Assessment of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of resources when evaluating pulmonary embolism (PE) is a concern if the D-dimer assay is improperly used in the evaluation of emergency department patients with suspected PE. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule was derived to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in this patient population. The objective of this study was to assess the PERC rule's performance in an external population. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospectively collected database comparing PERC rule variables to diagnosis of PE in consecutive patients with suspicion for PE. Bivariate analysis on individual variables and the overall accuracy of the PERC rule were performed. RESULTS: Patients on 120 randomly assigned shifts were enrolled with a PE prevalence of 12%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values of the PERC rule were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79%-100%), 16% (95% CI, 10%-24%), 14% (95% CI, 8%-14%), and 100% (95% CI, 80%-100%), respectively, for the total patient population, and 100% (95% CI, 25%-100%), 33% (95% CI, 12%-35%), 2% (95% CI, 0%-11%), and 100% (95% CI, 75%-100%), respectively, for the low pretest probability population. Bivariate analysis showed unilateral leg swelling, recent surgery, and a history of venous thromboembolic event to be predictive of the diagnosis of PE. CONCLUSIONS: The PERC rule may identify a cohort of patients with suspected PE for whom diagnostic testing beyond history and physical examination is not indicated.

Prospective validation of Wells Criteria in the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The literature suggests that the d -dimer is useful in patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism and who have a low pretest probability of disease. A previously defined clinical decision rule, the Wells Criteria, may provide a reliable and reproducible means of determining this pretest probability. We evaluate the interrater agreement and external validity of Wells Criteria in determining pretest probability in patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Trained research assistants enrolled patients during 120 random 8-hour shifts. Patients who underwent imaging for pulmonary embolism after a medical history, physical examination, and chest radiograph were enrolled. Treating providers and research assistants determined pretest probability according to Wells Criteria in a blinded fashion. Two d -dimer assays were run. Three-month follow-up for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism was performed. Interrater agreement tables were created. kappa Values, sensitivities, and specificities were determined. RESULTS: Of the 153 eligible patients, 3 patients were missed, 16 patients declined, and 134 (88%) patients were enrolled. Sixteen (12%) patients were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism. The kappa values for Wells Criteria were 0.54 and 0.72 for the trichotomized and dichotomized scorings, respectively. When Wells Criteria were trichotomized into low pretest probability (n=59, 44%), moderate pretest probability (n=61, 46%), or high pretest probability (n=14, 10%), the pulmonary embolism prevalence was 2%, 15%, and 43%, respectively. When Wells Criteria were dichotomized into pulmonary embolism-unlikely (n=88, 66%) or pulmonary embolism-likely (n=46, 34%), the prevalence was 3% and 28%, respectively. The immunoturbidimetric and rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay d -dimer assays had similar sensitivities (94%) and specificities (45% versus 46%). CONCLUSION: Wells Criteria have a moderate to substantial interrater agreement and reliably risk stratify pretest probability in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.