scholarly journals Influence of specific alternative diagnoses on the probability of pulmonary embolism

2006 ◽  
Vol 95 (06) ◽  
pp. 958-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Testuz ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
Marc Righini ◽  
Henri Bounameaux ◽  
Arnaud Perrier
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
Prediction Rule ◽  
Important Variable ◽  
Alternative Diagnosis ◽  
Clinical Probability ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Specific Alternative

SummaryThe presence and likelihood of an alternative diagnosis to pulmonary embolism is an important variable of the Wells’ prediction rule for establishing clinical probability. We assessed whether evoking specific alternative diagnoses would reduce the probability of pulmonary embolism enough to forego further testing. We retrospectively studieda cohort of 965 consecutive patients admitted for suspicion of pulmonary embolism at three medical centers in Europe in whom the presence of an alternative diagnosis at least as likely as pulmonary embolism was recorded before diagnostic testing. We divided the patients into 15 categories of alternative diagnoses evoked. We then assessed the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in each diagnostic category and compared it to the prevalence of pulmonary embolism ina reference group (patients with no alternative diagnosis or a diagnosis less likely than pulmonary embolism). The prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the reference group was 48%. The presence of an alternative diagnosis as or more likely strongly reduced the probability of pulmonary embolism (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.1–0.2, p<0.01). In almost every diagnostic category, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism was much lower than in the reference group whith an odds ratio below or near 0. 2. Bronchopneumonia (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.7) and cancer (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0. 3 to 1.5) reduced the likelihood of pulmonary embolism toa lower extent. Evoking an alternative diagnosis at least as likely as pulmonary embolism reduces the probability of the disease, but this effect is never large enough to allow ruling it out without further testing, especially when bronchopneumonia or cancer are the alternative diagnoses considered.

scholarly journals Pulmonary embolism during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
BV Silva ◽  
T Rodrigues ◽  
N Cunha ◽  
J Brito ◽  
P Alves Da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Pulmonary Angiography ◽  
Reference Period ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Clinical Probability

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background During the COVID-19 pandemic many countries have imposed lockdown restrictions to movement. Since the 18th of March in Portugal, thousands of people have been confined to their homes. While hospital admissions for COVID-19 patients increased exponentially, admissions for non-COVID-19 patients decreased dramatically. However, it remains unclear whether lockdown-related immobility can contribute to the increased incidence of pulmonary embolism. Purpose To compare the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) during the lockdown period (Abril 1 to May 31, 2020) compared to the reference period in 2019. Methods Retrospective study of consecutive outpatients who presented to the emergency department and underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) due to suspicion of PE. Results Compared to the same period of 2019, the lockdown period was associated with a significant increase in PE diagnosis (29 versus 18 patients). PE patients during lockdown were older (median age 71 years; interquartile range [IQR][60-85] versus 59 years [44-76]; p = 0.046) and have lower prevalence of active cancer (14% versus 33% in the reference period). Women represent 55% (n = 16) of patients in lockdown group (versus 50% in 2019 group). Clinical probability (GENEVA score) was similar in both groups (median score 2.72 in lockdown group and 2.50 in reference group, p = 0.452). None of the patients with PE was diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusion We have observed a marked increase (62%) in PE diagnosis during lockdown period compared to the reference period, which can be explained by the reduction in physical activity due to teleworking and closure of gyms and sports activities. These data reinforce the importance of promoting physical activity programs at home. The role of pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis in this scenario remains unclear.

Exclusion of pulmonary embolism using C-reactive protein and D-dimer

2003 ◽  
Vol 90 (12) ◽  
pp. 1198-1203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Hayoz ◽  
Bertrand Yersin ◽  
Arnaud Perrier ◽  
Ghassan Barghouth ◽  
Pierre Schnyder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Prediction Rule ◽  
Pulmonary Angiography ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Probability Assessment ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Clinical Probability ◽  
D Dimer

SummaryOur goal was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of C-reactive protein (CRP) alone or combined with clinical probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), and to compare its performance to a D-dimer assay. We conducted a prospective study in which we performed a common immuno-turbidimetric CRP test and a rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) D-dimer test in 259 consecutive outpatients with suspected PE at the emergency department of a teaching hospital. We assessed clinical probability of PE by a validated prediction rule overridden by clinical judgment. Patients with D-dimer levels ≥ 500 µg/l underwent a work-up consisting of lower-limb venous ultrasound, spiral computer-ized tomography, ventilation-perfusion scan, or pulmonary angiography. Patients were followed up for three months. Seventy-seven (30%) of the patients had PE.The CRP alone had a sensitivity of 84% (95% confidence interval [CI).: 74 to 92%) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 87% (95% CI: 78 to 93%) at a cutpoint of 5 mg/l. Overall, 61 (24%) patients with a low clinical probability of PE had a CRP < 5 mg/l. Due to the low prevalence of PE (9%) in this subgroup, the NPV increased to 97% (95% CI: 89 to 100%). The D-dimer (cutpoint 500 µg/l) showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 95 to 100%) and a NPV of 100% (95% CI: 94 to 100%) irrespective of clinical probability and accurately rule out PE in 56 (22%) patients. Standard CRP tests alone or combined with clinical probability assessment cannot safely exclude PE.

