Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial.

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.

Safety of the Combination of PERC and YEARS Rules in Patients With Low Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Analysis of Two Large European Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the failure rate of a combination of the PERC and the YEARS rules for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of two European cohorts of emergency patients with low gestalt clinical probability of PE (PROPER and PERCEPIC). All patients we included were managed using a conventional strategy (D-dimer test, followed, if positive, by computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). We tested a diagnostic strategy that combined PERC and YEARS to rule out PE. The primary endpoint was a thromboembolic event diagnosed in the ED or at 3-months follow-up. Secondary endpoints included a thromboembolic event at baseline in the ED and a CTPA in the ED. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CIs) of proportions were calculated with the use of Wilson's continuity correction. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,951 patients (mean ± SD age = 47 ± 18 years, 56% women) with an overall proportion of patients with PE of 3.5%. Both PERC and YEARS strategies were associated with 11 missed PE in the ED: failure rate 0.57 (95% CI = 0.32-1.02). At 3-month follow-up, the overall failure rate was 0.83% (95% CI = 0.51-1.35). Among the 503 patients who underwent a CTPA (26%), the use of the PERC-YEARS combination would have ruled out PE without CTPA in 249 patients (50% [95%CI = 45%-54%], absolute reduction 13% (95% CI = 11%-14%]). CONCLUSION: The combination of PERC then YEARS was associated with a low risk of PE diagnostic failure and would have resulted in a relative reduction of almost half of CTPA.