ABSTRACT
Prognostic stratification of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a challenge in clinical practice. Simplified PESI (sPESI) score is a practical validated score aimed to stratify 30-day mortality risk in acute PE. Whether prognostic value of sPESI score differs according to sex has not been previously investigated. Therefore the aim of our study was to provide information about it. Data records of 452 patients, 180 males (39.8 %) and 272 females (60.2 %) discharged for acute PE from Internal Medicine wards of Tuscany (Italy) were analysed. sPESI was retrospectively calculated. Variables enclosed in sPESI score, all cause in-hospital mortality and overall bleedings were compared between sexes. Moreover, predictive ability of sPESI score as prognosticator of all cause in-hospital mortality was tested and compared between sexes. sPESI score 0 (low risk) was found in 17.7 % of males and 13.6 % of females (p = 0.2323). We didn't find significant difference in sPESI scoring distribution. Age ≥80 years (51.4 vs. 33.8 %, p = 0.0003) and heart rate ≥110 bpm (23.5 vs. 14.4 %, p = 0.0219) were found significantly more prevalent in females, whereas active cancer (23.8 vs. 39.4 %, p = 0.0004) and cardio-respiratory diseases (19.8 vs. 27.7 %, p = 0.0416) were in males. All cause in-hospital mortality was 0 % in both genders for sPESI score 0, whereas it was 5.4 % in females and 13.6 % in males with sPESI score 1-2 (p = 0.0208) and 22 % in females and 19.3 % in males with sPESI score ≥3 (p = 0.7776). Overall bleedings were significantly more frequent in females compared with males (4.77 vs. 0.55 %, p = 0.0189). In females overall bleedings ranged from 2.7 % in sPESI score 0 to 6 % in sPESI score ≥3. Predictive ability of sPESI score as prognosticator of all cause in-hospital mortality was higher in females compared to males (AUC 0.72 vs. 0.67, respectively). In real life different co-morbidity burdens in females compared to males. Females seems to be at lower risk of all cause in-hospital mortality for sPESI score ≤2 but at higher risk of bleeding, irrespective from sPESI scoring. Predictive ability of sPESI score seems better in females.
Subject(s)
Pulmonary Embolism/mortality , Sex Characteristics , Acute Disease , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Heart Diseases/mortality , Hemorrhage/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Survival RateABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Compression ultrasonography (CUS) has been recognized as the diagnostic procedure of choice for the investigation of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT); the aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of nurse-performed CUS for symptomatic proximal DVT of the lower limb. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated all consecutive outpatients referred for suspected DVT from January 2011 to December 2012. All patients underwent bilateral proximal lower limb CUS, first by trained nurses and then by physicians expert in vascular ultrasonography, with every group blinded with respect to each other. This test was repeated after 5-7 days in all negative or unclear examinations. Interobserver agreement and accuracy of nurse-performed CUS were calculated, considering the physician's final diagnosis as the reference test. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-seven patients were included in the study. DVT was diagnosed in 122 patients by expert ultrasound physicians with an overall prevalence of 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.8%-20.6%). Nurse agreement with the physician in DVT diagnosis was excellent (Cohen's κ 0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.85). Nurse-performed CUS had a sensitivity of 84.4% (95% CI 81.7%-87.1%) and a specificity of 97.0% (95% CI 95.8%-98.3%) with a diagnostic accuracy of 94.8% (95% CI 93.2%-96.5%). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that nurse-performed CUS may be a potential useful alternative to physician performed CUS with a good accuracy. However, sensibility of nurse-performed CUS appeared suboptimal and future studies should incorporate in the evaluation of this technique other pretest tools that may increase its accuracy.
