Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jun 7;154(11):709-18. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00002.
Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) are available to exclude acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but they have not been directly compared.
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.
Prospective cohort study.
7 hospitals in the Netherlands.
807 consecutive patients with suspected acute PE.
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.
Results of the CDRs were compared with the prevalence of PE identified by computed tomography or venous thromboembolism at 3-month follow-up.
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.
Management was based on a combination of decision rules and d-dimer testing rather than only 1 CDR combined with d-dimer testing.
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.
Academic Medical Center, VU University Medical Center, Rijnstate Hospital, Leiden University Medical Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center, and Maasstad Hospital.
有几种临床决策规则(CDR)可用于排除急性肺栓塞(PE),但尚未对其进行直接比较。
直接比较 4 种 CDR(Wells 规则、修订版日内瓦评分、简化 Wells 规则和简化修订版日内瓦评分)结合 D-二聚体检测在排除 PE 中的性能。
前瞻性队列研究。
荷兰 7 家医院。
807 例疑似急性 PE 的连续患者。
使用计算机程序评估 PE 的临床可能性,该程序计算了所有 CDR 并指出了下一个诊断步骤。CDR 和 D-二聚体检测结果指导临床治疗。
将 CDR 结果与 3 个月随访时通过计算机断层扫描或静脉血栓栓塞确定的 PE 患病率进行比较。
PE 的患病率为 23%。归类为 PE 可能性低的患者比例为 62%(简化 Wells 规则)至 72%(Wells 规则)。结合正常的 D-二聚体结果,CDR 在 22%至 24%的患者中排除了 PE。CDR 和 D-二聚体组合的总失败率相似(1 例失败,0.5%至 0.6%[上限 95%CI,2.9%至 3.1%])。尽管 30%的患者 CDR 结果不一致,但在任何 CDR 结果不一致且 D-二聚体正常的患者中均未检测到 PE。
管理基于决策规则和 D-二聚体检测的组合,而不是仅基于 1 个 CDR 结合 D-二聚体检测。
所有 4 种 CDR 在结合正常 D-二聚体结果时对排除急性 PE 的表现相似。这项前瞻性验证表明简化评分可在临床实践中使用。
学术医学中心、VU 大学医学中心、Rijnstate 医院、莱顿大学医学中心、马斯特里赫特大学医学中心、伊拉斯谟医疗中心和马斯塔德医院。