Performance of 4 Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnostic Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Autor: Renée A, Douma, Inge C M, Mos, Petra M G, Erkens, Tessa A C, Nizet, Marc F, Durian, Marcel M, Hovens, Anja A, van Houten, Herman M A, Hofstee, Frederikus A, Klok, Hugo, ten Cate, Erik F, Ullmann, Harry R, Büller, Pieter W, Kamphuisen, Menno V, Huisman, A A, van Houten
Přispěvatelé: Interne Geneeskunde, Family Medicine, Biochemie, RS: CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Internal medicine, ICaR - Ischemia and repair, Hematology, Vascular Medicine, ACS - Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Other Research, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, APH - Amsterdam Public Health, Epidemiology and Data Science, Laboratory for General Clinical Chemistry, Vascular Ageing Programme (VAP)
Rok vydání: 2011
Předmět:
Zdroj: Annals of Internal Medicine, 154(11), 14-718. American College of Physicians
Annals of Internal Medicine, 154(11). American College of Physicians
Annals of internal medicine, 154(11), 709-718. American College of Physicians
Douma, R A, Mos, I C M, Erkens, P M G, Nizet, T A C, Durian, M F, Hovens, M M, van Houten, A A, Hofstee, H M A, Klok, F A, Ten Cate, H, Ullmann, E F, Buller, H R, Kamphuisen, P W & Huisman, M V 2011, ' Performance of 4 Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnostic Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism A Prospective Cohort Study ', Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 154, no. 11 . https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00002
Annals of Internal Medicine, 154(11), 709-718. AMER COLL PHYSICIANS
ISSN: 0003-4819
Popis: 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. © 2011 American College of Physicians.
Databáze: OpenAIRE