A comparison of the original and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

Summary

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated clinical prognostic model for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). Recently, a simplified version of the PESI was developed. We sought to compare the prognostic performance of the original and simplified PESI. Using data from 15,531 patients with PE, we compared the proportions of patients classified as low versus higher risk between the original and simplified PESI and estimated 30-day mortality within each risk group. To assess the models’ accuracy to predict mortality, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values and likelihood ratios for low-versus higher-risk patients. We also compared the models’ discriminative power by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. The overall 30-day mortality was 9.3%. The original PESI classified a significantly greater proportion of patients as low-risk than the simplified PESI (40.9% vs. 36.8%; p<0.001). Low-risk patients based on the original and simplified PESI had a mortality of 2.3% and 2.7%, respectively. The original and simplified PESI had similar sensitivities (90% vs. 89%), negative predictive values (98% vs. 97%), and negative likelihood ratios (0.23 vs. 0.28) for predicting mortality. The original PESI had a significantly greater discriminatory power than the simplified PESI (area under the ROC curve 0.78 [95% CI: 0.77–0.79] vs. 0.72 [95% CI: 0.71–0.74]; p<0.001). In conclusion, even though the simplified PESI accurately identified patients at low-risk of adverse outcomes, the original PESI classified a higher proportion of patients as low-risk and had a greater discriminatory power than the simplified PESI.

Institution where the work was carried out: Division of General Internal Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.

Keywords

Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index - prognosis

• References

• 1 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.
• 2 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.
• 3 Donze J, Le Gal G, Fine MJ. et al. Prospective validation of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index. A clinical prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2008; 100: 943-948.
• 4 Fraga M, Taffe P, Mean M. et al. The inter-rater reliability of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index. Thromb Haemost 2010; 104: 1258-1262.
• 5 Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F. et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011 in press.
• 6 Jimenez D, Aujesky D, Moores L. et al. Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1383-1389.
• 7 MacMahon B. The National Death Index. Am J Public Health 1983; 73: 1247-1248.
• 8 Cowper DC, Kubal JD, Maynard C. et al. A primer and comparative review of major US mortality databases. Ann Epidemiol 2002; 12: 462-468.
• 9 Williams BC, Demitrack LB, Fries BE. The accuracy of the National Death Index when personal identifiers other than Social Security number are used. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 1145-1147.
• 10 Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN. et al. Predictors of survival after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based, cohort study. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 445-453.
• 11 Lee AY, Levine MN. Venous thromboembolism and cancer: risks and outcomes. Circulation 2003; 107 (Suppl. 231) I17-21.
• 12 Kovacs MJ, Hawel JD, Rekman JF. et al. Ambulatory management of pulmonary embolism: a pragmatic evaluation. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 2406-2411.
• 13 Erkens PM, Gandara E, Wells P. et al. Safety of outpatient treatment in acute pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 2412-2417.
• 14 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.
• 15 Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 201-209.
• 16 White RH, Garcia M, Sadeghi B. et al. Evaluation of the predictive value of ICD-9-CM coded administrative data for venous thromboembolism in the United States. Thromb Res 2010; 126: 61-67.