Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Rationale: An objective and simple prognostic model for patients with pulmonary embolism could be helpful in guiding initial intensity of treatment. Objectives: To develop a clinical prediction rule that accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into categories of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. Methods: We randomly allocated 15,531 inpatient discharges with pulmonary embolism from 186 Pennsylvania hospitals to derivation (67%) and internal validation (33%) samples. We derived our prediction rule using logistic regression with 30-day mortality as the primary outcome, and patient demographic and clinical data routinely available at presentation as potential predictor variables. We externally validated the rule in 221 inpatients with pulmonary embolism from Switzerland and France. Measurements: We compared mortality and nonfatal adverse medical outcomes across the derivation and two validation samples. Main Results: The prediction rule is based on 11 simple patient characteristics that were independently associated with mortality and stratifies patients with pulmonary embolism into five severity classes, with 30-day mortality rates of 0-1.6% in class I, 1.7-3.5% in class II, 3.2-7.1% in class III, 4.0-11.4% in class IV, and 10.0-24.5% in class V across the derivation and validation samples. Inpatient death and nonfatal complications were р 1.1% among patients in class I and р 1.9% among patients in class II. Conclusions: Our rule accurately classifies patients with pulmonary embolism into classes of increasing risk of mortality and other adverse medical outcomes. Further validation of the rule is important before its implementation as a decision aid to guide the initial management of patients with pulmonary embolism.

The simplified PESI has similar prognostic accuracy and clinical utility and greater ease of use compared with the original PESI.