Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study
- PMID: 21646554
- DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00002
Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study
Abstract
Background: Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) are available to exclude acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but they have not been directly compared.
Objective: To directly compare the performance of 4 CDRs (Wells rule, revised Geneva score, simplified Wells rule, and simplified revised Geneva score) in combination with d-dimer testing to exclude PE.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: 7 hospitals in the Netherlands.
Patients: 807 consecutive patients with suspected acute PE.
Intervention: The clinical probability of PE was assessed by using a computer program that calculated all CDRs and indicated the next diagnostic step. Results of the CDRs and d-dimer tests guided clinical care.
Measurements: Results of the CDRs were compared with the prevalence of PE identified by computed tomography or venous thromboembolism at 3-month follow-up.
Results: Prevalence of PE was 23%. The proportion of patients categorized as PE-unlikely ranged from 62% (simplified Wells rule) to 72% (Wells rule). Combined with a normal d-dimer result, the CDRs excluded PE in 22% to 24% of patients. The total failure rates of the CDR and d-dimer combinations were similar (1 failure, 0.5% to 0.6% [upper-limit 95% CI, 2.9% to 3.1%]). Even though 30% of patients had discordant CDR outcomes, PE was not detected in any patient with discordant CDRs and a normal d-dimer result.
Limitation: Management was based on a combination of decision rules and d-dimer testing rather than only 1 CDR combined with d-dimer testing.
Conclusion: All 4 CDRs show similar performance for exclusion of acute PE in combination with a normal d-dimer result. This prospective validation indicates that the simplified scores may be used in clinical practice.
Primary funding source: Academic Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Rijnstate Hospital, Leiden University Medical Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center, and Maasstad Hospital.
Comment in
-
ACP Journal Club. 4 clinical decision rules combined with D-dimer testing each had high sensitivity and low specificity for excluding acute pulmonary embolism.Ann Intern Med. 2011 Sep 20;155(6):JC3-11. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-6-201109200-02011. Ann Intern Med. 2011. PMID: 21930848 No abstract available.
-
Are all pulmonary embolism clinical decision rules equal?CJEM. 2013 Sep;15(5):300-2. doi: 10.2310/8000.2012.120716. CJEM. 2013. PMID: 23972135
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical