Premium
Clinical prediction rules for mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism and cancer to guide outpatient management: a meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Nguyen E.,
Caranfa J. T.,
Lyman G. H.,
Kuderer N. M.,
Stirbis C.,
Wysocki M.,
Coleman C. I.,
Weeda E. R.,
Kohn C. G.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of thrombosis and haemostasis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.947
H-Index - 178
eISSN - 1538-7836
pISSN - 1538-7933
DOI - 10.1111/jth.13921
Subject(s) - medicine , confidence interval , pulmonary embolism , odds ratio , meta analysis , risk of mortality , intensive care medicine
Essentials Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can stratify patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and cancer. A meta‐analysis was done to assess prognostic accuracy in CPRs for mortality in these patients. Eight studies evaluating ten CPRs were included in this study. CPRs should continue to be used with other patient factors for mortality risk stratification.Summary Background Cancer treatment is commonly complicated by pulmonary embolism ( PE ), which remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Some guidelines recommend the use of clinical prediction rules ( CPR s) to help clinicians identify patients at low risk of mortality and therefore guide care. Objective To determine and compare the accuracy of available CPR s for identifying cancer patients with PE at low risk of mortality. Methods A literature search of Medline and Scopus (January 2000 to August 2017) was performed. Studies deriving/validating ≥ 1 CPR for early post‐ PE all‐cause mortality were included. A bivariate, random‐effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates for each CPR . Traditional random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the weighted proportion of patients deemed at low risk of early mortality, mortality in low risk patients and odds ratios for death compared with higher‐risk patients. Results Eight studies evaluating 10 CPR s were included. The highest sensitivities were observed with Hestia (98.1%, 95% confidence interval [ CI ] = 75.6–99.9%) and the EPIPHANY index (97.4%, 95% CI = 93.2–99.0%); sensitivities of remaining rules ranged from 59.9 to 96.6%. Of the six CPR s with sensitivities ≥ 95%, none had specificities > 33%. Random‐effects meta‐analysis suggested that 6.6–51.6% of cancer patients with PE were at low risk of mortality, 0–14.3% of low‐risk patients died and low‐risk patients had a 43–94% lower odds of death compared with those at higher risk. Conclusions Because of the limited total body of evidence regarding CPR s, their results, in conjunction with other pertinent patient‐specific clinical factors, should continue to be used in identifying appropriate management for PE in patients with cancer.