MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400599606 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae378

Safety of treating acute pulmonary embolism at home: an individual patient data meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400599606 on OpenAlexaff
Dieuwke Luijten, Delphine Douillet, Kim Luijken, Cécile Tromeur, Andréa Penaloza, Olivier Hügli, Drahomir Aujesky, Stefano Barco, Joseph Bledsoe, Kyle Chang, Françis Couturaud, Paul L. den Exter, Carme Font, Menno V. Huisman, David F. Jimenez, Christopher Kabrhel, Jeffrey A. Kline, Stavros Konstantinides, Thijs E. van Mens, Remedios Otero, W. Frank Peacock, Olivier Sanchez, William B. Stubblefield, Luca Valerio, David R. Vinson, Philip Wells, Maarten van Smeden, Pierre‐Marie Roy, Frederikus A. Klok

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeCenters for Disease Control and PreventionGrifolsZonMwNational Institutes of HealthSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungLEO PharmaTrombosestichting NederlandDaiichi Sankyo EuropeSanofiBayerAstraZenecaBristol-Myers SquibbLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerBoston Scientific CorporationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismAdverse effectConfidence intervalInternal medicineRelative riskMeta-analysisIncidence (geometry)TroponinRandomized controlled trialCohort studyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Home treatment is considered safe in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients selected by a validated triage tool (e.g. simplified PE severity index score or Hestia rule), but there is uncertainty regarding the applicability in underrepresented subgroups. The aim was to evaluate the safety of home treatment by performing an individual patient-level data meta-analysis. METHODS: Ten prospective cohort studies or randomized controlled trials were identified in a systematic search, totalling 2694 PE patients treated at home (discharged within 24 h) and identified by a predefined triage tool. The 14- and 30-day incidences of all-cause mortality and adverse events (combined endpoint of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and/or all-cause mortality) were evaluated. The relative risk (RR) for 14- and 30-day mortalities and adverse events is calculated in subgroups using a random effects model. RESULTS: The 14- and 30-day mortalities were 0.11% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0-0.24, I2 = 0) and 0.30% (95% CI 0.09-0.51, I2 = 0). The 14- and 30-day incidences of adverse events were 0.56% (95% CI 0.28-0.84, I2 = 0) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.79-1.6, I2 = 0). Cancer was associated with increased 30-day mortality [RR 4.9; 95% prediction interval (PI) 2.7-9.1; I2 = 0]. Pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (N-terminal pro-)B-type natriuretic peptide [(NT-pro)BNP] at presentation were associated with an increased incidence of 14-day adverse events [RR 3.5 (95% PI 1.5-7.9, I2 = 0), 2.5 (95% PI 1.3-4.9, I2 = 0), and 3.9 (95% PI 1.6-9.8, I2 = 0), respectively], but not mortality. At 30 days, cancer, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (NT-pro)BNP were associated with an increased incidence of adverse events [RR 2.7 (95% PI 1.4-5.2, I2 = 0), 2.9 (95% PI 1.5-5.7, I2 = 0), and 3.3 (95% PI 1.6-7.1, I2 = 0), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of adverse events in home-treated PE patients, selected by a validated triage tool, was very low. Patients with cancer had a three- to five-fold higher incidence of adverse events and death. Patients with increased troponin or (NT-pro)BNP had a three-fold higher risk of adverse events, driven by recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.062
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.245
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207