Ye Yan-ping, Li Yan-yan, Chen Jin, Zheng Guang, Ma Xin, Peng Xiao-xia, Yang Yuan-hua
Department of Radiology, Fuxing Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Aug;51(8):626-9.
To assess the diagnostic predictive value of Wells score and modified Geneva score for acute pulmonary embolism by prospective case series and to explore a more suitable scoring system for Chinese population.
All the patients suspected of pulmonary embolism (PE) and received CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were enrolled consecutively in Fuxing Hospital, Capital Medical University, China, from June 2009 to August 2011. Before CTPA test or on condition that test results were unknown, clinical scoring was assessed prospectively by the Wells score and the modified Geneva score. The probability of PE in each patient was assessed and the patients were divided into low, moderate and high probability groups according to the clinical scores. The result of CTPA was used as the diagnostic gold standard for PE. Diagnostic accuracy in each group was analyzed. The predictive accuracy of both scores was compared by AUC(ROC) curve.
A total of 139 patients met our enrollment criteria and 117 eligible patients entered our study at last. PE was diagnosed in 47 patients by CTPA with an overall prevalence of 40.2%.Prevalence of PE in the low, moderate and high pretest probability groups assessed by the Wells score and by the simplified modified Geneva score were 7.1% (3/42), 42.9% (21/49), 88.5% (23/26) and 10.0% (3/30), 48.1% (37/77), 7/10, respectively. AUC(ROC) curves for the Wells score and the simplified modified Geneva score were 0.872 (95%CI 0.810 - 0.933) and 0.734 (95%CI 0.643 - 0.825) respectively, with a significant difference (P = 0.005).
The Wells score is more accurate for clinical predicting acute PE than the modified Geneva score.
通过前瞻性病例系列研究评估Wells评分和改良Geneva评分对急性肺栓塞的诊断预测价值,并探索更适合中国人群的评分系统。
2009年6月至2011年8月,在中国首都医科大学附属复兴医院,连续纳入所有疑似肺栓塞(PE)并接受CT肺动脉造影(CTPA)的患者。在CTPA检查前或检查结果未知的情况下,前瞻性地采用Wells评分和改良Geneva评分进行临床评分。评估每位患者发生PE的概率,并根据临床评分将患者分为低、中、高概率组。CTPA结果用作PE的诊断金标准。分析每组的诊断准确性。通过AUC(ROC)曲线比较两种评分的预测准确性。
共有139例患者符合纳入标准,最终117例符合条件的患者进入本研究。CTPA诊断47例患者为PE,总体患病率为40.2%。根据Wells评分和简化改良Geneva评分评估的低、中、高预测试概率组中PE的患病率分别为7.1%(3/42)、42.9%(21/49)、88.5%(23/26)和10.0%(3/30)、48.1%(37/77)、7/10。Wells评分和简化改良Geneva评分的AUC(ROC)曲线分别为0.872(95%CI 0.810 - 0.933)和0.734(95%CI 0.643 - 0.825),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.005)。
Wells评分在临床预测急性PE方面比改良Geneva评分更准确。