Jump to comment:

• Response to Dr Aiello and others regarding the PEARL score
  Carlos Echevarria, John Steer, G John Gibson and Stephen C Bourke
  Published on: 13 July 2017
• Pearl score and death or readmission after hospialization for COPD.
  Pere Almagro, Francesco Aiello
  Published on: 13 July 2017

• Published on: 13 July 2017

  Response to Dr Aiello and others regarding the PEARL score

  • Carlos Echevarria, Respiratory physician Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
  • Other Contributors:
    • John Steer, Respiratory physician
    • G John Gibson, Respiratory physician
    • Stephen C Bourke, Respiratory physician

  We are grateful to the authors for their comments on the PEARL paper, especially those supporting our decision to assess outcome over 90 days. In regard to CODEX, most, but not all, patients had been hospitalised and, more importantly, death or readmission was not the primary outcome.1 Developed tools tend to be optimal for their primary outcome; a tool specifically designed to predict readmission/ death without readmission is likely to be a better predictor of this outcome than one that was not developed primarily for this purpose. This may, at least in part, explain the observed difference in performance. Prognostic tools should also undergo external validation. However, we acknowledge that the brevity of the abstract makes this unclear. At the editor’s discretion, we suggest the abstract could be amended to state: “no tool has been developed and externally validated…”

  We agree that data about mortality alone is relevant, and highlight that this is included in table E3 in the online supplement. The optimal predictors of death and readmission are not identical, although there is overlap. The reasons for including readmission or death without readmission as a combined outcome are: 1) they are competing risks, and assessing readmission alone would mean that death without readmission would be categorised as a favourable outcome; 2) a patient who would otherwise have died at home may be readmitted if they are identified as high risk and appropriate services are put in...

  Show More

  We are grateful to the authors for their comments on the PEARL paper, especially those supporting our decision to assess outcome over 90 days. In regard to CODEX, most, but not all, patients had been hospitalised and, more importantly, death or readmission was not the primary outcome.1 Developed tools tend to be optimal for their primary outcome; a tool specifically designed to predict readmission/ death without readmission is likely to be a better predictor of this outcome than one that was not developed primarily for this purpose. This may, at least in part, explain the observed difference in performance. Prognostic tools should also undergo external validation. However, we acknowledge that the brevity of the abstract makes this unclear. At the editor’s discretion, we suggest the abstract could be amended to state: “no tool has been developed and externally validated…”

  We agree that data about mortality alone is relevant, and highlight that this is included in table E3 in the online supplement. The optimal predictors of death and readmission are not identical, although there is overlap. The reasons for including readmission or death without readmission as a combined outcome are: 1) they are competing risks, and assessing readmission alone would mean that death without readmission would be categorised as a favourable outcome; 2) a patient who would otherwise have died at home may be readmitted if they are identified as high risk and appropriate services are put in place; and 3) hospital admission may prevent death. One way to analyse readmissions alone without including death as a favourable outcome would be to exclude those that died. However, this would bias the population by excluding those at higher risk of readmission. We plan to separately publish data on long-term predictors of death.

  We acknowledge the difficulties diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, previously termed diastolic heart failure, and its prevalence in this population. However, this does not carry the same mortality risk as left ventricular dysfunction. We separately assessed heart failure as a clinical diagnosis alone (without the need for evidence of reduced left ventricular function on echocardiography); this did not have the same predictive power as left ventricular failure. Consequently, left ventricular failure based on echocardiogram results was appropriately selected. We also highlight the European Society of Cardiology position: “Echocardiography is the most useful, widely available test in patients with suspected HF to establish the diagnosis.”2

  The Charlson Index comprises of 19 indices and is a component of CODEX and LACE. The PEARL index includes only two measures of co-morbidity (individually shown to be strong predictors of outcome), and was superior to LACE in all three cohorts, and to CODEX in two of three cohorts. It is clear that the PEARL score is more parsimonious than scores containing the Charlson index, and therefore it is easier to score. Furthermore, it can be recalled and calculated at the bedside. Whilst we agree that ideally a full medical history should be performed in all patients, the more indices that appear in a score, the more likely that there will be missing data leading to biased estimates.

  1. Almagro P, Soriano JB, Cabrera FJ, et al. Short- and medium-term prognosis in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation: the CODEX index. Chest 2014; 145(5): 972-80.
  2. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail 2016; 18(8): 891-975.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 July 2017

  Pearl score and death or readmission after hospialization for COPD.

