Comparison of the accuracy of four diagnostic prediction rules for pulmonary embolism in patients admitted to the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) through a combination of clinical assessment and D-dimer level can potentially avoid excessive use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the standard approach based on the Wells and Geneva scores combined with a standard D-dimer cut-off (500 ng/ml), with three alternative strategies (age-adjusted and the YEARS and PEGeD algorithms) in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with suspected PE. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients admitted to the ED who underwent CTPA due to suspected PE were retrospectively assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated and compared between the different diagnostic prediction rules. RESULTS: We included 1402 patients (mean age 69±18 years, 54% female), and PE was confirmed in 25%. Compared to the standard approach (p<0.001), an age-adjusted strategy increased specificity with a non-significant decrease in sensitivity only in patients older than 70 years. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted approaches, the YEARS and PEGeD algorithms had the highest specificity across all ages, but were associated with a significant decrease in sensitivity (p<0.001), particularly in patients aged under 60 years (sensitivity of 81% in patients aged between 51 and 60 years). CONCLUSION: Compared to the standard approach, all algorithms were associated with increased specificity. The age-adjusted strategy was the only one not associated with a significant decrease in sensitivity compared to the standard approach, enabling CTPA requests to be reduced safely.

Chest Computed Tomography for Lymphoma Staging: A Wasted Opportunity for Cardiovascular Risk Stratification?

AIM: Patients with a lymphoma diagnosis undergo non-gated chest computed tomography (CT) scans as part of cancer diagnosis or staging. Although coronary artery calcification (CAC) is traditionally evaluated on dedicated cardiac CT, CAC can also be detected on standard chest CT. This exploratory study aimed to determine the prognostic value of CAC detected on non-gated chest CT and to report its use on clinical practice. METHOD: Consecutive patients with a lymphoma diagnosis who performed non-contrasted non-gated chest CT for cancer diagnosis or staging were included and retrospectively evaluated. Coronary artery calcification was evaluated by quantitative (Agatston score) and qualitative (visual) assessment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included in this study (mean age 61±15 years; 58% male). Coronary artery calcification was identified in 22 patients (39%), most of them with multi-vessel involvement. Coronary artery calcification was qualitatively classified as mild, moderate and severe in 11%, 19% and 9% patients, respectively. This study suggested that moderate or severe CAC was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (odds ratio 3, 95% confidence interval 2-11; p=0.04) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and lymphoma staging. Regarding quantitative evaluation, a higher CAC score was also associated with higher mortality. While significant CAC was identified in 22 patients, it was only reported in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary findings of this hypothesis-generating study support the investigation of CAC identified by chest CT for diagnosis/staging of cancer as a risk modifier in the global risk assessment of patients with lymphoma. The unrecognition and underreporting of this finding may represent a wasted opportunity to detect subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in these patients and may help in guiding preventive cardiology care.

Coronary Artery Calcium Identified on Non-Gated Chest CT Scans: A Wasted Opportunity for Preventive Cardiological Care.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) evaluated on dedicated cardiac computed tomography (CT) is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between CAC detected on non-gated standard chest CT and coronary lesions on coronary angiography (CAG) and determine its impact on prognosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent CAG due to acute coronary syndrome and had prior non-contrasted non-gated chest CT were included and retrospectively evaluated. Coronary artery calcium was evaluated by quantitative (Agatston score) and qualitative (visual assessment) assessment. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in this study. The mean time difference between chest CT and CAG was 23 months. Coronary artery calcium was visually classified as mild, moderate, and severe in 31%, 33%, and 16% of patients, respectively. Moderate or severe CAC was an independent predictor of significant lesions on CAG (OR 22; 95% CI 8-61; p<0.001) and all-cause mortality (OR 4; 95% CI 2-9; p=0.001). Quantitative CAC evaluation accurately predicted significant lesions on CAG (AUC 0.81; p<0.001). While significant CAC was identified in 80% of chest CTs, formal reporting was 25%. CONCLUSION: Coronary artery calcium evaluation with chest CT was feasible and strongly associated with severity of coronary disease on CAG and mortality. Although the identification of CAC on chest CT represents a unique opportunity for cardiovascular risk stratification for preventive care, CAC underreporting is frequent.

How to predict prognosis in patients with acute pulmonary embolism? Recent advances.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most frequent cardiovascular disease, characterized by a wide range of presentations and clinical courses. Prognostic assessment is a cornerstone of PE management as it determines the choice of both diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. During the previous decades significant efforts have been made to safely select patients for early discharge or home treatment, but appropriate risk stratification, particularly of intermediate-risk patients, remains challenging. In addition to the guideline-recommended clinical prediction rules, such as Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI), and/or Hestia criteria, a multimodality approach based also on biomarkers and cardiac imaging is crucial for risk-stratification and for selecting appropriate management of patients. In this review article, we discuss the current methods for predicting short and long-term prognosis in PE patients, focusing on the current guidelines, but also on the most recently proposed clinical prediction rules, biomarkers, and imaging parameters.

