Related Experiment Videos
Prospective comparison of clinical prognostic scores in elder patients with a pulmonary embolism
D Zwierzina1, A Limacher, M Méan
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Bern Clinical Trials Unit Bern, Department of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern Division of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva Department of Angiology, Basel University Hospital, Basel Cantonal Hospital of Baden, Baden Department of Internal Medicine, Cantonal Hospital of Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld Emergency Department, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen, St. Gallen Division of Angiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern Cardiovascular Research, Institute of Physiology, Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Zurich Division of Angiology, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne Service and Central Laboratory of Hematology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne Division of Haematology and Central Haematology Laboratory, Bern University Hospital, Bern Division of Angiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne Emergency Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne Division of Angiology, Zurich University Hospital, Zurich Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Background:
The Geneva Prognostic Score (GPS), the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and its simplified version (sPESI) are well-known clinical prognostic scores for a pulmonary embolism (PE).
Objectives:
To compare the prognostic performance of these scores in elderly patients with a PE.
Patients And Methods:
In a multicenter Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism, we prospectively studied 449 patients aged ≥ 65 years with a symptomatic PE. The outcome was 30-day overall mortality. We dichotomized patients as low vs. higher risk in all three scores using the following thresholds: GPS scores ≤ 2 vs. > 2, PESI risk classes I-II vs. III-V and sPESI scores 0 vs. ≥ 1. We compared 30-day mortality in low- vs. higher-risk patients and the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC).
Results:
Overall, 3.8% of patients (17/449) died within 30 days. The GPS classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (92% [413/449]) than the PESI (36.3% [163/449]) and the sPESI (39.6% [178/449]) (P < 0.001 for each comparison). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a mortality of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-2.1%) compared with 0.6% (95% CI 0-3.4%) for low-risk patients based on the PESI and 3.4% (95% CI 1.9-5.6%) for low-risk patients based on the GPS. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81), 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively (P = 0.47).
Conclusions:
In this cohort of elderly patients with PE, the GPS identified a higher proportion of patients as low risk but the PESI and sPESI were more accurate in predicting mortality.
Related Concept Videos
01:29Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
01:27Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
01:19Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction
01:29Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction