Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE. Design, Setting, and Patients: A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016. Interventions: Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission. Results: Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.

Predictive value of S100-B and copeptin for outcomes following seizure: the BISTRO International Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of S100-B protein and copeptin, in addition to clinical variables, in predicting outcomes of patients attending the emergency department (ED) following a seizure. METHODS: We prospectively included adult patients presented with an acute seizure, in four EDs in France and the United Kingdom. Participants were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was a composite of seizure recurrence, all-cause mortality, hospitalization or rehospitalisation, or return visit in the ED within seven days. RESULTS: Among the 389 participants included in the analysis, 156 (40%) experienced the primary endpoint within seven days and 195 (54%) at 28 days. Mean levels of both S100-B (0.11 µg/l [95% CI 0.07-0.20] vs 0.09 µg/l [0.07-0.14]) and copeptin (23 pmol/l [9-104] vs 17 pmol/l [8-43]) were higher in participants meeting the primary endpoint. However, both biomarkers were poorly predictive of the primary outcome with a respective area under the receiving operator characteristic curve of 0.57 [0.51-0.64] and 0.59 [0.54-0.64]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified higher age (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 per decade [1.1-1.5]), provoked seizure (OR 4.93 [2.5-9.8]), complex partial seizure (OR 4.09 [1.8-9.1]) and first seizure (OR 1.83 [1.1-3.0]) as independent predictors of the primary outcome. A second regression analysis including the biomarkers showed no additional predictive benefit (S100-B OR 3.89 [0.80-18.9] copeptin OR 1 [1.00-1.00]). CONCLUSION: The plasma biomarkers S100-B and copeptin did not improve prediction of poor outcome following seizure. Higher age, a first seizure, a provoked seizure and a partial complex seizure are independently associated with adverse outcomes.