The Accuracy of Hestia and Simplified PESI to Predict the Prognosis in Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Introduction Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6 th January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843-0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262-0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905-12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3-11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1-6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality. Conclusion The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data supports methods for this purpose.

Comparison of 5 acute pulmonary embolism mortality risk scores in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to explore the short-term outcomes among patients with acute PE and COVID-19 and to further determine and compare the performance of the different prognostic scores (PESI, sPESI, BOVA, FAST and ESC scores) for risk-stratification in this scenario. METHODS: Retrospective single-centre study of 85 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and PE admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). The diagnostic accuracy of each above-mentioned prognostic score was calculated post hoc, and their discriminative power was evaluated through an AUC curve. RESULTS: Among the 85 patients, all-cause death occurred within 7 days for 6 patients (7.1%) and within 30 days for 14 patients (16.5%). Despite being older and having a higher percentage of altered mental status on presentation, non-survivors patients did not differ from survivors regarding comorbidities, traditional risk factors for venous thromboembolism and signs and symptoms at the ED presentation.Each risk stratification tool had modest discriminative power for 7-day mortality (AUC range, 0.601-0.730) with slightly lower discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC range, 0.543-0.638). The pair-wise comparison of ROC curves showed that PESI had better predictive value for short-term mortality than ESC score (z test = 3.92, p = 0.001) and sPESI (z test = 2.43, p = 0.015); there is no significant difference between PESI and BOVA score (z test = 1.05, p = 0.295) and FAST score (z test = 0.986, p = 0.324). CONCLUSION: The most common risk-stratification tools for PE had modest discriminative power to predict short-term mortality in patients with acute PE and COVID-19.

Pulmonary embolism and COVID-19: A comparative analysis of different diagnostic models performance.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several diagnostic prediction rules based on pretest probability and D-dimer have been validated in non-COVID patients, but it remains unclear if they can be safely applied in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the standard approach based on Wells and Geneva scores combined with a standard D-dimer cut-off of 500 ng/mL with three alternative strategies (age-adjusted, YEARS and PEGeD algorithms) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included all COVID-19 patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) due to PE suspicion. The diagnostic prediction rules for PE were compared between patients with and without PE. RESULTS: We included 300 patients and PE was confirmed in 15%. No differences were found regarding comorbidities, traditional risk factors for PE and signs and symptoms between patients with and without PE. Wells and Geneva scores showed no predictive value for PE occurrence, whether a standard or an age-adjusted cut-off was considered. YEARS and PEGeD algorithms were associated with increased specificity (19% CTPA reduction) but raising non-diagnosed PE. Despite elevated in all patients, those with PE had higher D-dimer levels. However, incrementing thresholds to select patients for CTPA was also associated with a substantial decrease in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: None of the diagnostic prediction rules are reliable predictors of PE in COVID-19. Our data favour the use of a D-dimer threshold of 500 ng/mL, considering that higher thresholds increase specificity but limits this strategy as a screening test.

A systematic review on recurrent cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope: Does pacing therapy break the fall?

Vasovagal reflex is the most common cause of syncope. Pacemaker with rate drop response (RDR) or closed-loop stimulation (CLS) anti-syncope algorithms have been studied in recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS), with conflicting results. We aim to investigate the role of pacemaker therapy and anti-syncope pacing mode in cardioinhibitory recurrent VVS. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and registered clinical trials were searched for single or double-blind randomized controlled trials on pacing as a treatment for recurrent VVS. Five studies were eligible, overall enrolling 228 patients. After pooling data from all trials, pacemaker therapy showed a 63% reduction in syncope recurrence compared to control [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.98; I2  = 67%)]. Subgroup analyses suggested that the effect was greater in single-blind studies (RR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01-0.52, I2  = 0%). When comparing pacing algorithms, the results from RDR versus no pacing trials (n = 2) did not show a significant reduction in syncope recurrence (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25-2.16, I2 60 = 75%). In contrast, the data from the CLS versus standard pacing trials (n = 3) evidenced a statistically meaningful reduction in syncopal burden (RR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07-0.47, I2  = 0%). It is unclear whether pacemaker therapy reduces syncopal burden in cardioinhibitory recurrent VVS. However, our results suggest effectiveness of CLS pacing mode.