  • Pere Almagro, Internal Medicine Multimorbidity Patients Unit. Internal Medicine Department. Hospital Universitario Mutua de Terrassa. Universidad de Barcelona.
  • Other Contributors:
    • Francesco Aiello, Internal Medicine

  We commend Dr. Echevarria et al. for their excellent article, published in Thorax online (February 2017), concerning a new index (PEARL score) to predict the 90-day risk of death or readmission after hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). I agree with the authors on the relevance of 3 months’ prognosis after a hospitalization for AECOPD. Although policymakers usually consider 30-day readmissions as the marker of quality of care, only 36% of readmissions in COPD patients in this period are for a relapse, incomplete recovery, or a new COPD exacerbation. (1) The rest of readmissions in COPD patients are related with the deleterious complications associated with any hospitalization (post-hospital syndrome), especially in an aged population, with frequent comorbidities and often physical frailty. (2) In this sense, a 90-day time frame can probably better capture not only hospital and ambulatory quality of care, but also risk variables associated with readmissions in COPD patients. However, we believe that the article deserves some reflection.
  First, the authors stated that no tool has previously been developed in COPD to predict short-term readmission or death. This is only partially true. As they themselves note later, the CODEX index was specifically developed and validated to evaluate the risk of mortality, readmission, and their combination in the short- (3 months) or medium-term (1-year) after hospital discharge for AECOPD. (3)
  Second, the...

  Show More

  We commend Dr. Echevarria et al. for their excellent article, published in Thorax online (February 2017), concerning a new index (PEARL score) to predict the 90-day risk of death or readmission after hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). I agree with the authors on the relevance of 3 months’ prognosis after a hospitalization for AECOPD. Although policymakers usually consider 30-day readmissions as the marker of quality of care, only 36% of readmissions in COPD patients in this period are for a relapse, incomplete recovery, or a new COPD exacerbation. (1) The rest of readmissions in COPD patients are related with the deleterious complications associated with any hospitalization (post-hospital syndrome), especially in an aged population, with frequent comorbidities and often physical frailty. (2) In this sense, a 90-day time frame can probably better capture not only hospital and ambulatory quality of care, but also risk variables associated with readmissions in COPD patients. However, we believe that the article deserves some reflection.
  First, the authors stated that no tool has previously been developed in COPD to predict short-term readmission or death. This is only partially true. As they themselves note later, the CODEX index was specifically developed and validated to evaluate the risk of mortality, readmission, and their combination in the short- (3 months) or medium-term (1-year) after hospital discharge for AECOPD. (3)
  Second, the authors only analyse the combination of death or readmission. Clearly both are relevant events for the patients, but their impact is obviously different, and no data about mortality are detailed in the article. In our opinion, it would be more illustrative to analyse PEARL score separately for deaths, readmissions (excluding deceased patients without readmissions), and the combined variable. This is especially important in the follow-up at 1 year, represented in Figure3B of the article.
  Third, the authors based the diagnosis of left ventricular failure (LVF) on echocardiographic results. However, heart failure is a clinical syndrome and not an echocardiographic diagnosis. This is especially important in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the most frequent cause of heart failure in aged patients with comorbidities. In these patients, echocardiographic evaluation is more difficult and less reliable. (4) The diagnosis of LVF based exclusively on echocardiographic results can exclude patients with heart failure without previous echocardiogram or with indeterminate results. This would explain the low prevalence of left ventricular failure observed in the present study compared with previous publications. (3,5)
  Finally, the authors point out as a limitation of the CODEX and LACE indexes the requirement to calculate the Charlson index. We have doubts with this statement. The Charlson index is the most widely recognized prognostic index of comorbidity. It is easy and quick to calculate and in fact the variables included (previous chronic diseases) must be collected in any medical history.

  1.-Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1418-28.
  2.-Krumholz HM. Post-hospital syndrome--an acquired, transient condition of generalized risk. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(2):100-2.
  3.- Almagro P, Soriano JB, Cabrera FJ, et al. Short- and medium-term prognosis in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation: the CODEX index. Chest. 2014;145:972-80.
  4.- Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al.2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 ;18:891-975.
  5.-Roversi S, Fabbri LM, Sin DD, Hawkins NM, Agustí A. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac diseases. An urgent need for integrated care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194:1319-1336.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top