Literature DB >> 18955643

Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.

Frederikus A Klok1, Inge C M Mos, Mathilde Nijkeuter, Marc Righini, Arnaud Perrier, Grégoire Le Gal, Menno V Huisman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule (CDR) in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The variables of the decision rule have different weights, which could lead to miscalculations in an acute setting. We have validated a simplified version of the revised Geneva score.
METHODS: Data from 1049 patients from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined to validate the simplified revised Geneva score. We constructed the simplified CDR by attributing 1 point to each item of the original CDR and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 versions by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We also assessed the clinical utility of the simplified CDR by evaluating the safety of ruling out PE on the basis of the combination of either a low-intermediate clinical probability (using a 3-level scheme) or a "PE unlikely" assessment (using a dichotomized rule) with a normal result on a highly sensitive D-dimer test.
RESULTS: The complete study population had an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23%. The diagnostic accuracy between the 2 CDRs did not differ (area under the curve for the revised Geneva score was 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.74 [0.70-0.77] for the simplified revised Geneva score). During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a combination of either a low (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) or intermediate (0%; 0.0%-2.8%) clinical probability, or a "PE unlikely" assessment (0%; 0.0%-1.2%) with the simplified score and a normal result of a D-dimer test was diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not lead to a decrease in diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, which should be confirmed in a prospective study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18955643     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  44 in total

Review 1.  Acute pulmonary embolism. Part 1: epidemiology and diagnosis.

Authors:  Renée A Douma; Pieter W Kamphuisen; Harry R Büller
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Ordering CT pulmonary angiography to exclude pulmonary embolism: defense versus evidence in the emergency room.

Authors:  Martin Rohacek; Janet Buatsi; Zsolt Szucs-Farkas; Birgit Kleim; Heinz Zimmermann; Aristomenis Exadaktylos; Christoforos Stoupis
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Surgical embolectomy for acute massive pulmonary embolism: state of the art.

Authors:  Alessandra Iaccarino; Giacomo Frati; Leonardo Schirone; Wael Saade; Elio Iovine; Mizar D'Abramo; Antonio De Bellis; Sebastiano Sciarretta; Ernesto Greco
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  A Simple Scale for Screening Lower-Extremity Arterial Disease as a Possible Cause of Low Back Pain: a Cross-sectional Study Among 542 Subjects.

Authors:  M Gahier; J Hersant; J F Hamel; Y Sempore; A Bruneau; S Henni; P Abraham
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  [ESC guidelines 2019 on diagnostics and management of acute pulmonary embolism].

Authors:  R Osteresch; A Fach; R Hambrecht; H Wienbergen
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 6.  Guidance for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Michael B Streiff; Giancarlo Agnelli; Jean M Connors; Mark Crowther; Sabine Eichinger; Renato Lopes; Robert D McBane; Stephan Moll; Jack Ansell
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 7.  [Diagnostics of acute pulmonary embolism : An update].

Authors:  M Das; J E Wildberger
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 0.635

8.  Mortality at 30 and 90 days in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hernan Polo Friz; Mauro Molteni; Davide Del Sorbo; Lorenzo Pasciuti; Matteo Crippa; Giulia Villa; Dario Francesco Meloni; Laura Primitz; Andrea Galli; Magda Rognoni; Luca Cavalieri d'Oro; Guido Arpaia; Claudio Cimminiello
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2014-12-25       Impact factor: 3.397

9.  Age-dependent diagnostic accuracy of clinical scoring systems and D-dimer levels in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).

Authors:  Sebastian N Nagel; Ingo G Steffen; Stefan Schwartz; Bernd Hamm; Thomas Elgeti
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Negative D-dimer testing excludes pulmonary embolism in non-high risk patients in the emergency department.

Authors:  John B Harringa; Rebecca L Bracken; Scott K Nagle; Mark L Schiebler; Michael S Pulia; James E Svenson; Michael D Repplinger
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2017-01-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.