BACKGROUND: Clinical decision rules have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) to the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the percentage of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CT-PA) procedures that could have been avoided by use of the Wells score coupled with D-dimer testing (Wells/D-dimer) or pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in ED patients with suspected PE. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study of adult ED patients undergoing CT-PA for suspected PE. Wells score and PERC were calculated. A research blood sample was obtained for D-dimer testing for subjects who did not undergo testing as part of their ED evaluation. The primary outcome was PE by CT-PA or 90-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes were ED length of stay (LOS) and CT-PA time as defined by time from order to initial radiologist interpretation. RESULTS: Of 152 suspected PE subjects available for analysis (mean ± SD age = 46.3 ± 15.6 years, 74% female, 59% black or African American, 11.8% diagnosed with PE), 14 (9.2%) met PERC, none of whom were diagnosed with PE. A low-risk Wells score (≤4) was assigned to 110 (72%) subjects, of whom only 38 (35%) underwent clinical D-dimer testing (elevated in 33/38). Of the 72 subjects with low-risk Wells scores who did not have D-dimers performed in the ED, archived research samples were negative in 16 (22%). All 21 subjects with low-risk Wells scores and negative D-dimers were PE-negative. CT-PA time (median = 160 minutes) accounted for more than half of total ED LOS (median = 295 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: In total, 9.2 and 13.8% of CT-PA procedures could have been avoided by use of PERC and Wells/D-dimer, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision rules have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) to the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the percentage of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CT-PA) procedures that could have been avoided by use of the Wells score coupled with D-dimer testing (Wells/D-dimer) or pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in ED patients with suspected PE. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study of adult ED patients undergoing CT-PA for suspected PE. Wells score and PERC were calculated. A research blood sample was obtained for D-dimer testing for subjects who did not undergo testing as part of their ED evaluation. The primary outcome was PE by CT-PA or 90-day follow-up. Secondary outcomes were ED length of stay (LOS) and CT-PA time as defined by time from order to initial radiologist interpretation. RESULTS: Of 152 suspected PE subjects available for analysis (mean ± SD age = 46.3 ± 15.6 years, 74% female, 59% black or African American, 11.8% diagnosed with PE), 14 (9.2%) met PERC, none of whom were diagnosed with PE. A low-risk Wells score (≤4) was assigned to 110 (72%) subjects, of whom only 38 (35%) underwent clinical D-dimer testing (elevated in 33/38). Of the 72 subjects with low-risk Wells scores who did not have D-dimers performed in the ED, archived research samples were negative in 16 (22%). All 21 subjects with low-risk Wells scores and negative D-dimers were PE-negative. CT-PA time (median = 160 minutes) accounted for more than half of total ED LOS (median = 295 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: In total, 9.2 and 13.8% of CT-PA procedures could have been avoided by use of PERC and Wells/D-dimer, respectively.
Authors: Keith E Kocher; William J Meurer; Reza Fazel; Phillip A Scott; Harlan M Krumholz; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; M Rodger; I Stiell; J F Dreyer; D Barnes; M Forgie; G Kovacs; J Ward; M J Kovacs Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-07-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Arne van Belle; Harry R Büller; Menno V Huisman; Peter M Huisman; Karin Kaasjager; Pieter W Kamphuisen; Mark H H Kramer; Marieke J H A Kruip; Johanna M Kwakkel-van Erp; Frank W G Leebeek; Mathilde Nijkeuter; Martin H Prins; Maaike Sohne; Lidwine W Tick Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Robert Russell Ehrman; Adrienne Nicole Malik; Reid Kenneth Smith; Zeid Kalarikkal; Andrew Huang; Ryan Michael King; Rubin David Green; Brian James O'Neil; Robert Leigh Sherwin Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Angela M Mills; Ivan K Ip; Curtis P Langlotz; Ali S Raja; Hanna M Zafar; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Christian A Koziatek; Emma Simon; Leora I Horwitz; Danil V Makarov; Silas W Smith; Simon Jones; Soterios Gyftopoulos; Jordan L Swartz Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.451