Hestia和简化PESI预测肺栓塞预后的准确性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis Pub Date : 2022-10-23 eCollection Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1055/a-1942-2526
Miguel Palas, Beatriz Valente Silva, Cláudia Jorge, Ana G Almeida, Fausto J Pinto, Daniel Caldeira
{"title":"Hestia和简化PESI预测肺栓塞预后的准确性:系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Miguel Palas,&nbsp;Beatriz Valente Silva,&nbsp;Cláudia Jorge,&nbsp;Ana G Almeida,&nbsp;Fausto J Pinto,&nbsp;Daniel Caldeira","doi":"10.1055/a-1942-2526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. <b>Methods</b>  A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6 <sup>th</sup> January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). <b>Results</b>  This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843-0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262-0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905-12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3-11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1-6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality. <b>Conclusion</b>  The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data supports methods for this purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":22238,"journal":{"name":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","volume":" ","pages":"e347-e353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593482/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Accuracy of Hestia and Simplified PESI to Predict the Prognosis in Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Palas,&nbsp;Beatriz Valente Silva,&nbsp;Cláudia Jorge,&nbsp;Ana G Almeida,&nbsp;Fausto J Pinto,&nbsp;Daniel Caldeira\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1942-2526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction</b>  Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. <b>Methods</b>  A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6 <sup>th</sup> January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). <b>Results</b>  This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843-0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262-0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905-12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3-11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1-6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality. <b>Conclusion</b>  The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data supports methods for this purpose.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e347-e353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593482/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1942-2526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1942-2526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

肺栓塞(PE)患者早期并发症风险低,可考虑早期出院或家庭治疗。在过去的几十年里,越来越多的证据表明,用于选择这些患者的几种临床预测规则的安全性,如简化肺栓塞严重程度指数(sPESI)和Hestia标准。本综述的目的是比较两种策略在30天死亡率、静脉血栓栓塞复发和大出血方面的安全性。方法于2022年1月6日通过MEDLINE、CENTRAL和Web of Science进行系统文献检索。我们检索了同时将Hestia标准和sPESI应用于同一人群的研究。计算两种分层规则的敏感性、特异性和诊断优势比。对Hestia和sPESI低风险标准进行评估,以确定每1000例PE患者中可能被错误分类的患者数量。以95%置信区间(95% ci)报告估计值。结果本系统综述纳入3项研究。只有死亡率数据可以汇总。死亡率方面,Hestia标准的敏感性、特异性和诊断优势比分别为0.923 (95%CI: 0.843 ~ 0.964)、0.338 (95%CI: 0.262 ~ 0.423)和6.120 (95%CI: 2.905 ~ 12.890);sPESI评分分别为0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991)、0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338)和12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774)。阴性预测值均高于0.977。在死亡率方面,每1000例PE患者中,Hestia患者中高危患者误诊为低危患者的风险为5例(95%CI: 3-11), sPESI患者中误诊为2例(95%CI: 1-6)。结论Hestia标准和sPESI评分对低危肺栓塞患者进行早期出院或家庭治疗的错误分类风险较低,这些数据支持了这一目的的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The Accuracy of Hestia and Simplified PESI to Predict the Prognosis in Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Introduction  Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. Methods  A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6 th January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results  This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843-0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262-0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905-12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3-11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1-6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality. Conclusion  The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data supports methods for this purpose.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of Urgent Bleeding in Patients with Hemophilia A: Focus on the Use of Emicizumab Disease Burden, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality of Life in People with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors in Europe: Analyses from CHESS II/CHESS PAEDs TH Open Continues to Highlight the State-of-the-Art on Thrombosis and Hemostasis with a Renewed Editorial Board The Effect of Rituximab on Antiphospholipid Titers in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review.
×
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