医院急诊科 35 岁及以下患者肺栓塞排除决策工具:对 3 个前瞻性队列的性能进行事后分析。

Dorian Teissandier, Anne-Laure Philippon, Héloise Bannelier, Pierre-Marie Roy, Andrea Penaloza, Sònia Jiménez, Yonathan Freund, Melanie Roussel, Pierre Catoire
{"title":"医院急诊科 35 岁及以下患者肺栓塞排除决策工具:对 3 个前瞻性队列的性能进行事后分析。","authors":"Dorian Teissandier, Anne-Laure Philippon, Héloise Bannelier, Pierre-Marie Roy, Andrea Penaloza, Sònia Jiménez, Yonathan Freund, Melanie Roussel, Pierre Catoire","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.</p>","PeriodicalId":93987,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts.\",\"authors\":\"Dorian Teissandier, Anne-Laure Philippon, Héloise Bannelier, Pierre-Marie Roy, Andrea Penaloza, Sònia Jiménez, Yonathan Freund, Melanie Roussel, Pierre Catoire\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估肺栓塞排除标准(PERC)和经年龄修正的 PERC-35 工具在医院急诊科(ED)评估 35 岁或以下患者时的性能。另一个目的是评估其他决策标准:对 3 项欧洲队列研究进行事后分析。我们纳入了随访 3 个月的 35 岁及以下疑似 PE 患者的数据。通过诊断错误率(未能检测出 PE)和排除 PE 诊断的患者比例评估了应用 PERC 和 PERC-35 的安全性和有效性。我们还评估了应用 YEARS 和 PEGeD 标准的安全性和有效性:分析了 1235 名 35 岁或以下患者的数据。有 22 例(1.8%;95% CI,1.2%-2.7%)PE 患者在 3 个月后确诊。PERC和PERC-35工具分别有6例(1.0%;95% CI,0.5%-2.2%)和5例(0.9%;95% CI,0.4%-2.1%)PE病例未被确诊。通过这些工具,分别有 591 例(48.2%;95% CI,45.4%-51.0%)和 554 例(46.2%;95% CI,43.4%-49.0%)病例排除了 PE。YEARS标准和PEGeD标准的错误率分别为0.4%(95% CI,0.1%-1.1%)和0.5%(95% CI,0.2%-1.2%);两者的有效性相似:结论:在35岁或以下的患者中,PERC和PERC-35算法的安全性和有效性相似。不过,我们报告的置信区间较大,因此无法确认在该年龄组患者中使用这两种工具的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts.

Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria.

Material and methods: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria.

Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar.

Conclusion: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adherence to the Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning Workgroup recommendations for lithium intoxication: the SILITOX study. Artificial-intelligence-based neurological outcome prediction during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes in patients aged 65 years or older living in nursing homes: the Emergency Department and Elder Needs-40 study. Concordance between risk assessment scales for venous thromboembolism in medical patients in the emergency department. Effectiveness and safety of vernakalant vs flecainide for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department: the VERITA study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1