Comparison of Different Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism and Active Cancer

[Translation into French and republication of: "Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism"]

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Prediction of mortality in acute pulmonary embolism in cancer-associated thrombosis (MAUPE-C): derivation and validation of a multivariable model

Optimal risk stratification of patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. We constructed a clinical prediction rule (CPR) named 'MAUPE-C' to identify patients with low 30 days mortality. The study retrospectively developed and internally validated a CPR for 30 days mortality in a cohort of patients with cancer and PE (both suspected and unsuspected). Candidate variables were chosen based on the EPIPHANY study, which categorized patients into 3 groups based on symptoms, signs, suspicion and patient setting at PE diagnosis. The performance of 'MAUPE-C' was compared to RIETE and sPESI scores. Univariate analysis confirmed that the presence of symptoms, signs, suspicion and inpatient diagnosis were associated with 30 days mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis led to the exclusion of symptoms as predictive variable. 'MAUPE-C' was developed by assigning weights to risk factors related to the β coefficient, yielding a score range of 0 to 4.5. After receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a cutoff point was established at ≤ 1. Prognostic accuracy was good with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82), outperforming RIETE and sPESI scores in this cohort (AUC of 0.64 [95% CI 0.57-0.71] and 0.57 [95% CI 0.49-0.65], respectively). Forty-five per cent of patients were classified as low risk and experienced a 2.79% 30 days mortality. MAUPE-C has good prognostic accuracy in identifying patients at low risk of 30 days mortality. This CPR could help physicians select patients for early discharge.

Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Prognostic Performance of Hestia Criteria in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have suggested that Hestia criteria could effectively identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who were at low risk of mortality for outpatient treatment or early discharge. But the performance of Hestia criteria in stratifying patients at different risk class is still unknown. We sought to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic impact of Hestia criteria for PE. The literatures search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from 1 August 2011 to 31 October 2021. Finally, Eight studies with 4110 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the pool percentage of patients classified as low-risk group and high-risk group were 41.4%% and 58.6% respectively, and the all-course mortality rates of each group were 2.3% and 10.6%, respectively. The pooled rate of PE-related composite adverse outcomes in high-risk group was increasingly higher than in low-risk group (15.7% vs 4.4%). High risk group was also markedly associated with overall mortality (OR: 7.21, 95%CI: 4.96-10.46, p < 0.00001), and PE-related adverse outcomes (OR:5.38, 95% CI:3.95-7.32, p < 0.00001). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR of Hestia criteria for overall mortality were 0.90 (95% CI:0.83-0.94), 0.43 (95% CI:0.31-0.55), 1.6 (95% CI:1.3-1.9), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.35), respectively. The area under SROC curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84). The result of our meta-analysis indicate that Hestia criteria can effectively identify PE patients at low risk of poor prognosis with high sensitivity and NPV, but its prognostic role in patients with higher risk class still need to be verified.