Aims The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment... Show moreAims The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment.Methods and results Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm.Conclusions For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
Nemeth, B.; Douillet, D.; Cessie, S. le; Penaloza, A.; Moumneh, T.; Roy, P.M.; Cannegieter, S. 2020
Background: Patients with lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). While thromboprophylaxis for all patients seems not effective, targeted... Show moreBackground: Patients with lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). While thromboprophylaxis for all patients seems not effective, targeted thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients may be an appropriate alternative. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a risk assessment model for VTE risk: the TRiP(cast) score (Thrombosis Risk Prediction following cast immobilization).Methods: In this prediction model study, for development, data were used from the MEGA study (case-control study into the etiology of VTE) and for validation, data from the POT-CAST trial (randomized trial on the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis following cast immobilization) were used. Model discrimination was calculated by estimating the Area Under the Curve (AUC). For model calibration, observed and predicted risks were assessed.Findings: The TRiP( cast) score includes 14 items; one item for trauma severity (or type), one for type of immobilization and 12 items related to patients' characteristics. Validation analyses showed an AUC of 0.74 (95%CI 0.61-0.87) in the complete dataset (n = 1250) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.60-0.84) in the imputed data set (n = 1435). The calibration plot shows the degree of agreement between the observed and predicted risks (intercept 0.0016 and slope 0.933). Using a cut-off score of 7 points in the POT-CAST trial (incidence 1.6%), the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 76.1%, 51.2%, 2.5%, and 99.2%, respectively.Interpretation: The TRiP(cast) score provides a helpful tool in daily clinical practice to accurately stratify patients in high versus low-risk categories in order to guide thromboprophylaxis prescribing. To accommodate implementation in clinical practice a mobile phone application has been developed. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommon.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Show less
BackgroundThromboprophylaxis for patients with non-surgical isolated lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization is a matter of debate. Our aim was to develop and validate a clinical risk... Show moreBackgroundThromboprophylaxis for patients with non-surgical isolated lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization is a matter of debate. Our aim was to develop and validate a clinical risk-stratification model based on Trauma, Immobilization and Patients' characteristics (the TIP score).MethodsThe TIP score criteria and the cut-off were selected by a consensus of international experts (n = 27) using the Delphi method. Retrospective validation was performed in a population-based case-control study (MEGA study). The potential score's impact in anticoagulant treatment was assessed in a prospective single-center observational cohort study.FindingsAfter four successive rounds, 30 items constituting the TIP score were selected: thirteen items for trauma, three for immobilization and 14 for patient characteristics were selected, each rated on a scale of 1 to 3. In the validation database, the TIP score had an AUC of 0. 77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85). Using the cut-off proposed by the experts (>= 5) and assuming a prevalence of 1. 8%, the TIP scores had a sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values of 89. 9%, 30. 7% and 99. 4% respectively. In the prospective cohort, 84. 2% (165/196) of all the patients concerned who presented at the emergency department had a low VTE risk not requiring thromboprophylaxis according to their TIP scores. The 3-month rate of symptomatic VTE was 1/196 [95% CI 0.1-2.8] this patient was in the sub-group TIP score >= 5.ConclusionFor patients with non-surgical lower-limb trauma and orthopedic immobilization, the TIP score allows an individual VTE risk-assessment and shows promising results in guiding thromboprophylaxis. Show less
