Comparison of Wells and YEARS clinical decision rules with D‐dimer for low‐risk pulmonary embolus patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-744
Author(s):  
Christopher J. McLenachan ◽  
Olivia Chua ◽  
Betty S. H. Chan ◽  
Elia Vecellio ◽  
Angela L. Chiew
2013 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. e44
Author(s):  
F. Rosa-Jiménez ◽  
A. Carreras-Álvarez ◽  
A. Lozano-Rodríguez ◽  
A. Rosa-Jiménez ◽  
M.C. Duro-López ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3186-3186
Author(s):  
Inge CM Mos ◽  
Renée A Douma ◽  
Petra MG Erkens ◽  
Tessa AC Nizet ◽  
Marc F Durian ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3186 Background Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) are available for the exclusion of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). This prospective multi-center study compared the safety and clinical utility of four CDRs (Wells rule, revised Geneva score, simplified Wells rule and simplified revised Geneva score) in excluding PE in combination with D-dimer testing. Methods Clinical probability of patients with suspected acute PE was assessed using a computerized based “black box”, which calculated all CDRs and indicated the next diagnostic step. A “PE unlikely” result according to all CDRs in combination with a normal D-dimer result excluded PE, while patients with “PE likely” according to at least one of the CDRs or an abnormal D-dimer result underwent CT-scanning. Patients in whom PE was excluded were followed for three months. Results 807 consecutive patients were included and PE prevalence was 23%. The number of patients categorized as “PE unlikely” ranged from 62% (simplified Wells rule) to 72% (Wells rule). Combined with a normal D-dimer level, the CDRs excluded PE in 22–24% of patients. The total failure rates of the CDR-D-dimer combinations were similar (1 failure, 0.5– 0.6%, upper 95% CI 2.9– 3.1%). Despite 30% of the patients had discordant CDR outcomes, PE was missed in none of the patients with discordant CDRs and a normal D-dimer result. Conclusions All four CDRs show similar safety and clinical utility for exclusion of acute PE in combination with a normal D-dimer level. With this prospective validation, the more straightforward simplified scores are ready for use in clinical practice. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
John H Park ◽  
Cole R Spresser ◽  
Jorge A Valdivia ◽  
Michael J Khadavi ◽  
Saikat Das ◽  
...  

Background. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is clinically suspected in many patients who complain of shortness of breath or chest pain due to its nonspecific nature. The prevalence of PE, however, is low in this population. To assist physicians in diagnostic decision making, several clinical decision rules (CDR) have been developed. The appropriate use of these CDRs has been proven to decrease the need for expensive, time consuming, and invasive diagnostic imaging procedures. In this study, the appropriateness of D-dimer and CT usage was investigated to rule out pulmonary emboli based on the simplified Geneva score. Methods. A retrospective review was performed on 74 patients with a CT scan ordered through a pulmonary embolism (PE) protocol. Using clinical data, the patients were stratified into “unlikely” and “likely” groups for the presence of PE based on the simplification of the revised Geneva score. Scores of 0-2 were graded as “unlikely” and scores of 3 or greater were “likely.” Results. There were 45/74 (60.8%) patients in the “unlikely” group. Of these, 14/45 (31.1%) received a D-dimer; eight were normal and six elevated. Only one patient in the elevated group had evidence of a PE. Of the remaining 31(39.2%) patients in the “unlikely” group that did not receive a D-dimer, only one had a PE. The “likely” group consisted of 29 (39.2%) patients of whom six received a D-dimer. Three patients had a normal D-dimer and three had an elevated level. Neither of these two groups had a PE. Of the remaining 23 (60.8%) in the “likely” group who did not receive a D-dimer, six had a PE. Conclusions. Diagnosing pulmonary emboli using D-dimer levels and CT scans may be aided by clinical decision rules such as the simplified Geneva system. This process may lead to more effective use of medical resources.


