Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in cancer patients: A matched-cohort analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e21677 Background: Around 30% of cancer patients presenting to the emergency room (ER) with pulmonary embolism (PE) in the Canadian province of Quebec are managed as outpatients (OP). We investigated whether OP management of PE in cancer patients was associated with increased risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding. Methods: Using Quebec healthcare data, we identified all cancer patients with incident PE diagnosed in ER between 2000 and 2009, after excluding high or very-high risk patients, such as patients admitted to intensive care. Outpatient management was defined as the absence of a hospital admission up to 3 days following the ER visit. Outpatients were propensity-score matched 1:1 (0.01 margin) to inpatients (IP) and followed for 90 days for the recurrence of VTE or the occurrence of major bleeding. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of major bleeding and recurrence associated with OP management were assessed with all-cause mortality as a competing risk. Results: In all, 283 OP were matched to 283 IP (Table). By 90 days, 38 recurrences and 10 major bleeding events occurred. Patients with OP management had lower short-term mortality (P = 0.0002, log-rank test). In competing risk analyses, the HR for recurrence at 90 days with OP management was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.52-1.93), and for major bleeding it was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.29-3.45). Conclusions: Outpatient management of cancer patients with low- or intermediate-risk PE was not associated with a higher risk of recurrence or major bleeding, when accounting for the higher risk of death in patients who were admitted to hospital. Baseline characteristics of matched cancer patients with pulmonary embolism. Factor Inpatients, % (n = 283) Outpatients, % (n = 283) Mean age 68.5 69.1 Men 41.3 44.2 Cancer site Breast 18.0 19.1 Lung 22.3 21.6 Colorectal 12.0 13.1 Pancreas 2.1 2.1 Hematologic 8.5 8.5 Genitourinary 26.5 29.3 Other 19.4 17.3 Chemotherapy 19.1 17.3 Radiotherapy 5.7 6.0 History of major bleed 2.1 3.2 Metastases 27.9 26.5 Charlson, median (IQR) 5 (2-8) 6 (3-9) PE risk score < 2 62.5 59.0 2-4 37.5 41.0 ER diagnoses Deep vein thrombosis 14.5 13.4 Acute kidney injury 0.7 0.4 Atrial fibrillation 3.5 3.5 Pneumonia 2.1 2.1 Myocardial infarction 1.4 1.1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".