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
Similar articles
-
The combination of four different clinical decision rules and an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off increases the number of patients in whom acute pulmonary embolism can safely be excluded.Thromb Haemost. 2012 Jan;107(1):167-71. doi: 10.1160/TH11-08-0587. Epub 2011 Nov 10. Thromb Haemost. 2012. PMID: 22072293
-
Accuracy of the Wells clinical prediction rule for pulmonary embolism in older ambulatory adults.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Nov;62(11):2136-41. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13080. Epub 2014 Nov 3. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014. PMID: 25366538
-
The original and simplified Wells rules and age-adjusted D-dimer testing to rule out pulmonary embolism: an individual patient data meta-analysis.J Thromb Haemost. 2017 Apr;15(4):678-684. doi: 10.1111/jth.13630. Epub 2017 Feb 16. J Thromb Haemost. 2017. PMID: 28106338
-
Clinical decision rules for excluding pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 4;155(7):448-60. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00007. Ann Intern Med. 2011. PMID: 21969343 Review.
-
Wells Rule and d-Dimer Testing to Rule Out Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2016 Aug 16;165(4):253-61. doi: 10.7326/M16-0031. Epub 2016 May 17. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27182696 Review.
Cited by
-
Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients-Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management.Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Oct 3;14(19):2208. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14192208. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39410612 Free PMC article. Review.
-
[Diagnostics and treatment of pulmonary artery embolisms].Radiologie (Heidelb). 2024 Oct;64(10):801-810. doi: 10.1007/s00117-024-01364-3. Epub 2024 Sep 3. Radiologie (Heidelb). 2024. PMID: 39225761 German.
-
Construction and validation of risk prediction models for pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients based on different machine learning methods.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Jun 25;11:1308017. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1308017. eCollection 2024. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024. PMID: 38984357 Free PMC article.
-
The History of Diagnosing Venous Thromboembolism.Semin Thromb Hemost. 2024 Jul;50(5):739-750. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1779484. Epub 2024 Feb 19. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2024. PMID: 38373722 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Predictive Value for Increased Red Blood Cell Distribution Width in Unprovoked Acute Venous Thromboembolism at the Emergency Department.Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023 Jan-Dec;29:10760296231193397. doi: 10.1177/10760296231193397. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023. PMID: 37691287 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical