{"title":"Perfusion index: could it be a new tool for early identification of pulmonary embolism severity?","authors":"Cemre Ipek Esen, Salim Satar, Muge Gulen, Selen Acehan, Sarper Sevdımbas, Cagdas Ince","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03633-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Perfusion index (PI) is a promising indicator for monitoring peripheral perfusion. The present study aimed to compare the efficiency of PI and PESI score in estimating the 30-day mortality and treatment needs of patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. This study was prospective and observational. The demographic features of the patients, comorbidities, vital signs, PESI score, PI, treatment applied to the patient and airway management, right ventricular diameter/left ventricular diameter ratio, length of hospital stay, outcome, and 30-day mortality were recorded. A total of 94 patients were included. All patients' vital signs and PI values were recorded on admission. The mean pulse rate (p = 0.001) and shock index (p = 0.017) values of deceased patients were statistically significantly higher, while the mean PI (p = 0.034) was statistically significantly lower. PESI score and PI were statistically significant to predict the need for mechanical ventilation (PI, p = 0.004; PESI score, p < 0.001), inotropic treatment (PI, p = 0.047; PESI score p = 0.005), and thrombolytic therapy (PI, p = 0.035; PESI score p = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the mortality prediction power of both PESI (AUC: 0.787, 95% CI 0.688-0.886, cutoff: 109.5, p < 0.001) and PI index (AUC: 0.668, 95% CI 0.543-0.793, cutoff: 1, p = 0.011) were determined as statistically significant. PI might be helpful in clinical practice as a tool that can be applied to predict mortality and treatment needs in PE.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"235-245"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03633-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Perfusion index (PI) is a promising indicator for monitoring peripheral perfusion. The present study aimed to compare the efficiency of PI and PESI score in estimating the 30-day mortality and treatment needs of patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. This study was prospective and observational. The demographic features of the patients, comorbidities, vital signs, PESI score, PI, treatment applied to the patient and airway management, right ventricular diameter/left ventricular diameter ratio, length of hospital stay, outcome, and 30-day mortality were recorded. A total of 94 patients were included. All patients' vital signs and PI values were recorded on admission. The mean pulse rate (p = 0.001) and shock index (p = 0.017) values of deceased patients were statistically significantly higher, while the mean PI (p = 0.034) was statistically significantly lower. PESI score and PI were statistically significant to predict the need for mechanical ventilation (PI, p = 0.004; PESI score, p < 0.001), inotropic treatment (PI, p = 0.047; PESI score p = 0.005), and thrombolytic therapy (PI, p = 0.035; PESI score p = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the mortality prediction power of both PESI (AUC: 0.787, 95% CI 0.688-0.886, cutoff: 109.5, p < 0.001) and PI index (AUC: 0.668, 95% CI 0.543-0.793, cutoff: 1, p = 0.011) were determined as statistically significant. PI might be helpful in clinical practice as a tool that can be applied to predict mortality and treatment needs in PE.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.