CPES Score May Better Identify PE Patients Needing Advanced Intervention

Refining Risk Assessment in Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Rapid and accurate risk stratification is paramount for guiding immediate clinical decisions in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), a condition that carries substantial risk of morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. While established tools like the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and classifications from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) are widely used, the search continues for models that more precisely identify patients at highest risk for adverse outcomes [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. A recent study offers a direct comparison of these tools against the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score, providing new data on their relative utility in the emergency department setting.

Study Design and Patient Cohort

The investigation was a retrospective assessment that leveraged the strength of prospectively collected data from a large PE registry. This design minimizes recall bias while allowing for a focused analysis of specific predictive scores. The data were gathered from six academic emergency departments between 2016 and 2020, encompassing a robust cohort of 1,731 patients diagnosed with PE. To ensure consistency, the CPES score was calculated for each patient only when at least five of its six components were available. This methodology provided a solid foundation for comparing the CPES score's performance against the sPESI and ESC classifications in predicting short-term clinical outcomes.

Defining Outcomes and Analytical Approach

The study's primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death or clinical deterioration, which occurred in 193 patients (11.1%). Secondary outcomes included the need for advanced intervention, such as systemic thrombolysis or surgical embolectomy, which was required for 123 patients (7.1%), and 30-day mortality, observed in 124 patients (7.2%). To evaluate the scoring tools, the researchers used logistic regression to assess associations with these outcomes. They further compared the classification characteristics of each tool using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a statistical measure of a test's ability to distinguish between patients who will and will not experience an outcome. Additionally, they calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), which quantify how much a given score changes the pre-test probability of an adverse event.

Comparative Predictive Performance

When evaluated against the primary outcome of in-hospital death or clinical deterioration, the CPES, sPESI, and ESC tools performed similarly. A CPES score of 3 or higher yielded a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 57%, with an AUC of 0.68, indicating modest discrimination. The likelihood ratios for the CPES score were also comparable to those of the other two tools for this primary outcome, as well as for the secondary outcome of 30-day mortality. However, a notable distinction emerged when predicting the need for advanced intervention. For this outcome, the CPES score demonstrated stronger separation of high-risk from low-risk patients, with an AUC of 0.78. The score yielded a positive likelihood ratio of 2.07 (95% CI, 1.90 to 2.25) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.33), suggesting it is more effective than sPESI or ESC classifications at identifying which patients may require escalation of care.

Thrombus Location and Clinical Relevance

Beyond comparing scoring systems, the analysis revealed that specific anatomical features provide significant prognostic information. The presence of a central thrombus was independently associated with the need for advanced intervention, with an odds ratio of 3.46 (95% CI, 1.49 to 8.93). This finding underscores that thrombus location is a powerful predictor of which patients will require aggressive therapies like thrombolysis or embolectomy. Interestingly, central thrombus was not associated with the primary composite outcome of death or clinical deterioration, suggesting its main utility is in guiding therapeutic decisions rather than predicting overall short-term survival. In contrast, the presence of concomitant deep venous thrombosis was not associated with any of the measured adverse outcomes. For the practicing clinician, these results suggest that while risk scores like CPES are valuable, imaging that identifies a central thrombus offers critical, independent information for determining the need for advanced intervention.

References

1. Investigators WGFTWHI. Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: Principal Results From the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2002. doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321

2. Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant R, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Use of Pulmonary-Artery Catheters in High-Risk Surgical Patients. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003. doi:10.1056/nejmoa021108

3. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2020. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612

4. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. EP Europace. 2016. doi:10.1093/europace/euw295

5. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. European Heart Journal. 2016. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210

6. Members AF, Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: The Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2010. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq278

7. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2013. doi:10.1161/str.0b013e318284056a

8. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Intensive Care Medicine. 2007. doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0934-2

9. Wynants L, Calster BV, Collins GS, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1328