2014 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Rodger ◽  
Gregoire Le Gal ◽  
Philip Wells ◽  
Trevor Baglin ◽  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2469-2469
Author(s):  
Ynse IGV Tichelaar ◽  
Karina Meijer ◽  
Jan ter Maaten ◽  
Matthijs Oudkerk ◽  
Hanneke C. Kluin-Nelemans ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2469 Poster Board II-446 Background: Use of clinical decision rules have been validated in secondary care setting to safely rule out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) without using compression ultra sound (CUS). Clinical decision rules are now also used in primary care in the Netherlands (Thromb Haemost. 2005;94:200-205, Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:229-35). Because of this referral filter, pre-test probability of diagnosing a DVT in a hospital setting could be enlarged. On the other hand, the negative outcome of a clinical decision rule may still lead to referral as primary care physicians may have an a-priori opinion on the risk for DVT in certain patients, despite a low probability of having the disease given by a clinical decision rule (i.e. Bayes theorem). Whether the excellent negative predictive values (NPV's) of these decision rules are therefore still valid in a hospital setting is doubtful. The aim of this prospective single-center university-hospital based study was to confirm whether pre-test probability of diagnosing DVT in our hospital setting was increased due to the referral pattern of primary physicians, compared to historical data (16-27%; Thromb Haemost. 2004;91:1237-46, N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1227-35). We also evaluated the NPV's of the simplified (J Intern Med. 1998;243:15-23) and revised (N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1227-35) Wells score, with and without D-dimer level. Finally, we analyzed whether CRP levels influenced predictive values of these 2 clinical decision rules. Methods: Between April 2008 and July 2009, consecutive patients suspected of DVT by their primary physician who were referred to our emergency department were included. Clinical data were collected prior to laboratory testing to avoid bias of adjudication of clinical outcome events. CUS was used in all patients to establish or rule out a diagnosis on the same day. Calf vein thrombosis or thrombophlebitis was not considered as DVT. D-dimer levels were measured at presentation with a Tina-Quant assay. Levels > 500 ng/ml were considered positive. CRP levels > 5 mg/L were considered high. For both decision rules, patients with a score of < 2 were considered unlikely and those with a score of ≥ 2 were considered likely to have a DVT. Predictive values were calculated for each score, with and without D-dimer or CRP results, respectively. Results: Of 227 patients, 50% were women and 115 (51%) had DVT; 55% of the thromboses were provoked. The median age at presentation was 54 years. The median duration of symptoms before presentation was 5 days. For the simplified Wells score, the NPV was 87%. Adding a negative D-dimer to the calculation increased the NPV to 96%. In patients considered likely to have a DVT, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 63%, which increased to 71% when a positive D-dimer level was included. Using the revised Wells score (which includes the item of previous DVT), the NPV was 86%, which increased to 95% with a negative D-dimer level. In patients considered likely to have a DVT, the PPV was 58% when not considering D-dimer level and 68% with a positive D-dimer level. Of note, the NPV of a negative D-dimer test alone, without considering the Wells score, was 94%. Addition of CRP level did not result in a better PPV or NPV of the simplified or revised Wells score. Interpretation: According to recent literature, we are the first in 5 years to re-validate the simplified and revised Wells score with a D-dimer test in an emergency department population. We found an absolute 24 to 35% increase in prevalence of DVT in this setting compared to historical data. The increased prevalence in our cohort could be due to the use of clinical decision rules in primary care setting, better awareness of primary care physicians for this serious and common disease, or by being a tertiary care center. Referral bias may, however, not be of great influence as a previous study of ours has shown that 50% of patients referred by their primary physician with clinically suspected venous thrombosis were sent to our hospital and the other 50% to the only other hospital in our region (Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:807-15). Decision making in primary care probably reduced the number of referrals to our hospital substantially. However, the NPV of a low Wells score and a negative D-dimer test, or a negative D-dimer test alone were 95% and 94% respectively. Although these preliminary results should be handled with caution due to small numbers, these NPVs may be too low to safely rule out deep vein thrombosis without CUS. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (11) ◽  
pp. 2176-2185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Bass ◽  
Kara Fields ◽  
Rie Goto ◽  
Gregory Turissini ◽  
Shirin Dey ◽  
...  

Background Clinical decision rules (CDRs) for pulmonary embolism (PE) have been validated in outpatients, but their performance in hospitalized patients is not well characterized. Objectives The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess the performance of CDRs for PE in hospitalized patients. Methods We performed a structured literature search using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for articles published on or before January 18, 2017. Two authors reviewed all titles, abstracts and full texts. We selected prospective studies of symptomatic hospitalized patients in which a CDR was used to estimate the likelihood of PE. The diagnosis of PE had to be confirmed using an accepted reference standard. Data on hospitalized patients were solicited from authors of studies in mixed populations of outpatients and hospitalized patients. Study characteristics, PE prevalence and CDR performance were extracted. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS instrument. Results Twelve studies encompassing 3,942 hospitalized patients were included. Studies varied in methodology (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) and reference standards used. The pooled sensitivity of the modified Wells rule (cut-off ≤ 4) in hospitalized patients was 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.7–79.2) and the pooled specificity was 62.2% (95% CI, 52.6–70.9). The modified Wells rule (cut-off ≤ 4) plus D-dimer testing had a pooled sensitivity 99.7% (95% CI, 96.7–100) and pooled specificity 10.8% (95% CI, 6.7–16.9). The efficiency (proportion of patients stratified into the ‘PE unlikely’ group) was 8.4% (95% CI, 4.1–16.5), and the failure rate (proportion of low likelihood patients who were diagnosed with PE during follow-up) was 0.1% (95% CI, 0–5.3). Conclusion In symptomatic hospitalized patients, use of the Wells rule plus D-dimer to rule out PE is safe, but allows very few patients to forgo imaging.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document