Performance of the 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) in the diagnostic management of pulmonary embolism:An external validation study

Background: The recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Aim: To externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer &lt;1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold. Results: Of the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80–0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57–60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86–1.9). Conclusion: In this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study.</p

The development of instruments to measure the work disability assessment behaviour of insurance physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Variation in assessments is a universal given, and work disability assessments by insurance physicians are no exception. Little is known about the considerations and views of insurance physicians that may partly explain such variation. On the basis of the Attitude - Social norm - self Efficacy (ASE) model, we have developed measurement instruments for assessment behaviour and its determinants.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Based on theory and interviews with insurance physicians the questionnaire included blocks of items concerning background variables, intentions, attitudes, social norms, self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers and behaviour of the insurance physicians in relation to work disability assessment issues. The responses of 231 insurance physicians were suitable for further analysis. Factor analysis and reliability analysis were used to form scale variables and homogeneity analysis was used to form dimension variables. Thus, we included 169 of the 177 original items.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Factor analysis and reliability analysis yielded 29 scales with sufficient reliability. Homogeneity analysis yielded 19 dimensions. Scales and dimensions fitted with the concepts of the ASE model. We slightly modified the ASE model by dividing behaviour into two blocks: behaviour that reflects the assessment process and behaviour that reflects assessment behaviour.</p> <p>The picture that emerged from the descriptive results was of a group of physicians who were motivated in their job and positive about the Dutch social security system in general. However, only half of them had a positive opinion about the Dutch Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act (WIA). They also reported serious barriers, the most common of which was work pressure. Finally, 73% of the insurance physicians described the majority of their cases as 'difficult'.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The scales and dimensions developed appear to be valid and offer a promising basis for future research. The results suggest that the underlying ASE model, in modified form, is suitable for describing the assessment behaviour of insurance physicians and the determinants of this behaviour. The next step in this line of research should be to validate the model using structural equation modelling. Finally, the predictive value should be tested in relation to outcome measurements of work disability assessments.</p

The combination of four different clinical decision rules and an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off increases the number of patients in whom acute pulmonary embolism can safely be excluded

textabstractFour clinical decision rules (CDRs) (Wells score, Revised Geneva Score(RGS), simplified Wells score and simplified RGS) safely exclude pulmonaryembolism (PE), when combined with a normal D-dimer test. Recently,an age-adjusted cut-off of the D-dimer (patient's age x 10 μg/l)safely increased the number of patients above 50 years in whom PEcould safely be excluded. We validated the age-adjusted D-dimer testand assessed its performance in combination with the four CDRs in patientswith suspected PE. A total of 414 consecutive patients with suspectedPE who were older than 50 years were included. The proportionof patients in whom PE could be excluded with an 'unlikely' clinicalprobability combined with a normal age-adjusted D-dimer test was calculatedand compared with the proportion using the conventionalD-dimer cut-off. We assessed venous thromboembolism (VTE) failurerates during three months follow-up. In patients above 50 years, a normalage-adjusted D-dimer level in combination with an 'unlikely' CDRsubstantially increased the number of patients in whom PE could besafely excluded: from 13-14% to 19-22% in all CDRs similarly. In patientsover 70 years, the number of exclusions was nearly four-foldhigher, and the original Wells score excluded most patients, with an increasefrom 6% to 21% combined with the conventional and age-adjustedD-dimer cut-off, respectively. The number of VTE failures was alsocomparable in all CDRs. In conclusion, irrespective of which CDR isused, the age-adjusted D-dimer substantially increases the number of patients above 50 years in whom PE can be safely excluded

Comparison of 4- and 64-slice CT scanning in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

With the introduction of multi-detector row CT (MDCT), sensitivity to diagnose pulmonary embolism (PE) has greatly improved. The use of newer generation CT-scans may lead to a higher prevalence and a different distribution of PE. We compared 64-slice with 4-slice MDCT regarding prevalence and distribution of PE, the number of inconclusive test results and inter-reader variability. CT-scans from a random sample of 110 consecutive patients who underwent 4-slice CT-scanning were compared with 64-slice CT-scans from 107 patients from a second cohort. Three radiologists independently reassessed all CT-scans. Consensus was reached in case of disagreement between the readers. Final diagnosis of PE was categorised as central, segmental or subsegmental by the thrombus' most proximal end. The prevalence of PE was 24% (26/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17-32%) and 22% (24/107, 16-31%) for the 4-slice and 64-slice cohort, respectively. The prevalence of isolated subsegmental emboli was 2/26 (7.7%; 2.1-24%) and 5/24 (21%; 9.2-41%), respectively (p=0.424). The number of inconclusive scans was 10% in both cohorts, mostly due to movement artefacts and suboptimal intravascular contrast, respectively. The inter-reader agreement between the three readers was 0.70 for the 4-slice scans and 0.68 for the 64-slice scans. Although absolute prevalence of PE was equal in both cohorts, there was a trend towards more subsegmental PE with 64-slice CT. In a multi-reader setting, the number of inconclusive examinations was higher than quoted for clinical management studies, indicating that the diagnosis of PE with MDCT could be less straightforward than assume

Diagnostic outcome management study in patients with clinically suspected recurrent acute pulmonary embolism with a structured algorithm

INTRODUCTION: The value of diagnostic strategies in patients with clinically suspected recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) has not been established. The aim was to determine the safety of a simple diagnostic strategy using the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR), quantitative D-dimer testing and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with clinically suspected acute recurrent PE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter clinical outcome study in 516 consecutive patients with clinically suspected acute recurrent PE without using anticoagulants. RESULTS: An unlikely clinical probability (Wells rule 4 points or less) was found in 182 of 516 patients (35%), and the combination of an unlikely CDR-score and normal D-dimer result excluded PE in 88 of 516 patients (17%), without recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) during 3month follow-up (0%; 95% CI 0.0-3.4%). CTPA was performed in all other patients and confirmed recurrent PE in 172 patients (overall prevalence of PE 33%) and excluded PE in the remaining 253 patients (49%). During follow-up, seven of these 253 patients returned with recurrent VTE (2.8%; 95% CI 1.2-5.5%), of which in one was fatal (0.4 %; 95 % CI 0.02-1.9%). The diagnostic algorithm was feasible in 98% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnostic algorithm consisting of a clinical decision rule, D-dimer test and CTPA is effective in the management of patients with clinically suspected acute recurrent PE. CTPA provides reasonable safety in excluding acute recurrent PE in patients with a likely clinical probability or an elevated D-dimer test for recurrent PE, with a low risk for fatal PE at follow-up