BackgroundIn patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE), physicians often rely on intuitive estimation (“gestalt”) of PE presence. Although shown to be predictive, gestalt is... Show moreBackgroundIn patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism (PE), physicians often rely on intuitive estimation (“gestalt”) of PE presence. Although shown to be predictive, gestalt is criticized for its assumed variation across physicians and lack of standardization.ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of gestalt in the diagnosis of PE and gain insight into its possible variation.MethodsWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis including patients suspected of having PE. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of gestalt for the diagnosis of PE, quantified as risk ratio (RR) between gestalt and PE based on 2-stage random-effect log-binomial meta-analysis regression as well as gestalts’ sensitivity and specificity. The variability of these measures was explored across different health care settings, publication period, PE prevalence, patient subgroups (sex, heart failure, chronic lung disease, and items of the Wells score other than gestalt), and age.ResultsWe analyzed 20 770 patients suspected of having PE from 16 original studies. The prevalence of PE in patients with and without a positive gestalt was 28.8% vs 9.1%, respectively. The overall RR was 3.02 (95% CI, 2.35-3.87), and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 74% (95% CI, 68%-79%) and 61% (95% CI, 53%-68%), respectively. Although variation was observed across individual studies (I2, 90.63%), the diagnostic accuracy was consistent across all subgroups and health care settings.ConclusionA positive gestalt was associated with a 3-fold increased risk of PE in suspected patients. Although variation was observed across studies, the RR of gestalt was similar across prespecified subgroups and health care settings, exemplifying its diagnostic value for all patients suspected of having PE. Show less
AimsRisk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that... Show moreAimsRisk stratification is used for decisions regarding need for imaging in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim was to develop a clinical prediction model that provides an individualized, accurate probability estimate for the presence of acute PE in patients with suspected disease based on readily available clinical items and D-dimer concentrations.Methods and resultsAn individual patient data meta-analysis was performed based on sixteen cross-sectional or prospective studies with data from 28 305 adult patients with clinically suspected PE from various clinical settings, including primary care, emergency care, hospitalized and nursing home patients. A multilevel logistic regression model was built and validated including ten a priori defined objective candidate predictors to predict objectively confirmed PE at baseline or venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up of 30 to 90 days. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Backward elimination was performed with a P-value <0.10. Discrimination (c-statistic with 95% confidence intervals [CI] and prediction intervals [PI]) and calibration (outcome:expected [O:E] ratio and calibration plot) were evaluated based on internal-external cross-validation. The accuracy of the model was subsequently compared with algorithms based on the Wells score and D-dimer testing. The final model included age (in years), sex, previous VTE, recent surgery or immobilization, haemoptysis, cancer, clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, inpatient status, D-dimer (in µg/L), and an interaction term between age and D-dimer. The pooled c-statistic was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85–0.89; 95% PI, 0.77–0.93) and overall calibration was very good (pooled O:E ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87–1.14; 95% PI, 0.55–1.79). The model slightly overestimated VTE probability in the lower range of estimated probabilities. Discrimination of the current model in the validation data sets was better than that of the Wells score combined with a D-dimer threshold based on age (c-statistic 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70–0.75) or structured clinical pretest probability (c-statistic 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76–0.81).ConclusionThe present model provides an absolute, individualized probability of PE presence in a broad population of patients with suspected PE, with very good discrimination and calibration. Its clinical utility needs to be evaluated in a prospective management or impact study. Show less
Background: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown.... Show moreBackground: How diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) perform in relevant patient subgroups defined by sex, age, cancer, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells and revised Geneva scores combined with fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds, as well as the YEARS algorithm, for ruling out acute PE in these subgroups. Data Sources: MEDLINE from 1 January 1995 until 1 January 2021. Study Selection: 16 studies assessing at least 1 diagnostic strategy. Data Extraction: Individual-patient data from 20553 patients. Data Synthesis: Safety was defined as the diagnostic failure rate (the predicted 3-month VTE incidence after exclusion of PE without imaging at baseline). Efficiency was defined as the proportion of individuals classified by the strategy as "PE con -sidered excluded" without imaging tests. Across all strategies, efficiency was highest in patients younger than 40 years (47% to 68%) and lowest in patients aged 80 years or older (6.0% to 23%) or patients with cancer (9.6% to 26%). However, efficiency improved considerably in these subgroups when pretest probabil-ity-dependent D-dimer thresholds were applied. Predicted failure rates were highest for strategies with adapted D-dimer thresh-olds, with failure rates varying between 2% and 4% in the pre-defined patient subgroups. Limitations: Between-study differences in scoring predictor items and D-dimer assays, as well as the presence of differential verifica-tion bias, in particular for classifying fatal events and subsegmental PE cases, all of which may have led to an overestimation of the predicted failure rates of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Conclusion: Overall, all strategies showed acceptable safety, with pretest probability-dependent D-dimer thresholds having not only the highest efficiency but also the highest predicted failure rate. From an efficiency perspective, this individual-patient data meta-analysis supports application of adapted D-dimer thresholds. Primary Funding Source: Dutch Research Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018089366) Show less
Delluc, A.; Miranda, S.; Exter, P. den; Louzada, M.; Alatri, A.; Ahn, S.; ... ; Carrier, M. 2020
In patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, knowledge of the estimated rate of recurrent events is important for clinical decision-making regarding anticoagulant therapy. The Ottawa... Show moreIn patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, knowledge of the estimated rate of recurrent events is important for clinical decision-making regarding anticoagulant therapy. The Ottawa score is a clinical prediction rule designed for this purpose, stratifying patients according to their risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the first six months of anticoagulation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies validating either the Ottawa score in its original or modified versions. Two investigators independently reviewed the relevant articles published from 1st June 2012 to 15th December 2018 and indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Nine eligible studies were identified; these included a total of 14,963 patients. The original score classified 49.3% of the patients as high-risk, with a sensitivity of 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.6-0.8], a 6-month pooled rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism of 18.6% (95%CI: 13.9-23.9). In the low-risk group, the recurrence rate was 7.4% (95%CI: 3.4-12.5). The modified score classified 19.8% of the patients as low-risk, with a sensitivity of 0.9 (95%CI: 0.4-1.0) and a 6-month pooled rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism of 2.2% (95%CI: 1.6-2.9). In the high-risk group, recurrence rate was 10.2% (95%CI: 6.4-14.6). Limitations of our analysis included type and dosing of anticoagulant therapy. We conclude that new therapeutic strategies are needed in patients at high risk for recurrent cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. Low-risk patients, as per the modified score, could be good candidates for oral anticoagulation. Show less
