Validation of a risk score identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism, who are at low risk of clinical adverse outcome

Summary

A clinical predictive model that accurately identifies patients with pulmonary embolism who are at low risk of adverse medical outcomes may be useful for management decisions, such as outpatient treatment. We aimed to externally validate a previously derived prognostic score identifying emergency ward patients with acute pulmonary embolism at low risk of 3- month complications. One hundred and ninety-nine consecutive patients with proven pulmonary embolism were included from the emergency centres of three teaching and general hospitals. Adverse outcomes, such as death, major bleed, or recurrent venous thromboembolism, were recorded during a 3-month follow-up. We retrospectively computed the prognostic score for each patient and determined its predictive accuracy at different threshold values. The overall 3-month risk of adverse event after the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism was 9.5%. At a threshold of 2 points, eight patients with scores at or below the cut-off (5%; 95% CI 2.6–9.6) and 11 patients with scores above this cut-off (27.5%; 95% CI 16.1–42.8) presented a complication. The negative predictive value for an adverse outcome was 95.0% (95% CI 90.4–97.4). The receiver operating characteristic curve derived from the score distribution had an area of 0.77 (95% CI 0.65–0.89). This compared favourably with the characteristics of the derivation study. We conclude that the Geneva risk score has an acceptable predictive accuracy to identify patients with pulmonary embolism at low risk for 3-month adverse outcomes. Whether this score remains accurate and useful in clinical practice should be determined in a prospective multicentre validation study.

Keywords

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

• References

• 1 Carson JL, Kelley MA, Duff A. et al. The clinical course of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 1240-5.
• 2 Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, De Rosa M. Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet 1999; 353: 1386-9.
• 3 Barritt D, Jordan S. Anticoagulant drugs in the treatment of pulmonary embolism. Lancet 1960; 01: 1309-12.
• 4 Hirsh J, Bates SM. Clinical trials that have influenced the treatment of venous thromboembolism: a historical perspective. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 409-17.
• 5 Merli G, Spiro TE, Olsson CG. et al. Subcutaneous enoxaparin once or twice daily compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin for treatment of venous thromboembolic disease. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 191-202.
• 6 Low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. The Columbus Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 657-62.
• 7 Simonneau G, Sors H, Charbonnier B. et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for acute pulmonary embolism. The THESEE Study Group. Tinzaparine ou Heparine Standard: Evaluations dans l’Embolie Pulmonaire. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 663-9.
• 8 Hull RD, Raskob GE, Brant RF. et al. Lowmolecular-weight heparin vs heparin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. American-Canadian Thrombosis Study Group. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 229-36.
• 9 Buller HR, Davidson BL, Decousus H. et al. Subcutaneous fondaparinux versus intravenous unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1695-702.
• 10 Kovacs MJ, Anderson D, Morrow B. et al. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism with dalteparin. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 209-11.
• 11 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: 1809-12.
• 12 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: 186-7.
• 13 Wicki J, Perrier A, Perneger TV. et al. Predicting adverse outcome in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a risk score. Thromb Haemost 2000; 84: 548-52.
• 14 Perrier A, Roy PM, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-Dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study. Am J Med 2004; 116: 291-9.
• 15 Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. Jama 1997; 277: 488-94.