Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).

<h4>Objective</h4>Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anthony J Weekes, Jaron D Raper, Kathryn Lupez, Alyssa M Thomas, Carly A Cox, Dasia Esener, Jeremy S Boyd, Jason T Nomura, Jillian Davison, Patrick M Ockerse, Stephen Leech, Jakea Johnson, Eric Abrams, Kathleen Murphy, Christopher Kelly, H James Norton
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/c8797c3598b547a6b93f2e812a5b0a00
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:c8797c3598b547a6b93f2e812a5b0a00
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:c8797c3598b547a6b93f2e812a5b0a002021-12-02T20:12:45ZDevelopment and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0260036https://doaj.org/article/c8797c3598b547a6b93f2e812a5b0a002021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260036https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Objective</h4>Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).<h4>Results</h4>Logistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.<h4>Conclusions</h4>PE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.Anthony J WeekesJaron D RaperKathryn LupezAlyssa M ThomasCarly A CoxDasia EsenerJeremy S BoydJason T NomuraJillian DavisonPatrick M OckerseStephen LeechJakea JohnsonEric AbramsKathleen MurphyChristopher KellyH James NortonPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 11, p e0260036 (2021)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Anthony J Weekes
Jaron D Raper
Kathryn Lupez
Alyssa M Thomas
Carly A Cox
Dasia Esener
Jeremy S Boyd
Jason T Nomura
Jillian Davison
Patrick M Ockerse
Stephen Leech
Jakea Johnson
Eric Abrams
Kathleen Murphy
Christopher Kelly
H James Norton
Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
description <h4>Objective</h4>Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).<h4>Results</h4>Logistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.<h4>Conclusions</h4>PE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.
format article
author Anthony J Weekes
Jaron D Raper
Kathryn Lupez
Alyssa M Thomas
Carly A Cox
Dasia Esener
Jeremy S Boyd
Jason T Nomura
Jillian Davison
Patrick M Ockerse
Stephen Leech
Jakea Johnson
Eric Abrams
Kathleen Murphy
Christopher Kelly
H James Norton
author_facet Anthony J Weekes
Jaron D Raper
Kathryn Lupez
Alyssa M Thomas
Carly A Cox
Dasia Esener
Jeremy S Boyd
Jason T Nomura
Jillian Davison
Patrick M Ockerse
Stephen Leech
Jakea Johnson
Eric Abrams
Kathleen Murphy
Christopher Kelly
H James Norton
author_sort Anthony J Weekes
title Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
title_short Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
title_full Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
title_fullStr Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
title_full_unstemmed Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE).
title_sort development and validation of a prognostic tool: pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (pe-score).
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/c8797c3598b547a6b93f2e812a5b0a00
work_keys_str_mv AT anthonyjweekes developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT jarondraper developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT kathrynlupez developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT alyssamthomas developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT carlyacox developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT dasiaesener developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT jeremysboyd developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT jasontnomura developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT jilliandavison developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT patrickmockerse developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT stephenleech developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT jakeajohnson developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT ericabrams developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT kathleenmurphy developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT christopherkelly developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
AT hjamesnorton developmentandvalidationofaprognostictoolpulmonaryembolismshorttermclinicaloutcomesriskestimationpescore
_version_ 1718374849029603328