Comparison of the accuracy of four diagnostic prediction rules for pulmonary embolism in patients admitted to the emergency department

Introduction and Objectives

Ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) through a combination of clinical assessment and D-dimer level can potentially avoid excessive use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the standard approach based on the Wells and Geneva scores combined with a standard D-dimer cut-off (500 ng/ml), with three alternative strategies (age-adjusted and the YEARS and PEGeD algorithms) in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with suspected PE.

Methods

Consecutive outpatients admitted to the ED who underwent CTPA due to suspected PE were retrospectively assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated and compared between the different diagnostic prediction rules.

Results

We included 1402 patients (mean age 69±18 years, 54% female), and PE was confirmed in 25%. Compared to the standard approach (p<0.001), an age-adjusted strategy increased specificity with a non-significant decrease in sensitivity only in patients older than 70 years. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted approaches, the YEARS and PEGeD algorithms had the highest specificity across all ages, but were associated with a significant decrease in sensitivity (p<0.001), particularly in patients aged under 60 years (sensitivity of 81% in patients aged between 51 and 60 years).

Conclusion

Compared to the standard approach, all algorithms were associated with increased specificity. The age-adjusted strategy was the only one not associated with a significant decrease in sensitivity compared to the standard approach, enabling CTPA requests to be reduced safely.