Free Content Accuracy of clinical decision rule, D-dimer and spiral computed tomography in patients with malignancy, previous venous thromboembolism, COPD or heart failure and in older patients with suspected pulmonary embolism

Authors: SOHNE, M.1; KRUIP, M. J. H. A.2; NIJKEUTER, M.3; TICK, L.3; KWAKKEL, H.4; HALKES, S. J. M.5; HUISMAN, M. V.3; BULLER, H. R.

Source: Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Volume 4, Number 5, May 2006 , pp. 1042-1046(5)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Buy & download fulltext article:

You have access to the full text article on a website external to ingentaconnect.

Please click here to view this article on Wiley Online Library.

You may be required to register and activate access on Wiley Online Library before you can obtain the full text. If you have any queries please visit Wiley Online Library

Abstract:

Summary. 

Background: The diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) has been optimized and simplified by the use of clinical decision rules (CDR), D-dimer (DD) testing and spiral computed tomography (s-CT). Whether this strategy is equally safe and efficient in specific subgroups of patients is evaluated in this study. Methods: A diagnostic strategy including a CDR, DD test and s-CT was evaluated in patients with malignancy, previous venous thromboembolism (VTE), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure and in older patients. PE was ruled out by either an unlikely CDR and a normal DD or a s-CT negative for PE. The safety of these tests was assessed by the 3-month incidence rate of symptomatic VTE in those without PE at baseline. The efficiency was evaluated by calculating the numbers needed to test for the different subgroups. Results: The venous thromboembolic incidence rate after the combination of an unlikely CDR and a normal DD varied from 0% (95% CI: 0–7.9%) in the 482 patients older than 75 years of age to 2% (95% CI: 0.05–10.9%) in the 474 patients with a malignancy. For s-CT these incidences varied from 0.3% to 1.8%. The number needed to test in order to rule out one patient from PE with the studied strategy was highest in cancer patients and in the elderly patients (approximately 10). Conclusion: It appears to be safe to rule out PE by either the combination of an unlikely CDR and a normal DD or by a negative s-CT in various subgroups of patients with suspected PE. However, the clinical usefulness of the CDR in combination with the DD as the initial step in the diagnostic process varied among these patient groups.

Keywords: D-dimer; malignancy; previous VTE; pulmonary embolism; spiral CT

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01918.x

Affiliations: 1: Academic Medical Center, Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam 2: Erasmus Medical Center, Haematology, Rotterdam 3: Leiden University Medical Center, Vascular Medicine, Leiden 4: Rijnstate Hospital, Pulmonary Medicine, Arnhem 5: University Medical Center, Internal Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Publication date: 2006-05-01

Related content

Tools

Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content

Text size:

A | A | A | A
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. print icon Print this page