Excluding pulmonary embolism in primary care using the Wells-rule in combination with a point-of care D-dimer test: a scenario analysis

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In secondary care the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR) combined with a quantitative D-dimer test can exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) safely. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests facilitates a similar diagnostic strategy in primary care. We estimated failure-rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a POC-D-dimer test for excluding PE in primary care. We considered ruling out PE safe if the failure rate was <2% with a maximum upper confidence limit of 2.7%. METHODS: We performed a scenario-analysis on data of 2701 outpatients suspected of PE. We used test characteristics of two qualitative POC-D-dimer tests, as derived from a meta-analysis and combined these with the Wells-CDR-score. RESULTS: In scenario 1 (SimpliRed-D-dimer sensitivity 85%, specificity 74%) PE was excluded safely in 23.8% of patients but only by lowering the cut-off value of the Wells rule to <2. (failure rate: 1.4%, 95% CI 0.6-2.6%) In scenario 2 (Simplify-D-dimer sensitivity 87%, specificity 62%) PE was excluded safely in 12.4% of patients provided that the Wells-cut-off value was set at 0. (failure rate: 0.9%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) CONCLUSION: Theoretically a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a qualitative POC-D-dimer test can be used safely to exclude PE in primary care albeit with only moderate efficienc

Excluding pulmonary embolism in primary care using the Wells-rule in combination with a point-of care D-dimer test: a scenario analysis

Abstract Background In secondary care the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR) combined with a quantitative D-dimer test can exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) safely. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests facilitates a similar diagnostic strategy in primary care. We estimated failure-rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a POC-D-dimer test for excluding PE in primary care. We considered ruling out PE safe if the failure rate was Methods We performed a scenario-analysis on data of 2701 outpatients suspected of PE. We used test characteristics of two qualitative POC-D-dimer tests, as derived from a meta-analysis and combined these with the Wells-CDR-score. Results In scenario 1 (SimpliRed-D-dimer sensitivity 85%, specificity 74%) PE was excluded safely in 23.8% of patients but only by lowering the cut-off value of the Wells rule to In scenario 2 (Simplify-D-dimer sensitivity 87%, specificity 62%) PE was excluded safely in 12.4% of patients provided that the Wells-cut-off value was set at 0. (failure rate: 0.9%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) Conclusion Theoretically a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a qualitative POC-D-dimer test can be used safely to exclude PE in primary care albeit with only moderate efficiency.</p

Safely Ruling Out Deep Venous Thrombosis in Primary Care

BACKGROUND: Up to 90% of patients referred for ultrasonography with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the leg do not have the disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of using a clinical decision rule that includes a point-of-care d-dimer assay at initial presentation in primary care to exclude DVT. DESIGN: A prospective management study. SETTING: Approximately 300 primary care practices in 3 regions of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht). PATIENTS: 1028 consecutive patients with clinically suspected DVT. INTERVENTION: Patients were managed on the basis of the result of the clinical decision rule, which included a d-dimer result. Patients with a score of 3 or less were not referred for ultrasonography and received no anticoagulant treatment; patients with a score of 4 or more were referred for ultrasonography. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was symptomatic, objectively confirmed, venous thromboembolism during 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age of the 1028 study patients was 58 years, and 37% of patients were men. A valid score was obtained in 1002 patients (98%). In 500 patients (49%), with a score of 3 or less, 7 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (incidence, 1.4% [95% CI, 0.6% to 2.9%]). A total of 502 patients (49%) had a score of 4 or more; 3 did not have ultrasonography. Ultrasonography showed DVT in 125 patients (25%), for an overall prevalence in evaluable patients of 13% (125 of 1002). Of the 374 patients who had normal ultrasonography results, 4 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (1.1% [CI, 0.3% to 2.7%]). Limitation: The study lacked a randomized design and relied on clinical follow-up to detect missed thrombotic disease. CONCLUSION: A diagnostic management strategy in primary care by using a simple clinical decision rule and a point-of-care d-dimer assay reduces the need for referral to secondary care of patients with clinically suspected DVT by almost 50% and is associated with a low risk for subsequent venous thromboembolic events. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Researc

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of 2 Clinical Decision Rules to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis in Primary Care Patients

PURPOSE The Wells rule is widely used for clinical assessment of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), especially in the secondary care setting. Recently a new clinical decision rule for primary care patients (the primary care rule) has been proposed, because the Wells rule is not sufficient to rule out DVT in this setting. The objective was to compare the ability of both rules to safely rule out DVT and to efficiently reduce the number of referrals for leg ultrasound investigation that would result in a negative finding

Optimisation of the diagnostic strategy for suspected deep-vein thrombosis in primary care

Recently, a diagnostic score was developed to safely exclude deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in primary care. A large prospective study, in which general practitioners used this diagnostic score to decide which patients needed referral, revealed that the number of referrals for ultrasound measurements was reduced by almost 50%, at the cost of an acceptably low risk (1.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6% to 2.9%) of venous thromboembolic events in non-referred patients. However, simple adjustments to the diagnostic score (so-called updating) might further improve the accuracy; i.e. reduce the proportion of missed diagnoses (safety) or increase the proportion of patients who do not need to be referred (efficiency). We applied two updating methods to determine whether adjusting the weights of the predictors or adding new predictors could further improve the accuracy of the diagnostic score. The weights of the predictors did not need to be adjusted, but inclusion of 'history of DVT' and 'prolonged travelling' significantly added predictive value (p-values 0.014 and 0.023, respectively). However, adding these predictors to the diagnostic score did not improve the safety and efficiency: at equal safety (1.4% missed diagnoses among the non-referred patients), the efficiency was lower (43.5%, 95% CI 40.4% to 46.6% compared to 49.4%, 95% CI 46.3% to 52.5%). The diagnostic score for excluding DVT in primary care has good accuracy in its original form and could not be improved by including additional predictors. This suggests that the original diagnostic score can be used to safely exclude clinically suspected DVT in primary car