识别急性肺栓塞患者短期死亡风险的四种风险分层模型的比较分析

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Kwadwo O Bonsu, Stephanie W Young, Tiffany Lee, Hai V Nguyen, Rufaro S Chitsike
{"title":"识别急性肺栓塞患者短期死亡风险的四种风险分层模型的比较分析","authors":"Kwadwo O Bonsu, Stephanie W Young, Tiffany Lee, Hai V Nguyen, Rufaro S Chitsike","doi":"10.1055/a-2621-0465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is potentially life-threatening, with up to 15% risk of death. We compared four risk stratification models to identify outpatients at risk of mortality up to 90 days post acute PE. A retrospective cohort study included outpatients aged ≥18 years with confirmed PE from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019, identified via diagnostic imaging reports. Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia scores were calculated as per original derivation methods. Patients were stratified by four models: sPESI alone, Hestia alone, sPESI plus right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), and Hestia plus RVD. Model accuracy and discriminatory power for 30- and 90-day mortality were assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The study comprised 785 outpatients (mean age 65.0 years; 42.2% male). Overall mortality rates were 4.1% at 30 days and 7.8% at 90 days. sPESI identified 31.5% as low risk versus 19.1% by Hestia. All models demonstrated 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value for 30-day mortality, but modest discriminatory power (AUC range: 59.2-67.1). sPESI consistently outperformed other models in both timeframes. Including RVD with sPESI or Hestia did not enhance accuracy and slightly reduced performance. The net reclassification index indicated minor improvement in non-event classification with RVD, but no benefit for identifying deaths. sPESI remains a modest yet effective predictor of mortality risk within 90 days following acute PE, consistently outperforming sPESI + RVD, Hestia alone, and Hestia + RVD at both 30 and 90 days. Adding RVD minimally improved predictive accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":21673,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of Four Risk Stratification Models to Identify Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism at Risk of Short-term Mortality.\",\"authors\":\"Kwadwo O Bonsu, Stephanie W Young, Tiffany Lee, Hai V Nguyen, Rufaro S Chitsike\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2621-0465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is potentially life-threatening, with up to 15% risk of death. We compared four risk stratification models to identify outpatients at risk of mortality up to 90 days post acute PE. A retrospective cohort study included outpatients aged ≥18 years with confirmed PE from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019, identified via diagnostic imaging reports. Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia scores were calculated as per original derivation methods. Patients were stratified by four models: sPESI alone, Hestia alone, sPESI plus right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), and Hestia plus RVD. Model accuracy and discriminatory power for 30- and 90-day mortality were assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The study comprised 785 outpatients (mean age 65.0 years; 42.2% male). Overall mortality rates were 4.1% at 30 days and 7.8% at 90 days. sPESI identified 31.5% as low risk versus 19.1% by Hestia. All models demonstrated 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value for 30-day mortality, but modest discriminatory power (AUC range: 59.2-67.1). sPESI consistently outperformed other models in both timeframes. Including RVD with sPESI or Hestia did not enhance accuracy and slightly reduced performance. The net reclassification index indicated minor improvement in non-event classification with RVD, but no benefit for identifying deaths. sPESI remains a modest yet effective predictor of mortality risk within 90 days following acute PE, consistently outperforming sPESI + RVD, Hestia alone, and Hestia + RVD at both 30 and 90 days. Adding RVD minimally improved predictive accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2621-0465\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2621-0465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

急性肺栓塞(PE)可能危及生命,死亡风险高达15%。我们比较了四种风险分层模型,以确定急性PE后90天内有死亡风险的门诊患者。一项回顾性队列研究纳入了2014年6月1日至2019年5月31日期间年龄≥18岁、经诊断成像报告确诊为PE的门诊患者。简化肺栓塞严重程度指数(sPESI)和Hestia评分按原始推导方法计算。患者分为4种模型:sPESI单独、Hestia单独、sPESI合并右心室功能障碍(RVD)、Hestia合并RVD。通过受试者工作曲线下面积(AUC)评估模型的准确性和对30天和90天死亡率的判别能力。该研究纳入785例门诊患者(平均年龄65.0岁;42.2%的男性)。30天和90天的总死亡率分别为4.1%和7.8%。sPESI确定31.5%为低风险,而Hestia为19.1%。所有模型对30天死亡率的敏感性均为100%,预测值为阴性,但判别力适中(AUC范围:59.2-67.1)。在这两个时间范围内,sPESI始终优于其他模型。将RVD与sPESI或Hestia结合使用并没有提高准确性,反而略微降低了性能。净重分类指数表明,RVD对非事件分类有轻微改善,但对确定死亡没有好处。sPESI仍然是一个适度但有效的预测急性PE后90天内死亡风险的指标,在30天和90天内,sPESI+RVD、Hestia单独和Hestia+RVD的表现始终优于sPESI+RVD。添加RVD可最低限度地提高预测准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of Four Risk Stratification Models to Identify Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism at Risk of Short-term Mortality.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is potentially life-threatening, with up to 15% risk of death. We compared four risk stratification models to identify outpatients at risk of mortality up to 90 days post acute PE. A retrospective cohort study included outpatients aged ≥18 years with confirmed PE from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019, identified via diagnostic imaging reports. Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia scores were calculated as per original derivation methods. Patients were stratified by four models: sPESI alone, Hestia alone, sPESI plus right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), and Hestia plus RVD. Model accuracy and discriminatory power for 30- and 90-day mortality were assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The study comprised 785 outpatients (mean age 65.0 years; 42.2% male). Overall mortality rates were 4.1% at 30 days and 7.8% at 90 days. sPESI identified 31.5% as low risk versus 19.1% by Hestia. All models demonstrated 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value for 30-day mortality, but modest discriminatory power (AUC range: 59.2-67.1). sPESI consistently outperformed other models in both timeframes. Including RVD with sPESI or Hestia did not enhance accuracy and slightly reduced performance. The net reclassification index indicated minor improvement in non-event classification with RVD, but no benefit for identifying deaths. sPESI remains a modest yet effective predictor of mortality risk within 90 days following acute PE, consistently outperforming sPESI + RVD, Hestia alone, and Hestia + RVD at both 30 and 90 days. Adding RVD minimally improved predictive accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis
Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
21.10%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis is a topic driven review journal that focuses on all issues relating to hemostatic and thrombotic disorders. As one of the premiere review journals in the field, Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis serves as a comprehensive forum for important advances in clinical and laboratory diagnosis and therapeutic interventions. The journal also publishes peer reviewed original research papers. Seminars offers an informed perspective on today''s pivotal issues, including hemophilia A & B, thrombophilia, gene therapy, venous and arterial thrombosis, von Willebrand disease, vascular disorders and thromboembolic diseases. Attention is also given to the latest developments in pharmaceutical drugs along with treatment and current management techniques. The journal also frequently publishes sponsored supplements to further highlight emerging trends in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信