The inter-rater reliability of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated clinical prognostic model for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Our goal was to assess the PESI's inter-rater reliability in patients diagnosed with PE. We prospectively identified consecutive patients diagnosed with PE in the emergency department of a Swiss teaching hospital. For all patients, resident and attending physician raters independently collected the 11 PESI variables. The raters then calculated the PESI total point score and classified patients into one of five PESI risk classes (I-V) and as low (risk classes I/II) versus higher-risk (risk classes III-V). We examined the inter-rater reliability for each of the 11 PESI variables, the PESI total point score, assignment to each of the five PESI risk classes, and classification of patients as low versus higher-risk using kappa ( ) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Among 48 consecutive patients with an objective diagnosis of PE, reliability coefficients between resident and attending physician raters were > 0.60 for 10 of the 11 variables comprising the PESI. The inter-rater reliability for the PESI total point score (ICC: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94), PESI risk class assignment ( : 0.81, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94), and the classification of patients as low versus higher-risk ( : 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98) was near perfect. Our results demonstrate the high reproducibility of the PESI, supporting the use of the PESI for risk stratification of patients with PE.

Prospective comparison of clinical prognostic scores in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism

Background: The Geneva Prognostic Score (GPS), the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and its simplified version (sPESI) are well known clinical prognostic scores for pulmonary embolism (PE).Objectives: To compare the prognostic performance of these scores in elderly patients with PE. Patients/Methods: In a multicenter Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism, we prospectively studied 449 patients aged ≥65 years with symptomatic PE. The outcome was 30-day overall mortality. We dichotomized patients as low- vs. higher-risk in all three scores using the following thresholds: GPS scores ≤2 vs. >2, PESI risk classes I-II vs. III-V, and sPESI scores 0 vs. ≥1. We compared 30-day mortality in low- vs. higher-risk patients and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: Overall, 3.8% of patients (17/449) died within 30 days. The GPS classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (92% [413/449]) than the PESI (36.3% [163/449]) and the sPESI (39.6% [178/449]) (P<0.001 for each comparison). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a mortality of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-2.1%) compared to 0.6% (95% CI 0-3.4%) for low-risk patients based on the PESI and 3.4% (95% CI 1.9-5.6%) for low-risk patients based on the GPS. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 (95%CI 0.72-0.81), 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80), and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively (P=0.47). Conclusions: In this cohort of elderly patients with PE, the GPS identified a higher proportion of patients as low-risk but the PESI and sPESI were more accurate in predicting mortality.

The accuracy of FAST in relation to grade of solid organ injuries: a retrospective analysis of 226 trauma patients with liver or splenic lesion

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the role of a negative FAST in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm of multiply injured patients with liver or splenic lesions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 226 multiply injured patients with liver or splenic lesions treated at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. RESULTS: FAST failed to detect free fluid or organ lesions in 45 of 226 patients with spleen or liver injuries (sensitivity 80.1%). Overall specificity was 99.5%. The positive and negative predictive values were 99.4% and 83.3%. The overall likelihood ratios for a positive and negative FAST were 160.2 and 0.2. Grade III-V organ lesions were detected more frequently than grade I and II lesions. Without the additional diagnostic accuracy of a CT scan, the mean ISS of the FAST-false-negative patients would be significantly underestimated and 7 previously unsuspected intra-abdominal injuries would have been missed. CONCLUSION: FAST is an expedient tool for the primary assessment of polytraumatized patients to rule out high grade intra-abdominal injuries. However, the low overall diagnostic sensitivity of FAST may lead to underestimated injury patterns and delayed complications may occur. Hence, in hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal trauma, an early CT scan should be considered and one must be aware of the potential shortcomings of a "negative FAST".