ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2024
Validity of mortality risk prediction scores in critically ill patients with secondary pulmonary embolism.
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between acetaminophen use and 30-day mortality in critically ill patients with pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study using the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Prediction of mortality in patients with secondary pulmonary embolism based on primary admission indication: A short communication.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a feared complication in the ICU, significantly impacting morbidity and mortality of the patients affected. Herein, we assess the use of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV (APACHE-IV) and PE-specific risk scores to predict mortality among intensive care unit (ICU) patients who developed secondary PE. This retrospective cohort study used information from 208 United States critical care units recorded in the eICU Collaborative Research Database during 2014 and 2015. We calculated APACHE-IV, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI), and ICU-sPESI scores and compared their predicting performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Of 812 patients included in our study, 150 died (mortality, 18.5% [95% CI, 15.8%-21.1%]). Compared to survivors, non-survivors had higher APACHE-IV (86 vs 52, P<0.001), PESI (170 vs 129, P<0.001), sPESI (2 vs 2, P<0.001), and ICU-sPESI (4 vs 2, P<0.001) scores. AUROCs were 0.790 (APACHE-IV); 0.737 (PESI); 0.726 (ICU-sPESI); and 0.620 (sPESI). APACHE-IV performed significantly better than all 3 PE-specific mortality scores (APACHE-IV vs PESI, P=0.041; APACHE-IV vs sPESI, P=0.001; and APACHE-IV vs ICU-sPESI, P=0.021). Both the PESI and ICU-sPESI outperformed the sPESI (PESI vs sPESI, P=0.001; ICU-sPESI vs sPESI, P<0.001). APACHE-IV score was found to be the best instrument for predicting mortality risk, but PESI and ICU-sPESI scores may be used when APACHE-IV is unavailable. sPESI AUROC suggests absence of sufficient discriminative value to be used as a predictor of mortality in patients with secondary PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.