A. Marin, Igor Požek, R. Erzen, P. M. Brguljan, M. Košnik
{"title":"Improving diagnostics of pulmonary embolism with clinical prediction models in a clinic of pulmonary diseases","authors":"A. Marin, Igor Požek, R. Erzen, P. M. Brguljan, M. Košnik","doi":"10.6016/338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose of the Study: Clinical prediction models\nhave been developed to assess the pre-test\nprobability for pulmonary embolism (PE). The\nWells model and the revised Geneva score are\nthe two most well studied. Our purpose was to\ncompare the two prediction models, and indentify\nthe frequent clinical findings of PE in patients\nadmitted to the University Clinic of Pulmonary\nand Allergic Diseases Golnik.\nMethods: In 100 random emergency department\npatients and hospital inpatients with\nsuspected PE and performed pulmonary CT\nangiography (CTPA) as the gold standard, a retrospective\nassessment of the clinical probability\nof PE by the Wells rule and the revised Geneva\nscore was made. ECG, D-dimer, NT-proBNP, arterial\nblood gas analysis, chest X-ray, CTPA and\n13 other clinical findings were analysed as well.\nResults: Average age was 65 years (SD 14.5), 39 %\nwere male. The overall prevalence of PE was\n33 %. The rates of PE in low, moderate, and high\nPE risk groups as determined according to the\nWells model and the revised Geneva score were\n3.7, 53,1, 100, and 14.3, 32.1, 83.3 %, respectively.\nROC analysis showed that the Wells model was\nstatistically more accurate than the Geneva score\nwith the area under the curve (AUC) in Wells\nmodel 0.85 (95 % CI 0.762–0.936) and in Geneva\nscore 0.73 (95 % CI 0.612–0.838). Sudden\ndyspnea, active malignancy, venous thromboembolism\n(VTE) history, estrogen therapy, deep\nvein thrombosis (DVT) signs, ECG changes and\nlower PaCO2 were significantly more frequent in\nPE group. All patients with PE had an increased\nconcentration of D-dimer, and no PE were diagnosed\nin the group of patients with normal\nD-dimer. CTPA was ordered in 17 % of patients\nwith low pre-test probability of PE according to\nWells criteria and normal D-dimer. Conclusions: The Wells model is more accurate\nthan the Geneva scoring system for the diagnosis\nof PE in patients admitted to a pulmonary\nclinic. Additional findings, such as sudden dyspnea,\nestrogen therapy, ECG changes and lower\nPaCO2, should always be incorporated in clinical\nassessment of PE. Adding the Wells algorithm to\nthe clinical pathway for PE management might\nslightly decrease the number of CTPA.","PeriodicalId":49350,"journal":{"name":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"698-706"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zdravniski Vestnik-Slovenian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6016/338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: Clinical prediction models
have been developed to assess the pre-test
probability for pulmonary embolism (PE). The
Wells model and the revised Geneva score are
the two most well studied. Our purpose was to
compare the two prediction models, and indentify
the frequent clinical findings of PE in patients
admitted to the University Clinic of Pulmonary
and Allergic Diseases Golnik.
Methods: In 100 random emergency department
patients and hospital inpatients with
suspected PE and performed pulmonary CT
angiography (CTPA) as the gold standard, a retrospective
assessment of the clinical probability
of PE by the Wells rule and the revised Geneva
score was made. ECG, D-dimer, NT-proBNP, arterial
blood gas analysis, chest X-ray, CTPA and
13 other clinical findings were analysed as well.
Results: Average age was 65 years (SD 14.5), 39 %
were male. The overall prevalence of PE was
33 %. The rates of PE in low, moderate, and high
PE risk groups as determined according to the
Wells model and the revised Geneva score were
3.7, 53,1, 100, and 14.3, 32.1, 83.3 %, respectively.
ROC analysis showed that the Wells model was
statistically more accurate than the Geneva score
with the area under the curve (AUC) in Wells
model 0.85 (95 % CI 0.762–0.936) and in Geneva
score 0.73 (95 % CI 0.612–0.838). Sudden
dyspnea, active malignancy, venous thromboembolism
(VTE) history, estrogen therapy, deep
vein thrombosis (DVT) signs, ECG changes and
lower PaCO2 were significantly more frequent in
PE group. All patients with PE had an increased
concentration of D-dimer, and no PE were diagnosed
in the group of patients with normal
D-dimer. CTPA was ordered in 17 % of patients
with low pre-test probability of PE according to
Wells criteria and normal D-dimer. Conclusions: The Wells model is more accurate
than the Geneva scoring system for the diagnosis
of PE in patients admitted to a pulmonary
clinic. Additional findings, such as sudden dyspnea,
estrogen therapy, ECG changes and lower
PaCO2, should always be incorporated in clinical
assessment of PE. Adding the Wells algorithm to
the clinical pathway for PE management might
slightly decrease the number of CTPA.