External validation of the PE-SARD risk score for predicting early bleeding in acute pulmonary embolism in the RIETE Registry
- PMID: 38295598
- DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2024.01.013
External validation of the PE-SARD risk score for predicting early bleeding in acute pulmonary embolism in the RIETE Registry
Abstract
Introduction: The PE-SARD score (syncope, anemia, renal dysfunction) was developed to predict the risk of major bleeding in the acute phase of pulmonary embolism (PE).
Methods: We analyzed data from 50,686 patients with acute PE included in the RIETE registry to externally validate the PE-SARD score. We calculated the overall reliability of the PE-SARD score, as well as discrimination and calibration for predicting the risk of major bleeding at 30 days. The performance of PE-SARD was compared to the BACS and PE-CH models.
Results: During the first 30 days, 640 patients (1.3 %) had a major bleeding event. The incidence of major bleeding within 30 days was 0.6 % in the PE-SARD-defined low-risk group, 1.5 % in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.5 % in the high-risk group, for an OR of 2.22 (95 % CI, 2.02-2.43) for the intermediate-risk group (vs low-risk group), and 3.94 for the high-risk group (vs low-risk group). The corresponding sensitivity was 81.1 % (intermediate/high vs low risk), and specificity was 85.9 % (95 % CI, 85.8-86.1) (low/intermediate vs high risk). The applicability of PE-SARD was consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups and over shorter time periods of follow-up (i.e., 3 and 7 days). The C-index was 0.654 and calibration was excellent. The PE-SARD bleeding score improved the major bleeding risk prediction compared with the BACS and PE-CH scores.
Conclusions: The PE-SARD score identifies PE patients with a higher risk of bleeding, which could assist providers for potentially adjusting PE management, in a framework of shared decision-making with individual patients.
Keywords: Bleeding; External validation; Pulmonary embolism; Score.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of competing interest RC, GB, PL, CR, AA and NM have no conflict of interest to declare. GP has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, Bayer, Janssen, Alexion, Amgen and Boston Scientific Corporation, and consulting fees from Pfizer, Boston Scientific Corporation, Janssen, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, NAMSA, and Amgen. MM has received research support from Sanofiand Rovi Laboratorios, and consulting fees from Sanofi and Bristol. DJ has served as a speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi. LB reports grant from Bayer; personal fees and non-financial support from BMS-Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Léo-Pharma; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD; non-financial support from Johnson and Johnson; non-financial support from Opalia-Recordati; personal fees and non-financial support from Viatris; outside the submitted work.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical