Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock Score and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.124.014088
Robert S Zhang, Eugene Yuriditsky, Peter Zhang, Muhammad H Maqsood, Nancy E Amoroso, Thomas S Maldonado, Yuhe Xia, James M Horowitz, Sripal Bangalore
{"title":"Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock Score and Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism.","authors":"Robert S Zhang, Eugene Yuriditsky, Peter Zhang, Muhammad H Maqsood, Nancy E Amoroso, Thomas S Maldonado, Yuhe Xia, James M Horowitz, Sripal Bangalore","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.124.014088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score predicts normotensive shock. However, it is unknown if CPES predicts adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether the CPES score predicts in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with acute intermediate-risk PE admitted from October 2016 to July 2019 were included. CPES was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome. The association of CPES with primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 207 patients with intermediate-risk PE (64.7% with intermediate-high risk PE), 29 (14%) patients had a primary outcome event. In a multivariable model, a higher CPES score was associated with a worse primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.29-2.54]; <i>P</i>=0.001). Moreover, a higher CPES score predicted death (aHR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.04-2.96]; <i>P</i>=0.033), resuscitated cardiac arrest (aHR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.17-3.38]; <i>P</i>=0.011), and hemodynamic decompensation (aHR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.34-2.89]; <i>P</i>=0.001). A high CPES score (≥3) was associated with the worse primary outcome when compared with patients with a low CPES score (22% versus 2.4%; <i>P</i>=0.003; aHR, 6.48 [95% CI, 1.49-28.04]; <i>P</i>=0.012). CPES score provided incremental prognostic value for the prediction of primary outcome over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories (global Χ<sup>2</sup> value increased from 0.63 to 1.39 to 13.69; <i>P</i>=0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with acute intermediate-risk PE, the CPES score effectively risk stratifies and prognosticates patients for the prediction of clinical events and provides incremental value over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories.</p>","PeriodicalId":10330,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e014088"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.124.014088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score predicts normotensive shock. However, it is unknown if CPES predicts adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether the CPES score predicts in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration.

Methods: Patients with acute intermediate-risk PE admitted from October 2016 to July 2019 were included. CPES was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome. The association of CPES with primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated.

Results: Among the 207 patients with intermediate-risk PE (64.7% with intermediate-high risk PE), 29 (14%) patients had a primary outcome event. In a multivariable model, a higher CPES score was associated with a worse primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.29-2.54]; P=0.001). Moreover, a higher CPES score predicted death (aHR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.04-2.96]; P=0.033), resuscitated cardiac arrest (aHR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.17-3.38]; P=0.011), and hemodynamic decompensation (aHR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.34-2.89]; P=0.001). A high CPES score (≥3) was associated with the worse primary outcome when compared with patients with a low CPES score (22% versus 2.4%; P=0.003; aHR, 6.48 [95% CI, 1.49-28.04]; P=0.012). CPES score provided incremental prognostic value for the prediction of primary outcome over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories (global Χ2 value increased from 0.63 to 1.39 to 13.69; P=0.005).

Conclusions: In patients with acute intermediate-risk PE, the CPES score effectively risk stratifies and prognosticates patients for the prediction of clinical events and provides incremental value over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肺栓塞患者的肺栓塞休克综合评分与不良预后风险。
背景:在血流动力学稳定的急性肺栓塞(PE)患者中,复合肺栓塞休克(CPES)评分可预测正常血压休克。然而,CPES 是否能预测不良临床结果尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定 CPES 评分是否能预测院内死亡率、复苏后心脏骤停或血流动力学恶化:方法:纳入2016年10月至2019年7月收治的急性中危PE患者。计算每位患者的 CPES。主要结果是院内死亡率、复苏后心脏骤停或血流动力学失代偿的复合结果。次要结果包括主要结果的各个组成部分。评估了 CPES 与主要和次要结果的关联:在 207 名中度风险 PE 患者(64.7% 为中高度风险 PE)中,29 名患者(14%)出现了主要结局事件。在多变量模型中,CPES 评分越高,主要综合结果越差(调整后危险比 [aHR],1.81 [95% CI,1.29-2.54];P=0.001)。此外,CPES 评分越高,预示死亡(aHR,1.76 [95% CI,1.04-2.96];P=0.033)、心脏骤停复苏(aHR,1.99 [95% CI,1.17-3.38];P=0.011)和血流动力学失代偿(aHR,1.96 [95% CI,1.34-2.89];P=0.001)。与 CPES 评分低的患者相比,CPES 评分高(≥3 分)的患者主要预后更差(22% 对 2.4%;P=0.003;aHR,6.48 [95% CI,1.49-28.04];P=0.012)。与基线人口统计学和欧洲心脏病学会中危亚型相比,CPES评分为主要预后预测提供了增量预后价值(总体Χ2值从0.63增至1.39,再增至13.69;P=0.005):在急性中危 PE 患者中,CPES 评分能有效地对患者进行风险分层和预后分析,以预测临床事件的发生,与基线人口统计学和欧洲心脏病学会中危亚型相比,CPES 评分具有更高的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
221
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, an American Heart Association journal, focuses on interventional techniques pertaining to coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and vascular disease, with priority placed on original research and on randomized trials and large registry studies. In addition, pharmacological, diagnostic, and pathophysiological aspects of interventional cardiology are given special attention in this online-only journal.
期刊最新文献
CTCA Prior to Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients With Previous Bypass Surgery: Patient-Related Outcomes, Imaging Resource Utilization, and Cardiac Events at 3 Years From the BYPASS-CTCA Trial. Invasive or CT Angiography: Alternative or Complementary Imaging Tools After CABG? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Evolut FX Self-Expanding Versus SAPIEN 3 Ultra Resilia Balloon-Expandable Valves. Transcatheter Interventions in Adults With Fontan Palliation. Contemporary Outcomes of TAVR Using a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Patients With Severe Mitral Stenosis: Insights From the Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1