Choosing the Right Tool: Comparing Risk Stratification Models in Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), guidelines recommend further risk stratification (Class 1 indication). However, head-to-head comparison of different risk stratification tools are lacking. Our objective was to compare the performance of 4 scores in predicting adverse clinical events in intermediate-risk PE. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 192 intermediate-risk PE patients spanning October 2016 to July 2019. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the predictive performance of the composite PE shock (CPES) score, Bova, simplified PE shock index (sPESI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory types for the primary outcome, which was a composite of PE-related in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation and its individual components. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients (14.6%) experienced the primary composite outcome. CPES demonstrated the highest discriminatory power for predicting the primary composite outcome (AUC: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83) as well as its individual components compared to the other risk scores (p = 0.008). The AUCs for the other scores were as follows: Bova, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.76); sPESI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77); NEWS, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory, AUC of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.68). The ESC intermediate-risk subcategory exhibited the lowest performance for the primary composite outcome and across all individual components. CONCLUSION: CPES score outperformed other commonly used risk stratification tools for PE-related morbidity and mortality in intermediate-risk PE patients. The findings support the integration of CPES into clinical practice to enhance patient selection for escalated care and timely interventions.
