Elias Antoine, Mallett Susan, Daoud-Elias Marie, Poggi Jean-Noël, Clarke Mike
Department of Vascular Medicine, Sainte Musse Hospital, Toulon La Seyne Hospital Centre, Toulon, France DPhil Programme in Evidence-Based Healthcare, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 29;6(4):e010324. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010324.
To review the evidence for existing prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and determine how valid and useful they are for predicting patient outcomes.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library from inception to July 2014, and sources of grey literature.
Studies aiming at constructing, validating, updating or studying the impact of prognostic models to predict all-cause death, PE-related death or venous thromboembolic events up to a 3-month follow-up in patients with an acute symptomatic PE.
Study characteristics and study quality using prognostic criteria. Studies were selected and data extracted by 2 reviewers.
Summary estimates (95% CI) for proportion of risk groups and event rates within risk groups, and accuracy.
We included 71 studies (44,298 patients). Among them, 17 were model construction studies specific to PE prognosis. The most validated models were the PE Severity Index (PESI) and its simplified version (sPESI). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.3% (1.7% to 2.9%) in the low-risk group and 11.4% (9.9% to 13.1%) in the high-risk group for PESI (9 studies), and 1.5% (0.9% to 2.5%) in the low-risk group and 10.7% (8.8% to12.9%) in the high-risk group for sPESI (11 studies). PESI has proved clinically useful in an impact study. Shifting the cut-off or using novel and updated models specifically developed for normotensive PE improves the ability for identifying patients at lower risk for early death or adverse outcome (0.5-1%) and those at higher risk (up to 20-29% of event rate).
We provide evidence-based information about the validity and utility of the existing prognostic models in acute PE that may be helpful for identifying patients at low risk. Novel models seem attractive for the high-risk normotensive PE but need to be externally validated then be assessed in impact studies.
回顾急性肺栓塞(PE)现有预后模型的证据,并确定它们在预测患者预后方面的有效性和实用性。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
从创刊至2014年7月的OVID MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以及灰色文献来源。
旨在构建、验证、更新或研究预后模型对急性症状性PE患者全因死亡、PE相关死亡或静脉血栓栓塞事件(随访长达3个月)的影响的研究。
使用预后标准提取研究特征和研究质量。由2名评审员选择研究并提取数据。
风险组比例和风险组内事件发生率的汇总估计值(95%CI)以及准确性。
我们纳入了71项研究(44298例患者)。其中,17项是特定于PE预后的模型构建研究。验证最多的模型是肺栓塞严重程度指数(PESI)及其简化版(sPESI)。对于PESI(9项研究),低风险组的30天总死亡率为2.3%(1.7%至2.9%),高风险组为11.4%(9.9%至13.1%);对于sPESI(11项研究),低风险组为1.5%(0.9%至2.5%),高风险组为10.7%(8.8%至12.9%)。在一项影响研究中,PESI已证明具有临床实用性。改变临界值或使用专门为血压正常的PE开发的新型和更新模型可提高识别早期死亡或不良结局低风险患者(0.5 - 1%)和高风险患者(事件发生率高达至20 - 29%)的能力。
我们提供了关于急性PE现有预后模型有效性和实用性的循证信息,这可能有助于识别低风险患者。新型模型对于血压正常的高风险PE似乎具有吸引力,但需要进行外部验证,然后在影响研究中进行评估。