Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. (10th October 2018)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. (10th October 2018)
- Main Title:
- Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism
- Authors:
- Quezada, Carlos Andrés
Bikdeli, Behnood
Villén, Tomás
Barrios, Deisy
Mercedes, Edwin
León, Francisco
Chiluiza, Diana
Barbero, Esther
Yusen, Roger D.
Jimenez, David - Editors:
- Mark Courtney, D.
- Abstract:
- Abstract: Objectives: The objective was to assess and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and the Hestia criteria for predicting short‐term mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive eligible adults with PE diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) at a large, tertiary, academic medical center in the era January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2017. We assessed and compared sPESI and Hestia criteria prognostic accuracy for 30‐day all‐cause mortality after PE diagnosis and their interobserver reliability for classifying patients as low risk or high risk. Two clinician investigators scored both prediction tools during the ED evaluation. We used the kappa statistic to test for agreement. Results: The 488‐patient cohort had a mean (±SD) age of 69.0 (±17.1) years and an approximately even sex distribution. The investigators classified one‐quarter of patients as low risk using the sPESI and Hestia criteria (28% vs. 27%, respectively). During the 30‐day follow‐up, 31 of the 488 (6.4%) patients died. Patients classified as low risk according to the sPESI and the Hestia criteria had a similar 30‐day mortality (sPESI 0.7% [1/135], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0%–4.0%; Hestia 2.3% [3/132], 95% CI = 0.5%–6.5%). The two observers had good agreement (κ = 0.80) for the Hestia criteria and very good agreement (κ = 0.97) for the sPESI. Conclusion: TheAbstract: Objectives: The objective was to assess and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and the Hestia criteria for predicting short‐term mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive eligible adults with PE diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) at a large, tertiary, academic medical center in the era January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2017. We assessed and compared sPESI and Hestia criteria prognostic accuracy for 30‐day all‐cause mortality after PE diagnosis and their interobserver reliability for classifying patients as low risk or high risk. Two clinician investigators scored both prediction tools during the ED evaluation. We used the kappa statistic to test for agreement. Results: The 488‐patient cohort had a mean (±SD) age of 69.0 (±17.1) years and an approximately even sex distribution. The investigators classified one‐quarter of patients as low risk using the sPESI and Hestia criteria (28% vs. 27%, respectively). During the 30‐day follow‐up, 31 of the 488 (6.4%) patients died. Patients classified as low risk according to the sPESI and the Hestia criteria had a similar 30‐day mortality (sPESI 0.7% [1/135], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0%–4.0%; Hestia 2.3% [3/132], 95% CI = 0.5%–6.5%). The two observers had good agreement (κ = 0.80) for the Hestia criteria and very good agreement (κ = 0.97) for the sPESI. Conclusion: The sPESI and the Hestia criteria had similar risk classification determination and prognostic accuracy for 30‐day mortality after PE. However, the succinct and more objective sPESI had higher interobserver reliability than the Hestia criteria. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Academic emergency medicine. Volume 26:Number 4(2019)
- Journal:
- Academic emergency medicine
- Issue:
- Volume 26:Number 4(2019)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 26, Issue 4 (2019)
- Year:
- 2019
- Volume:
- 26
- Issue:
- 4
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2019-0026-0004-0000
- Page Start:
- 394
- Page End:
- 401
- Publication Date:
- 2018-10-10
- Subjects:
- Emergency medicine -- Periodicals
616.02505 - Journal URLs:
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15532712 ↗
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1111/acem.13561 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1069-6563
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 0570.511250
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 9850.xml