BackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging... Show moreBackgroundThe recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).AimTo externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort.MethodsIn this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer <1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold.ResultsOf the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80–0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57–60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86–1.9).ConclusionIn this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study. Show less
Introduction: Application of the chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) rule out criteria (manual electrocardiogram [ECG] reading and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide ... Show moreIntroduction: Application of the chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) rule out criteria (manual electrocardiogram [ECG] reading and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NTproBNP] test) can rule out CTEPH in pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with persistent dyspnea (InShape II algorithm). Increased pulmonary pressure may also be identified using automated ECG-derived ventricular gradient optimized for right ventricular pressure overload (VG-RVPO). Method: A predefined analysis of the InShape II study was performed. The diagnostic performance of the VG-RVPO for the detection of CTEPH and the incremental diagnostic value of the VG-RVPO as new rule-out criteria in the InShape II algorithm were evaluated. Results: 60 patients were included; 5 (8.3%) were ultimately diagnosed with CTEPH. The mean baseline VG-RVPO (at time of PE diagnosis) was -18.12 mV.ms for CTEPH patients and - 21.57 mV.ms for non-CTEPH patients (mean difference 3.46 mV.ms [95%CI -29.03 to 35.94]). The VG-RVPO (after 3-6 months follow-up) normalized in patients with and without CTEPH, without a clear between-group difference (mean Delta VG-RVPO of -8.68 and - 8.42 mV.ms respectively; mean difference of -0.25 mV.ms, [95%CI -12.94 to 12.44]). The overall predictive accuracy of baseline VG-RVPO, follow-up RVPO and Delta VG-RVPO for CTEPH was moderate to poor (ROC AUC 0.611, 0.514 and 0.539, respectively). Up to 76% of the required echocardiograms could have been avoided with VG-RVPO criteria replacing the InShape II rule-out criteria, however at cost of missing up to 80% of the CTEPH diagnoses. Conclusion: We could not demonstrate (additional) diagnostic value of VG-RVPO as standalone test or as on top of the InShape II algorithm. Show less
