RESUMEN
Introducción: la trombosis venosa profunda (TVP) es una entidad común que afecta principalmente el sistema venoso profundo de los miembros inferiores, para el cual se han desarrollado múltiples escalas de predicción clínica, las cuales han sido construidas y validadas en pacientes ambulatorios y hospitalizados. Objetivos: validar cinco escalas de predicción clínica para TVP en pacientes atendidos en un centro de tercer nivel en la sabana de Bogotá, Colombia. Métodos: se llevó a cabo un estudio de corte transversal con análisis de prueba diagnóstica en sujetos con sospecha de TVP, incluyendo aquellos que contaran con la realización de ecografía Doppler venosa de miembros inferiores. Se calculó el rendimiento de cinco escalas de predicción clínica para TVP (Wells clásico y modificado, Oudega, CEBI y Constans) para pacientes ambulatorios u hospitalizados, individualizando la población en la que fueron validadas. Resultados: ingresaron al análisis 974 pacientes, de estos 485 (49,7 %) presentaron TVP. La escala de Constans tuvo un mejor rendimiento diagnóstico entre los pacientes hospitalizados y ambulatorios, con un área bajo la curva ROC de 0,73 (95 % 0,70-0,78) al compararla con Wells clásico, Wells modificado, Oudega y CEBI. Al comparar el rendimiento de Constans en ambos grupos de pacientes por separado, también se observó un mejor rendimiento con respecto a las demás escalas. Conclusión: la escala de Constans presenta un mejor rendimiento diagnóstico comparado con las demás escalas al ser aplicada en paciente hospitalizados y ambulatorios.
Summary Introduction: The deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common entity that mainly affects the deep venous system of the lower limbs, for which multiple clinical prediction scales have been developed, which have been constructed and validated in outpatients and inpatients. Objetives: We aimed to validated five clinical prediction scores for the diagnosis of lower limb DVT in patients from La Sabana de Bogota, Colombia. Methods: A cross-sectional study with analysis of a diagnostic test was carried out in patiens with suspected deep vein thrombosis, including those who had venous Doppler ultrasound of the lower limbs for suspected DVT. The performance of five clinical prediction scales for DVT (classic and modified Wells, Oudega, CEBI and Constans) for outpatients and inpatients was calculated in those scores who are validated in both populations and only in ambulatory or hospitalized patients for those that are specific scores. Results: Nine hundred seventy-four patients were entered into the analysis, of which 485 (49.7%) presented DVT. The Constans scale had a better diagnostic performance among inpatients and outpatients with an area under the ROC curve of 0.73 (95% 0.70-0.78) when compared with classic Wells, modified Wells, Oudega and CEBI. When we compared Constans performance in both groups of patients separately, we observed better performance with respect to the other scores. Conclusion: The Constans scale presents a better diagnostic performance compared to the other scales when applied to inpatients and outpatients.
RESUMEN
Abstract Objectives: to validate the diagnostic yield of the PERC score for ruling out pulmonary embolism in low-risk patients at high altitudes (>2500 meters above sea level [ASL]). Methods: a cross-sectional study with diagnostic test analysis in patients over the age of 18 with suspected pulmonary embolism on admission or during hospitalization, who underwent chest computed tomography angiography between August 2009 and January 2020 in a tertiary care hospital located on the Bogotá savannah. The yield of the PERC score was assessed, calculated with an SaO2<95% and an SaO2<90% in patients with different risk levels according to the Wells, Geneva and Pisa scores for pulmonary embolism. Results: one thousand eighty-seven were included in the final analysis, 42% with PE. Patients classified as low-risk using the Wells score had a PERC ACOR calculated with SaO2<95% of 0.56 (95%CI:0.50-0.62) (p=0.049), and calculated with SaO2<90% of 0.60 (95%CI:0.54-0.66) (p=0.002). The ACOR for subjects classified as low-risk using the Geneva score, with a PERC calculated with SaO2<95%, was: 0.53 (95%CI:0.45-0.60) (p=0.459) and for a PERC calculated with SaO2<90% it was: 0.55 (95%CI:0.47-0.62) (P=0.218). The ACOR for subjects with a less than 10% probability of PE according to the Pisa score classification, with a PERC calculated with SaO2<95%, was: 0.54 (95%CI:0.44-0.64)(p=0.422), and for a PERC calculated with SaO2<90% it was: 0.56 (95%CI:0.46-0.66)(p=0.236). Conclusions: the PERC score calculated with an oxygen saturation <90% has a similar diagnostic yield to the PERC score calculated with an oxygen saturation <95% for ruling out PE in patients classified as low-risk by the Wells score at high altitudes (>2,500 meters ASL). (Acta Med Colomb 2021; 46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2021.2010).
