Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial
- PMID: 29450523
- PMCID: PMC5838786
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.21904
Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
Importance: The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial.
Objective: To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE.
Design, setting, and patients: A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016.
Interventions: Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative.
Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission.
Results: Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]).
Conclusions and relevance: Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department.
Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Comment in
-
Utility of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: Reason to PERC Up.JAMA. 2018 Feb 13;319(6):551-553. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21901. JAMA. 2018. PMID: 29450510 No abstract available.
-
PERC strategy was noninferior to the usual strategy for ruling out PE in low-risk patients in the ED.Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):JC54. doi: 10.7326/ACPJC-2018-168-10-054. Ann Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 29800430 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Effect of a Diagnostic Strategy Using an Elevated and Age-Adjusted D-Dimer Threshold on Thromboembolic Events in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA. 2021 Dec 7;326(21):2141-2149. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.20750. JAMA. 2021. PMID: 34874418 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study.Trials. 2015 Nov 25;16:537. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1049-7. Trials. 2015. PMID: 26607669 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Safety of the Combination of PERC and YEARS Rules in Patients With Low Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Analysis of Two Large European Cohorts.Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Jan;26(1):23-30. doi: 10.1111/acem.13508. Epub 2018 Aug 10. Acad Emerg Med. 2019. PMID: 29947451
-
Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in pulmonary embolism--revisited: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Emerg Med J. 2013 Sep;30(9):701-6. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201730. Epub 2012 Oct 4. Emerg Med J. 2013. PMID: 23038695 Review.
-
Emergency Evaluation for Pulmonary Embolism, Part 2: Diagnostic Approach.J Emerg Med. 2015 Jul;49(1):104-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.041. Epub 2015 Mar 20. J Emerg Med. 2015. PMID: 25800524 Review.
Cited by
-
Diagnostic value of systematic compression ultrasonography for the detection of unrecognized venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to an internal medicine ward for dyspnea.Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Nov 6. doi: 10.1007/s11739-024-03773-7. Online ahead of print. Intern Emerg Med. 2024. PMID: 39503966
-
Pulmonary thromboembolism: a case report and misdiagnosis analysis of a 63-year-old female patient.Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Aug 13;11:1411338. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1411338. eCollection 2024. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39193021 Free PMC article.
-
Suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: over-, under- and/or mis-testing?Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024 Jun 25;43:100990. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100990. eCollection 2024 Aug. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024. PMID: 39035699 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: A Review of Evidence-Based Approaches.J Clin Med. 2024 Jun 26;13(13):3722. doi: 10.3390/jcm13133722. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38999289 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Risk Scores in Venous Thromboembolism Guidelines of ESC, ACCP, and ASH: An Updated Review.Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2024 Jan-Dec;30:10760296241263856. doi: 10.1177/10760296241263856. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2024. PMID: 38887044 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, et al. . 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(43):3033-3069, 3069a-3069k.. - PubMed
-
- van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, et al. ; Christopher Study Investigators . Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006;295(2):172-179. - PubMed
-
- Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2(8):1247-1255. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