Accuracy and usefulness of a clinical prediction rule and D-dimer testing in excluding deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in cancer patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19522-19522
Author(s):  
M. Carrier ◽  
A. Lee ◽  
S. Bates ◽  
P. S. Wells
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Prediction Rule ◽  
Clinical Prediction Rule ◽  
Clinical Prediction ◽  
Probability Score ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Clinical Probability ◽  
Low Probability ◽  
D Dimer

19522 Background: Cancer patients frequently present with thrombotic complications and rapid, accurate diagnostic testing would reduce morbidity and mortality. Although the combination of a low clinical probability using clinical prediction rules (e.g. Well’s Score) and a negative D-dimer result have proven to be safe and reliable in ruling out DVT in the general population, the accuracy of such a strategy is less certain in cancer patients. Because cancer patients often have alternative reasons for leg swelling and pain, and because malignancy and chemotherapy can render the D-dimer test positive in the absence of DVT, we hypothesize that the Well’s Score and D-dimer testing are potentially less accurate and less useful in excluding DVT in patients with active cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 2 prospective studies to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of the Well’s Score and D-dimer testing between patients with and without cancer presenting with suspected DVT. Results: A total of 1630 patients were studied; 107 had cancer. DVT was confirmed in 39.3% of patients with and 13.7% of patients without cancer. In both patient groups, the proportions of patients with DVT were significantly different among the high-, moderate- and low-probability groups according to the Well’s score (P<0.001). However, significantly fewer cancer patients (19.6%) had a low-probability score compared to patients without cancer (47.5%) (P<0.001). Similarly, 36.4% of cancer vs. 60.4% of noncancer patients had a negative D-dimer result (P<0.001). In cancer patients, a low probability score alone had a sensitivity of 95.2% (95%CI 82.6%-99.2%) and a specificity of 29.2% (95% CI 18.9%-42.0%). In combination with D-dimer testing, the sensitivity improved to 100% (95%CI 31.0%-100%) but the specificity was reduced to 26.4% (95%CI 13.5%-44.7%). In contrast, the specificity in patients without cancer was preserved at 53.9% (95%CI 50.4%-57.3%). Conclusion: DVT can be ruled out in cancer patients with a low clinical probability of DVT and a negative D-dimer result. However, the low specificity of these tests excludes very few patients and thereby limits their clinical usefulness. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

From dyspnea to pulmonary embolism

2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (9) ◽  
pp. 643-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnaud Perrier
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Prediction Rule ◽  
Clinical Suspicion ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Left Heart Failure ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Clinical Probability ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
Rule Out

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is often evoked in patients with new-onset or worsening dyspnea, especially when it is associated with pleuritic chest pain. However, the prevalence of PE in patients with a clinical suspicion ranges from 20 % to as low as 5 %. Unfortunately, what exactly constitutes a clinical suspicion of PE in a patient with dyspnea can not be accurately standardized. The presence of risk factors for venous thromboembolism should prompt the search for PE. However, their absence does not rule out PE as the cause of the patient’s symptoms, since around 30 % of patients with a first episode of PE have no risk or precipitating factors. Once PE is suspected, the diagnostic workup can be standardized and based on a large body of evidence, combining clinical assessment by a prediction rule, D-dimer measurement and CT angiography in patients with an elevated D-dimer level or a high clinical probability of PE. Patients with obvious alternative diagnoses such as acute left heart failure, pneumonia or acute coronary syndrome should not be investigated for PE.

scholarly journals Assessing the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: The Pregnancy‐Adapted Geneva (PAG) score

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helia Robert‐Ebadi ◽  
Antoine Elias ◽  
Olivier Sanchez ◽  
Emmanuelle Le Moigne ◽  
Jeannot Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Clinical Probability

scholarly journals Wells’ Score in Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism in Patient with Thrombocytopenia: A Case Report

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285
Author(s):  
Dragan Panic ◽  
Andreja Todorovic ◽  
Milica Stanojevic ◽  
Violeta Iric Cupic
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Acute Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Pretest Probability ◽  
Clinical Prediction ◽  
Clinical Prediction Rules ◽  
Prediction Rules ◽  
Clinical Probability ◽  
Wells Score ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Current diagnostic workup of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) usually starts with the assessment of clinical pretest probability, using clinical prediction rules and plasma D-dimer measurement. Although an accurate diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients is thus of crucial importance, the diagnostic management of suspected PE is still challenging. A 60-year-old man with chest pain and expectoration of blood was admitted to the Department of Cardiology, General Hospital in Cuprija, Serbia. After physical examination and laboratory analyses, the diagnosis of Right side pleuropne monia and acute pulmonary embolism was established. Clinically, patient was hemodynamically stable, auscultative slightly weaker respiratory sound right basal, without pretibial edema. Laboratory: C-reactive protein (CRP) 132.9 mg/L, Leukocytes (Le) 18.9x109/L, Erythrocytes (Er) 3.23x1012/L, Haemoglobin (Hgb) 113 g/L, Platelets (Plt) 79x109/L, D-dimer 35.2. On the third day after admission, D-dimer was increased and platelet count was decreased (Plt up to 62x109/L). According to Wells’ rules, score was 2.5 (without symptoms on admission), a normal clinical finding with clinical manifestation of hemoptysis and chest pain, which represents the intermediate level of clinical probability of PE. After the recidive of PE, Wells’ score was 6.5. In summary, this study suggests that Wells’ score, based on a patient’s risk for pulmonary embolism, is a valuable guidance for decision-making in combination with knowledge and experience of clinicians. Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being consiered.

Prognostic value of the Geneva prediction rule in patients in whom pulmonary embolism is ruled out

2010 ◽  
Vol 269 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bertoletti ◽  
G. Le Gal ◽  
D. Aujesky ◽  
P. -M. Roy ◽  
O. Sanchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Prediction Rule
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document