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

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.

[1]  T. Perneger,et al.  Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. , 2001, Archives of internal medicine.

[2]  M Gent,et al.  Derivation of a Simple Clinical Model to Categorize Patients Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: Increasing the Models Utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer , 2000, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[3]  H. Büller,et al.  Use of a clinical decision rule in combination with D-dimer concentration in diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective management study. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[4]  T. Perneger,et al.  Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[5]  Thomas V. Perneger,et al.  Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Ward , 2000 .

[6]  H R Büller,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of D‐dimer test for exclusion of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review , 2007, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[7]  I. Mackie,et al.  An evaluation of rapid D‐dimer assays for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis , 2005, British journal of haematology.

[8]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. , 1997, JAMA.

[9]  J. Kline,et al.  Emergency medicine practitioner knowledge and use of decision rules for the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: variations by practice setting and training level. , 2007, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[10]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Clinical validity of a normal pulmonary angiogram in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism--a critical review. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[11]  P. Wells Integrated strategies for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism , 2007, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[12]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 2000, JAMA.

[13]  D. Aujesky,et al.  Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism , 2007, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[14]  G. Moneta Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism , 2007 .

[15]  Arnaud Perrier,et al.  Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department: The Revised Geneva Score , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  Pieter W Kamphuisen,et al.  Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. , 2006, JAMA.

[17]  R Simon,et al.  Why predictive indexes perform less well in validation studies. Is it magic or methods? , 1987, Archives of internal medicine.

[18]  F. Harrell,et al.  Prognostic/Clinical Prediction Models: Multivariable Prognostic Models: Issues in Developing Models, Evaluating Assumptions and Adequacy, and Measuring and Reducing Errors , 2005 .

[19]  A. Rudd,et al.  Plasma D-dimers in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[20]  P. Wells,et al.  A comparison of three rapid D‐dimer methods for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism , 2001, British journal of haematology.

[21]  J. Kline,et al.  Criteria for the safe use of D-dimer testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a multicenter US study. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.