Arnaud Perrier

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication.

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and where appropriate and necessary the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.

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.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism requires clinical probability assessment. Implicit assessment is accurate but is not standardized, and current prediction rules have shortcomings. OBJECTIVE: To construct a simple score based entirely on clinical variables and independent from physicians' implicit judgment. DESIGN: Derivation and external validation of the score in 2 independent management studies on pulmonary embolism diagnosis. SETTING: Emergency departments of 3 university hospitals in Europe. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism. MEASUREMENTS: Collected data included demographic characteristics, risk factors, and clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of venous thromboembolism. The variables statistically significantly associated with pulmonary embolism in univariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Points were assigned according to the regression coefficients. The score was then externally validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: The score comprised 8 variables (points): age older than 65 years (1 point), previous deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (3 points), surgery or fracture within 1 month (2 points), active malignant condition (2 points), unilateral lower limb pain (3 points), hemoptysis (2 points), heart rate of 75 to 94 beats/min (3 points) or 95 beats/min or more (5 points), and pain on lower-limb deep venous palpation and unilateral edema (4 points). In the validation set, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 8% in the low-probability category (0 to 3 points), 28% in the intermediate-probability category (4 to 10 points), and 74% in the high-probability category (> or =11 points). LIMITATIONS: Interobserver agreement for the score items was not studied. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed score is entirely standardized and is based on clinical variables. It has sustained internal and external validation and should now be tested for clinical usefulness in an outcome study.