scholarly journals Prognostic clinical prediction rules to identify a low-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1276-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. SQUIZZATO ◽  
M. P. DONADINI ◽  
L. GALLI ◽  
F. DENTALI ◽  
D. AUJESKY ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. S125
Author(s):  
Alessandro Squizzato ◽  
Marco P. Donadini ◽  
Luca Galli ◽  
Francesco Dentali ◽  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
...  

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S107-S107
Author(s):  
A. Sinclair ◽  
K. Peprah ◽  
T. Quay ◽  
S. Mulla ◽  
L. Weeks

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a diagnostic challenge, since it shares symptoms with other conditions. Missed diagnosis puts patients at a risk of a potentially fatal outcome, while false positive results leave them at risk of side effects (bleeding) from unnecessary treatment. Diagnosis involves a multi-step pathway consisting of clinical prediction rules (CPRs), laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging, but the best strategy in the Canadian context is unclear. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, and safety of diagnostic pathways, CPRs, and diagnostic imaging for the diagnosis of PE. Clinical prediction rules were studied by an overview of systematic reviews, and pathways and diagnostic imaging by a primary systematic review. Where feasible, a diagnostic test meta-analysis was conducted, with statistical adjustment for the use of variable and imperfect reference standards across studies. Results: The Wells CPR rule showed greater specificity than the Geneva, but the relative sensitivities were undetermined. Application of a CPR followed by with D-dimer laboratory testing can safely rule out PE. In diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis, computed tomography (CT) (sensitivity 0.973, 95% CrI 0.921 to 1.00) and ventilation/perfusion single-photon emission CT (VQ-SPECT) (sensitivity 0.974, 95% CrI 0.898 to 1.00) had the highest sensitivity) and CT the highest specificity (0.987, 95% CrI 0.958 to 1.00). VQ and VQ-SPECT had a higher proportion of indeterminate studies, while VQ and VQ-SPECT involved lower radiation exposure than CT. Conclusion: CPR and D-dimer testing can be used to avoid unnecessary imaging. CT is the most accurate single modality, but radiation risk must be assessed. These findings, in conjunction with a recent health technology assessment, may help to inform clinical practice and guidelines.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. e145-e154 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Maguire ◽  
K. Boutis ◽  
E. M. Uleryk ◽  
A. Laupacis ◽  
P. C. Parkin

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285
Author(s):  
Dragan Panic ◽  
Andreja Todorovic ◽  
Milica Stanojevic ◽  
Violeta Iric Cupic

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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 98 (11) ◽  
pp. 980-987 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Dahri ◽  
Peter Loewen

SummaryIt was the objective of this article to qualitatively review and evaluate the clinical prediction rules (CPRs) available for estimating bleeding risk in patients commencing warfarin therapy. A systematic review of PubMed (1949 to December 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006); EMBASE (1980 to December 2006), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to December 2006), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to Demember 2006) was conducted. Seven studies were found that detailed CPRs used to assess risk of bleeding prior to commencing warfarin therapy. Four studies described distinct CPRs. The remaining three studies were further validations of one of the CPRs, the Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index. The Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index was classified as being of Level 2 evidence while the remaining three indices were classified as being of Level 4 evidence. In no case did the CPRs exhibit performance characteristics that would indicate“strong” ability to predict the presence of absence of major bleeding among warfarin recipients. The modified Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index exhibited moderate predictive ability for major bleeding in two studies, although pooling of all studies of this CPR did not reveal moderate or better performance. None of the CPRs identified “any bleeding” with moderate or strong predictive ability. None of the available CPRs exhibit sufficient predictive accuracy or have trials evaluating the impact of their use on patient outcomes. Hence, no existing CPR can be recommended for widespread use in practice at present.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document