No abstract

No abstract

Aims The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. Methods and results Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient’s opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. Conclusions For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

IMPORTANCEIn patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), overuse of diagnostic imaging is an important point of concern.OBJECTIVE To derive and validate a 4-level pretest probability rule (4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score [4PEPS]) that makes it possible to rule out PE solely on clinical criteria and optimized D-dimer measurement to safely decrease imaging testing for suspected PE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis study included consecutive outpatients suspected of having PE from US and European emergency departments. Individual data from 3 merged management studies (n = 11 114; overall prevalence of PE, 11%) were used for the derivation cohort and internal validation cohort. The external validation cohorts were taken from 2 independent studies, the first with a high PE prevalence (n = 1548; prevalence, 21.5%) and the second with a moderate PE prevalence (n = 1669; prevalence, 11.7%). A prior definition of pretest probability target values to achieve a posttest probability less than 2% was used on the basis of the negative likelihood ratios of D-dimer.

Background The decision to hospitalize or not patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. Despite the advantages of close monitoring, hospitalization by itself may lead to in-hospital complications and potentially worsen the prognosis of PE patients. Objectives To determine the net clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient management of normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Retrospective cohort propensity score analysis (radius marching with replacement). Hemodynamically stable PE patients treated as outpatients or inpatients were matched to balance out differences for 28 patient characteristics and known risk factors for adverse events. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events at 14 days, including recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding or death. Results Among 1127 eligible patients, 1081 were included in the matched cohort, 576 treated as inpatients and 505 as outpatients. The 14-day rate of adverse events was 13.0% for inpatients and 3.3% for outpatients (adjusted OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.68-15.28). The 3-month rate was 21.7% for inpatients and 6.9% for outpatients (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.62-9.17). In the high-risk subgroup (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class III-V; n = 597), the 14-day rate of adverse events was 16.5% for hospitalized patients vs. 4.5% for outpatients (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.2-14.35). Conclusion Outpatient treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients seems to be associated with a lower rate of adverse events than hospitalization and, if confirmed, may be considered as first-line management in patients not requiring specific in-hospital care, regardless of their initial risk stratification, if proper outpatient care can be provided.

Introduction:The recently proposed YEARS algorithm was shown to safely exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) and reduce the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) among pregnant women with suspected PE. Our aim was to externally validate this finding. Methods:We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective management outcome study for PE diagnosis in pregnant women. PE was diagnosed with an algorithm that combined the revised Geneva score, D-dimer testing, bilateral lower-limb compression ultrasonography, and CTPA. All women had a 3-month follow-up. All of the items necessary to use the YEARS algorithm were prospectively collected at the time of the study. Results:Of the 395 women included in the original study, 371 were available for the present analysis. The PE prevalence was 6.5%. Ninety-one women had no YEARS items, and 280 had one or more items. When the YEARS items were combined with D-dimer levels (<1000 ng/mL in women with no items, and <500 ng/mL in women with one or more items), 77 women (21%) met the criteria for PE exclusion and would

Clinical research in venous thromboembolism (VTE) is hindered by variability in the collection and reporting of data and outcomes. A consistent data language facilitates efficiencies, leads to higher quality data, and permits between‐study comparisons and evidence synthesis. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) launched an international task force of more than 50 researchers to develop common data elements for clinical research in venous thromboembolism. The project was organized in seven working groups, each focusing on a topic area: General Core Data Elements; Anticoagulation and Other Therapies; Chronic VTE and Functional Outcomes; Diagnosis of VTE; Malignancy; Perioperative; and Predictors of VTE. The groups met via teleconference to collaboratively identify key data elements and develop definitions and data standards that were structured in a project‐specific taxonomy. A Steering Committee met by teleconference and in‐person to determine the overall scope of the project and resolve questions arising from the working groups. ISTH held an open public comment period to enable broader stakeholder involvement and feedback. The common data elements were then refined by the working groups to create a set of 512 unique data elements that are publicly available at http://isth.breakthrough.healthcare. The ISTH VTE Common Data Elements are intended to be a living project with ongoing curation, future expansion, and adaptation to meet the needs of the thrombosis and hemostasis research community.

Background Because hospital‐acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a frequent cause of preventable deaths in medical inpatients, identifying at‐risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis is critical. We aimed to externally assess the Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua VTE risk scores and to compare their performance to advanced age as a stand‐alone predictor. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the PREVENU trial. Patients aged 40 years and older, hospitalized for at least 2 days on a medical ward were consecutively enrolled and followed for 3 months. Critical ill patients were not recruited. Patients diagnosed with VTE within 48 hours from admission, or receiving full dose anticoagulant treatment or who underwent surgery were excluded. All suspected VTE and deaths occurring during the 3‐month follow‐up were adjudicated by an independent committee. The three scores were retrospectively assessed. Body mass index, needed for the Padua and Caprini scores, was missing in 44% of patients. Results Among 14 910 eligible patients, 14 660 were evaluable, of which 1.8% experienced symptomatic VTE or sudden unexplained death during the 3‐month follow‐up. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57‐0.63), 0.63 (95% CI 0.60‐0.66) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.61‐0.67) for Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua scores, respectively. None of these scores performed significantly better than advanced age as a single predictor (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58‐0.64). Conclusion In our study, Caprini, IMPROVE, and Padua VTE risk scores have poor discriminative ability to identify not critically ill medical inpatients at risk of VTE, and do not perform better than a risk evaluation based on patient's age alone.