systems worldwide, increasing the proportion of patients with PE treated as outpatients has the potential to reduce health care burdens associated with VTE.