Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department

  • S. Sharif (a1), C. Kearon (a1), M. Eventov (a1), M. Li (a1), P. Sneath (a1), R. Jiang (a1), R. Leung (a1) and K. de Wit (a1)...

Abstract

Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can identify patients who can be safely discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the PERC rule in the ED and to compare the rates of testing for PE if the PERC rule was used. Methods: This was a health records review of ED patients investigated for PE at two emergency departments over a two-year period (April 2013-March 2015). Inclusion criteria were ED physician ordered CT pulmonary angiogram, ventilation-perfusion scan, or D-dimer for investigation of PE. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. Trained researchers extracted anonymized data. The rate of CT/VQ imaging and the negative predictive value was calculated. Results: There were 1,163 patients that were tested for PE and 1,097 patients were eligible for our analysis. Of the total, 330/1,097 (30.1%; 95%CI 27.4-32.3%) had CT/VQ imaging for PE, and 48/1,097 (4.4%; 95%CI 3.3-5.8%) patients were diagnosed with PE. 806/1,097 (73.5%; 95%CI 70.8-76.0%) were PERC positive, and of these, 44 patients had a PE (5.5%; 95%CI 4.1-7.3%). Conversely, 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients were PERC negative, and of these, 4 patients had a PE (1.4%; 95%CI 0.5-3.5%). Of the PERC negative patients, 291/291 (100.0%; 95%CI 98.7-100.0%) had a D-dimer test done, and 33/291 (11.3%; 95%CI 8.2-15.5%) had a CT angiogram. If PERC was used, CT/VQ imaging would have been avoided in 33/1,097 (3%; 95%CI 2.2-4.2%) patients and the D-dimer would have been avoided in 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients. Conclusion: If the PERC rule was used in all patients with suspected PE, fewer patients would have further testing. The false negative rate for the PERC rule was low.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author

Keywords

P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department

  • S. Sharif (a1), C. Kearon (a1), M. Eventov (a1), M. Li (a1), P. Sneath (a1), R. Jiang (a1), R. Leung (a1) and K. de Wit (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed