The Role of Standard Scoring Systems in Predicting Early Thrombolysis in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department – A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Öz

Objectives: To study the utility of the standard scoring systems for Pulmonary Embolism in predicting the need for early thrombolysis in an Acute Care Setting. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study to assess the patients with Pulmonary Embolism (PE) presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a quaternary care hospital in South India, from April 2022 to April 2024. We noted the clinical profile, risk factors, the 3-level Wells score (WS) for PE, Revised Geneva score (RGS), and simplified Pulmonary Embolism Sensitivity Index (sPESI) for each patient. We studied the role of the scoring systems in precisely identifying high risk groups and their predictive role in assessing the need for thrombolysis in an acute care setting. The ED outcomes of these patients were noted.  Results: Of the 93 confirmed PE patients (mean age 46.4 ± 15.3 years; male-to-female ratio 3:1), 16(17.2%) patients received thrombolysis. The WS system misclassified 23(24.7%) of the confirmed PE patients as having a low-risk prediction of PE. The RGS misclassified 2(2.6%) as low-risk for PE while the sPESI misclassified 16(17.2%) as low-risk for mortality. The risk categorization in these three scoring systems did not reliably predict the need for thrombolysis. The overall mortality was 3/93 (3.2%) and was similar in those who underwent thrombolysis and those managed conservatively. Patients who underwent thrombolysis were more likely to have presented with hypotension, tachycardia, abnormal ECG findings, and right ventricular strain on echocardiography. Conclusion: The commonly used scoring systems of PE for risk stratification and outcome prediction, including the WS, RGS and sPESI scores were not found to accurately predict the need for thrombolysis, when used as the sole predictive tools.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pulmonary embolism
• Thrombolysis
• Echocardiography
• Wells Score for Pulmonary embolism
• Revised Geneva Score
• Simplified PESI
• Emergency Department

Kaynakça

1. 1. Vyas V, Sankari A, Goyal A. Acute Pulmonary Embolism. Published online December 11, 2024. Accessed October 1, 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560551/
2. 2. Freund Y, Cohen-Aubart F, Bloom B. Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Review. JAMA. 2022;328(13):1336-1345. doi:10.1001/JAMA.2022.16815
3. 3. Lee AD, Stephen E, Agarwal S, Premkumar P. Venous Thrombo-embolism in India. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2009;37(4):482-485. doi:10.1016/J.EJVS.2008.11.031
4. 4. Zhen K, Tao Y, Xia L, et al. Epidemiology of pulmonary embolism in China, 2021: a nationwide hospital-based study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2025;54. doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101258
5. 5. Hsu SH, Ko CH, Chou EH, et al. Pulmonary embolism in United States emergency departments, 2010-2018. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1). doi:10.1038/S41598-023-36123-2
6. 6. Thangudu P. From Trendelenburg to PERTs: Evolution in the Management of Massive Pulmonary Embolism. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2024;20(3):19-26. doi:10.14797/MDCVJ.1345
7. 7. Russell C, Keshavamurthy S, Saha S. Classification and Stratification of Pulmonary Embolisms. Int J Angiol. 2022;31(3):162. doi:10.1055/S-0042-1756218
8. 8. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: Increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83(3):416-420. doi:10.1055/S-0037-1613830/ID/JR3830-5/BIB

9. 9. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department: The Revised Geneva Score. https://doi.org/107326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004. 2006;144(3):165-171. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004
10. 10. Jiménez D, Aujesky D, Moores L, et al. Simplification of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for Prognostication in Patients With Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1383-1389. doi:10.1001/ARCHINTERNMED.2010.199
11. 11. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):98-107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00010
12. 12. Meyer G, Vicaut E, Danays T, et al. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1402-1411. doi:10.1056/NEJMOA1302097
13. 13. Konstantinides S V., Meyer G, Bueno H, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603. doi:10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHZ405
14. 14. Hagiya H, Harada K, Nishimura Y, et al. Global trends in mortality related to pulmonary embolism: an epidemiological analysis of data from the World Health Organization mortality database from 2001 to 2023. EClinicalMedicine. 2025;86. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103389
15. 15. Lolly M, Patil B, Eti A, Sujay J, Khan S, Bansal A. Clinical profile of patients presenting with acute pulmonary thromboembolism in a tertiary care hospital in India: A retrospective study. J Dr NTR Univ Health Sci. 2017;6(1):15. doi:10.4103/JDRNTRUHS.JDRNTRUHS_9_17
16. 16. Pollack C V., Schreiber D, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: Initial report of EMPEROR (multicenter emergency medicine pulmonary embolism in the real world registry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(6):700-706. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.071
17. 17. Jimenez Tejero E, Lopez-Alcalde J, Correa-Pérez A, et al. Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;3(3). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013835.PUB2
18. 18. Marwah V, Choudhary R, Bhati G, et al. Pulmonary thromboembolism in adults: Experience from a tertiary care center. Med J Armed Forces India. 2024;80(Suppl 1):S78-S83. doi:10.1016/J.MJAFI.2022.09.011
19. 19. Sedhom R, Megaly M, Elbadawi A, et al. Sex Differences in Management and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2022;97(10):1872-1882. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.03.022
20. 20. Kruger PC, Eikelboom JW, Douketis JD, Hankey GJ. Pulmonary embolism: update on diagnosis and management. Med J Aust. 2019;211(2):82-87. doi:10.5694/MJA2.50233
21. 21. Shopp JD, Stewart LK, Emmett TW, Kline JA. Findings From 12-lead Electrocardiography That Predict Circulatory Shock From Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(10):1127-1137. doi:10.1111/ACEM.12769
22. 22. Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA, et al. Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(8):1041-1046. doi:10.1164/RCCM.200506-862OC
23. 23. Çoraplı G, Topçu AF, Üzeri İ, Köyü İ. Combination of the Simplified Modified Geneva and Wells Clinical Prediction Scoring promise a good performance in pulmonary embolism diagnosis. Journal of Surgery and Medicine. 2021;5(9):828-831. doi:10.28982/JOSAM.962221
24. 24. Alonso Martinez JL, Anniccherico Sánchez FJ, Urbieta Echezarreta MA, García IV, Álvaro JR. Central Versus Peripheral Pulmonary Embolism: Analysis of the Impact on the Physiological Parameters and Long-term Survival. N Am J Med Sci. 2016;8(3):134. doi:10.4103/1947-2714.179128
25. 25. Kucher N, Rossi E, De Rosa M, Goldhaber SZ. Massive pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2006;113(4):577-582. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.592592
26. 26. Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, De Rosa M. Acute pulmonary embolism: Clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet. 1999;353(9162):1386-1389. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07534-5