Clinical Decision Rules for Excluding Pulmonary Embolism: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Clinical probability assessment is combined with d-dimer testing to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE). PURPOSE To compare the test characteristics of gestalt (a physician's unstructured estimate) and clinical decision rules for evaluating adults with suspected PE and assess the failure rate of gestalt and rules when used in combination with d-dimer testing. DATA SOURCES Articles in MEDLINE and EMBASE in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, or Dutch that were published between 1966 and June 2011. STUDY SELECTION 3 reviewers, working in pairs, selected prospective studies in consecutive patients suspected of having PE. Studies had to estimate the probability of PE by using gestalt or a decision rule and verify the diagnosis by using an appropriate reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION Data on study characteristics, test performance, and prevalence were extracted. Reviewers constructed 2 × 2 tables and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. DATA SYNTHESIS 52 studies, comprising 55 268 patients, were selected. Meta-analysis was performed on studies that used gestalt (15 studies; sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.51), the Wells rule with a cutoff value less than 2 (19 studies; sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.58) or 4 or less (11 studies; sensitivity, 0.60; specificity, 0.80), the Geneva rule (5 studies; sensitivity, 0.84; specificity, 0.50), and the revised Geneva rule (4 studies; sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.37). An increased prevalence of PE was associated with higher sensitivity and lower specificity. Combining a decision rule or gestalt with d-dimer testing seemed safe for all strategies, except when the less-sensitive Wells rule (cutoff value ≤4) was combined with less-sensitive qualitative d-dimer testing. LIMITATIONS Studies had substantial heterogeneity due to prevalence of PE and differences in threshold. Many studies (63%) had potential bias due to differential disease verification. CONCLUSION Clinical decision rules and gestalt can safely exclude PE when combined with sensitive d-dimer testing. The authors recommend standardized rules because gestalt has lower specificity, but the choice of a particular rule and d-dimer test depend on both prevalence and setting.

[1]  Dorothy M Adcock,et al.  Prospective validation of Wells Criteria in the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. , 2004, Annals of emergency medicine.

[2]  Matteo Bottai,et al.  Simple and accurate prediction of the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. , 2008, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[3]  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.

[4]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  D. BlannAndrew,et al.  Venous thromboembolism , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  J. Kline,et al.  Measurement of expired carbon dioxide, oxygen and volume in conjunction with pretest probability estimation as a method to diagnose and exclude pulmonary venous thromboembolism , 2006, Clinical physiology and functional imaging.

[7]  A K Dixon,et al.  A randomized trial of spiral CT and ventilation perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. , 1998, Clinical radiology.

[8]  J. Kline,et al.  Comparison of the Simplify D-dimer assay performed at the bedside with a laboratory-based quantitative D-dimer assay for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a low prevalence emergency department population , 2008, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[9]  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.

[10]  Clinical gestalt and the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: does experience matter? , 2004, Chest.

[11]  H. Sostman,et al.  Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED). , 1996, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[12]  K. L. Lewis,et al.  Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism , 2007 .

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

[14]  J. Haukoos,et al.  Assessment of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. , 2008, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[15]  M. Prins,et al.  Diagnostic Strategies for Excluding Pulmonary Embolism in Clinical Outcome Studies , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  J. Kline,et al.  Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism , 2004, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[17]  A. Didier,et al.  Diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism using clinical assessment, plasma D-dimer assay, complete lower limb venous ultrasound and helical computed tomography of pulmonary arteries , 2005, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[18]  C. Camargo,et al.  Potential impact of adjusting the threshold of the quantitative D-dimer based on pretest probability of acute pulmonary embolism. , 2009, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[19]  M. Bottai,et al.  Comparison of 3 Clinical Models for Predicting the Probability of Pulmonary Embolism , 2005, Medicine.

[20]  Jeffrey S. Ginsberg,et al.  Comparison of a Clinical Probability Estimate and Two Clinical Models in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism , 2000, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[21]  D. Slosman,et al.  Using clinical evaluation and lung scan to rule out suspected pulmonary embolism: Is it a valid option in patients with normal results of lower-limb venous compression ultrasonography? , 2000, Archives of Internal Medicine.

[22]  T. Hyers,et al.  Venous thromboembolism. , 1999, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[23]  Patrick M Bossuyt,et al.  Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism , 2007, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[24]  T. Perneger,et al.  Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[25]  Pieter W Kamphuisen,et al.  Performance of 4 Clinical Decision Rules in the Diagnostic Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  R. W. Niessen,et al.  Simple and safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism in outpatients using quantitative D-dimer and Wells’ simplified decision rule , 2006, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[27]  K. Mare,et al.  Value of structured clinical and scintigraphic protocols in acute pulmonary embolism , 2001, Journal of internal medicine.

