Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Wells Score (well + score)
Selected AbstractsAccuracy of Very Low Pretest Probability Estimates for Pulmonary Embolism Using the Method of Attribute Matching Compared with the Wells ScoreACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 2 2010Jeffrey A. Kline MD Abstract Objectives:, Attribute matching matches an explicit clinical profile of a patient to a reference database to estimate the numeric value for the pretest probability of an acute disease. The authors tested the accuracy of this method for forecasting a very low probability of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Methods:, The authors performed a secondary analysis of five data sets from 15 hospitals in three countries. All patients had data collected at the time of clinical evaluation for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The criterion standard to exclude VTE required no evidence of PE or deep venous thrombosis (DVT) within 45 days of enrollment. To estimate pretest probabilities, a computer program selected, from a large reference database of patients previously evaluated for PE, patients who matched 10 predictor variables recorded for each current test patient. The authors compared the outcome frequency of having VTE [VTE(+)] in patients with a pretest probability estimate of <2.5% by attribute matching, compared with a value of 0 from the Wells score. Results:, The five data sets included 10,734 patients, and 747 (7.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.5% to 7.5%) were VTE(+) within 45 days. The pretest probability estimate for PE was <2.5% in 2,975 of 10,734 (27.7%) patients, and within this subset, the observed frequency of VTE(+) was 48 of 2,975 (1.6%, 95% CI = 1.2% to 2.1%). The lowest possible Wells score (0) was observed in 3,412 (31.7%) patients, and within this subset, the observed frequency of VTE(+) was 79 of 3,412 (2.3%, 95% CI = 1.8% to 2.9%) patients. Conclusions:, Attribute matching categorizes over one-quarter of patients tested for PE as having a pretest probability of <2.5%, and the observed rate of VTE within 45 days in this subset was <2.5%. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:133,141 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [source] Potential Impact of Adjusting the Threshold of the Quantitative D-dimer Based on Pretest Probability of Acute Pulmonary EmbolismACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 4 2009Christopher Kabrhel MD Abstract Objectives:, The utility of D-dimer testing for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) can be limited by test specificity. The authors tested if the threshold of the quantitative D-dimer can be varied according to pretest probability (PTP) of PE to increase specificity while maintaining a negative predictive value (NPV) of >99%. Methods:, This was a prospective, observational multicenter study of emergency department (ED) patients in the United States. Eligible patients had a diagnostic study ordered to evaluate possible PE. PTP was determined by the clinician's unstructured estimate and the Wells score. Five different D-dimer assays were used. D-dimer test performance was measured using 1) standard thresholds and 2) variable threshold values: twice (for low PTP patients), equal (intermediate PTP patients), or half (high PTP patients) of standard threshold. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 45 days required positive imaging plus decision to treat. Results:, The authors enrolled 7,940 patients tested for PE, and clinicians ordered a quantitative D-dimer for 4,357 (55%) patients who had PTPs distributed as follows: low (74%), moderate (21%), or high (4%). At standard cutoffs, across all PTP strata, quantitative D-dimer testing had a test sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91% to 97%), specificity of 58% (95% CI = 56% to 60%), and NPV of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.1% to 99.7%). If variable cutoffs had been used the overall sensitivity would have been 88% (95% CI = 83% to 92%), specificity 75% (95% CI = 74% to 76%), and NPV 99.1% (95% CI = 98.7% to 99.4%). Conclusions:, This large multicenter observational sample demonstrates that emergency medicine clinicians currently order a D-dimer in the majority of patients tested for PE, including a large proportion with intermediate PTP and high PTP. Varying the D-dimer's cutoff according to PTP can increase specificity with no measurable decrease in NPV. [source] ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Comparison of a point of care device against current laboratory methodology using citrated and EDTA samples for the determination of D-dimers in the exclusion of proximal deep vein thrombosisINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LABORATORY HEMATOLOGY, Issue 5 2010P. M. BAKER Summary D-dimer estimation is a routine part of diagnostic algorithms for the exclusion of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We evaluated a point of care device, Biosite Triage (Inverness Medical UK, Cheshire, UK) for the estimation of D-dimers in both samples taken into citrate and EDTA against our routine laboratory D-dimer (Liatest D-dimer, Diagnostica Stago, Reading, UK) performed on the STA-R Evolution. With informed consent, 102 consecutive patients presenting with possible deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were enrolled and D-dimers along with Wells scores and compression ultrasonography (CUS) were recorded. Using the manufacturers' recommended cut offs of 500 ,g/l fibrinogen equivalent units and 400 ,g/l for the Stago and Triage, respectively, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. These were 1.00, 0.42, 0.17, and 1.00 for the Triage machine using citrate samples, 1.00, 0.32, 0.14, and 1.00 using EDTA samples and 1.00, 0.29, 0.16, and 1.00 for the Stago Liatest assay, respectively. Three patients had significantly higher results for the Stago Liatest D-dimer assay compared with the Biosite Triage device although ultrasound scans were negative. Conclusion: The Biosite Triage D-dimer assay performed on either citrate or EDTA samples is comparable with the Stago Liatest laboratory D-dimer assay when used in conjunction with clinical pretest probability scoring and CUS for the exclusion of DVT. [source] The utility of pretest probability assessment in patients with clinically suspected venous thromboembolismJOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 9 2003J. Kelly Summary. ,The assessment of pretest probability (PTP), with stratification into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups is an essential initial step in the current diagnostic management of patients with suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE). In combination with additional information, it reduces the need for initial and supplementary imaging, and allows considerable refinement of the posterior probability of VTE following non-invasive imaging. PTP may be assessed either empirically or by using various decision rules or scoring systems, the best known of which are the simplified Wells scores for suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and the Geneva score for suspected PE. Each of these approaches shows similar directional and categorical accuracy, and has been validated as facilitating clinically useful classification of the PTP, although an overview of data suggests that fewer patients tend to be classified as low PTP when assessed empirically. This group is the most important to identify, as several outcome studies have shown that imaging and treatment are safely obviated in outpatients with suspected DVT or PE who have a low PTP in combination with negative d -dimer testing, a subgroup accounting for up to half of all patients studied. Hence, while probably not of critical importance, the explicit approach offered by scoring systems might be preferred over empirical assessment, particularly when used by more junior staff. [source] | ||||||||||