• Marta Ferrer, Raquel Morillo, Teresa Elías, Luis Jara, Leticia García, Rosa Nieto, Emmanuel Sandoval, Fernando Uresandi, Remedios Otero, and David Jiménez.
• Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Virgen del Rocío-IBIS, CIBERES, Sevilla, España.
• Arch. Bronconeumol. 2013 Oct 1; 49 (10): 427-31.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of two clinical prognostic models, the Spanish score and the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI), in an independent cohort of patients diagnosed of acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE).MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of a cohort composed of 1447patients with acute symptomatic PE. The Spanish score and the sPESI were calculated for each patient according to different clinical variables. We assessed the predictive accuracy of these scores for 30-day mortality, and a composite of non fatal recurrent venous thromboembolism and non fatal major bleeding, using Cstatistic, which was obtained by means of logistic regression and ROC curves.ResultsOverall, 138 patients died (9.5%) during the first month of follow-up. Both scores showed an excellent predictive value for 30-day all-cause mortality (Cstatistic, 0.72 and 0.74), but the performance was poor for the secondary endpoint (Cstatistic, 0.60 and 0.59). The sPESI classified fewer patients as low risk (32% versus 62%; P<.001). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a lower 30-day mortality than those based on the Spanish score (1.1% versus 4.2%), while the 30-day rate of non fatal recurrent VTE or major bleeding was similar (2.2% versus 2.3%).ConclusionsBoth scores provide excellent information to stratify the risk of mortality in patients treated of PE. The usefulness of these models for nonfatal adverse events is questionable. The sPESI identified low-risk patients with PE better than the Spanish score.Copyright © 2012 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

39 keywords...

hide…