[28]  D. Aujesky,et al.  The pulmonary embolism rule‐out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism , 2011, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[29]  G. Kovacs,et al.  Use of spiral computed tomography contrast angiography and ultrasonography to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. , 2005, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[30]  G. Mariani,et al.  Deferral of assessment of pulmonary embolism. , 2007, Haematologica.

[31]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[32]  J. Kline,et al.  Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule‐out criteria , 2008, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[33]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[34]  M. Rodger,et al.  Safety of excluding acute pulmonary embolism based on an unlikely clinical probability by the Wells rule and normal D-dimer concentration: a meta-analysis. , 2010, Thrombosis research.

[35]  Daniel Hayoz,et al.  Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study. , 2004 .

[36]  Arnaud Perrier,et al.  Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[37]  G. Kovacs,et al.  Excluding Pulmonary Embolism at the Bedside without Diagnostic Imaging: Management of Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Presenting to the Emergency Department by Using a Simple Clinical Model and d-dimer , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[38]  L. Carrozzi,et al.  A diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism based on standardised pretest probability and perfusion lung scanning: a management study , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[39]  K J M Janssen,et al.  Excluding venous thromboembolism using point of care D-dimer tests in outpatients: a diagnostic meta-analysis , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[40]  Diederick E. Grobbee,et al.  Limitations of Sensitivity, Specificity, Likelihood Ratio, and Bayes' Theorem in Assessing Diagnostic Probabilities: A Clinical Example , 1997, Epidemiology.

[41]  P. Grenier,et al.  Diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicentre outcome study , 2002, The Lancet.

[42]  P. Investigators,et al.  Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). , 1990, JAMA.

[43]  D. Slosman,et al.  Contribution of noninvasive evaluation to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients , 1999 .

[44]  D. Anderson,et al.  Subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical implications. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the management outcome studies , 2010, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

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

[46]  V. Kalff,et al.  A prospective reassessment of the utility of the Wells score in identifying pulmonary embolism , 2007, The Medical journal of Australia.

[47]  C. Legnani,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of a new quantitative highly sensitive D-dimer assay, the Hemosil D-dimer HS 500, in patients with clinically suspected venous thromboembolism. , 2010, Thrombosis research.

[48]  M. Bottai,et al.  A structured clinical model for predicting the probability of pulmonary embolism. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[49]  H. Sox,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. Applications and methodological standards. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[50]  Patrick M M Bossuyt,et al.  Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[51]  D. Hosmer,et al.  A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The Worcester DVT Study. , 1991, Archives of internal medicine.

[52]  C Combescure,et al.  Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2010, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[53]  G. Simonneau,et al.  Diagnostic value of D-dimer in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: results from a multicentre outcome study. , 2007, Thrombosis research.

[54]  J. Douketis,et al.  An Evaluation of d-Dimer in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[55]  R. W. Niessen,et al.  C‐reactive protein and D‐dimer with clinical probability score in the exclusion of pulmonary embolism , 2005, British journal of haematology.

[56]  J. Kline,et al.  Comparison of the unstructured clinician estimate of pretest probability for pulmonary embolism to the Canadian score and the Charlotte rule: a prospective observational study. , 2005, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[57]  J. Kline,et al.  Prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of the simplify D-dimer assay for pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients. , 2006, Chest.

[58]  P. Schnyder,et al.  Exclusion of pulmonary embolism using C-reactive protein and D-dimer. A prospective comparison. , 2003, Thrombosis and haemostasis.

[59]  H. Büller,et al.  Validity and clinical utility of the simplified Wells rule for assessing clinical probability for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism , 2008, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

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

[61]  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.

[62]  Christopher Kabrhel,et al.  The contribution of the subjective component of the Canadian Pulmonary Embolism Score to the overall score in emergency department patients. , 2005, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[63]  P. Schnyder,et al.  Combination of clinical and V/Q scan assessment for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a 2-year outcome prospective study , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[64]  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.

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

[66]  M H Prins,et al.  Non‐invasive diagnostic work‐up of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism; results of a management study , 2004, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[67]  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.

[68]  F. Alataş,et al.  Performance of the Wells and Revised Geneva scores for predicting pulmonary embolism , 2009, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[69]  D. Anderson,et al.  The use of leg venous ultrasonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. , 2008, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[70]  C. Mélot,et al.  Comparison of the Wells score with the simplified revised Geneva score for assessing pretest probability of pulmonary embolism. , 2011, Thrombosis research.