RATIONALE: An objective and simple prognostic model for patients with pulmonary embolism could be helpful in guiding initial intensity of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical prediction rule that accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into categories of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. METHODS: We randomly allocated 15,531 inpatient discharges with pulmonary embolism from 186 Pennsylvania hospitals to derivation (67%) and internal validation (33%) samples. We derived our prediction rule using logistic regression with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome, and patient demographic and clinical data routinely available at presentation as potential predictor variables. We externally validated the rule in 221 inpatients with pulmonary embolism from Switzerland and France. MEASUREMENTS: We compared mortality and nonfatal adverse medical outcomes across the derivation and two validation samples. MAIN RESULTS: The prediction rule is based on 11 simple patient characteristics that were independently associated with mortality and stratifies patients with pulmonary embolism into five severity classes, with 30-day mortality rates of 0-1.6% in class I, 1.7-3.5% in class II, 3.2-7.1% in class III, 4.0-11.4% in class IV, and 10.0-24.5% in class V across the derivation and validation samples. Inpatient death and nonfatal complications were <or= 1.1% among patients in class I and <or= 1.9% among patients in class II. CONCLUSIONS: Our rule accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into classes of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. Further validation of the rule is important before its implementation as a decision aid to guide the initial management of patients with pulmonary embolism.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: An objective and simple prognostic model for patients with pulmonary embolism could be helpful in guiding initial intensity of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical prediction rule that accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into categories of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. METHODS: We randomly allocated 15,531 inpatient discharges with pulmonary embolism from 186 Pennsylvania hospitals to derivation (67%) and internal validation (33%) samples. We derived our prediction rule using logistic regression with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome, and patient demographic and clinical data routinely available at presentation as potential predictor variables. We externally validated the rule in 221 inpatients with pulmonary embolism from Switzerland and France. MEASUREMENTS: We compared mortality and nonfatal adverse medical outcomes across the derivation and two validation samples. MAIN RESULTS: The prediction rule is based on 11 simple patient characteristics that were independently associated with mortality and stratifies patients with pulmonary embolism into five severity classes, with 30-day mortality rates of 0-1.6% in class I, 1.7-3.5% in class II, 3.2-7.1% in class III, 4.0-11.4% in class IV, and 10.0-24.5% in class V across the derivation and validation samples. Inpatient death and nonfatal complications were <or= 1.1% among patients in class I and <or= 1.9% among patients in class II. CONCLUSIONS: Our rule accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into classes of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. Further validation of the rule is important before its implementation as a decision aid to guide the initial management of patients with pulmonary embolism.
Authors: G Simonneau; H Sors; B Charbonnier; Y Page; J P Laaban; R Azarian; M Laurent; J L Hirsch; E Ferrari; J L Bosson; D Mottier; B Beau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-09-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas E Auble; Margaret Hsieh; William Gardner; Gregory F Cooper; Roslyn A Stone; Julie B McCausland; Donald M Yealy Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Drahomir Aujesky; D Scott Obrosky; Roslyn A Stone; Thomas E Auble; Arnaud Perrier; Jacques Cornuz; Pierre-Marie Roy; Michael J Fine Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-01-23
Authors: I Kürkciyan; G Meron; F Sterz; K Janata; H Domanovits; M Holzer; A Berzlanovich; H C Bankl; A N Laggner Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2000-05-22
Authors: William Kanich; William J Brady; J Stephen Huff; Andrew D Perron; Christopher Holstege; George Lindbeck; C Thomas Carter Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: H R Büller; B L Davidson; H Decousus; A Gallus; M Gent; F Piovella; M H Prins; G Raskob; A E M van den Berg-Segers; R Cariou; O Leeuwenkamp; A W A Lensing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Jiménez; José Luis Lobo; Manuel Monreal; Remedios Otero; Roger D Yusen Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Jürgen Leick; Christoph Liebetrau; Sebastian Szardien; Matthias Willmer; Johannes Rixe; Holger Nef; Andreas Rolf; Christian Hamm; Helge Möllmann Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Yu Lin Chen; Colin Wright; Anthony P Pietropaoli; Ayman Elbadawi; Joseph Delehanty; Bryan Barrus; Igor Gosev; David Trawick; Dhwani Patel; Scott J Cameron Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Said A Ibrahim; Roslyn A Stone; D Scott Obrosky; Jennifer Sartorius; Michael J Fine; Drahomir Aujesky Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 9.308