Influence of specific alternative diagnoses on the probability of pulmonary embolism

Summary

The presence and likelihood of an alternative diagnosis to pulmonary embolism is an important variable of the Wells’ prediction rule for establishing clinical probability. We assessed whether evoking specific alternative diagnoses would reduce the probability of pulmonary embolism enough to forego further testing. We retrospectively studieda cohort of 965 consecutive patients admitted for suspicion of pulmonary embolism at three medical centers in Europe in whom the presence of an alternative diagnosis at least as likely as pulmonary embolism was recorded before diagnostic testing. We divided the patients into 15 categories of alternative diagnoses evoked. We then assessed the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in each diagnostic category and compared it to the prevalence of pulmonary embolism ina reference group (patients with no alternative diagnosis or a diagnosis less likely than pulmonary embolism). The prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the reference group was 48%. The presence of an alternative diagnosis as or more likely strongly reduced the probability of pulmonary embolism (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.1–0.2, p<0.01). In almost every diagnostic category, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism was much lower than in the reference group whith an odds ratio below or near 0. 2. Bronchopneumonia (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.7) and cancer (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0. 3 to 1.5) reduced the likelihood of pulmonary embolism toa lower extent. Evoking an alternative diagnosis at least as likely as pulmonary embolism reduces the probability of the disease, but this effect is never large enough to allow ruling it out without further testing, especially when bronchopneumonia or cancer are the alternative diagnoses considered.

Keywords

Pulmonary embolism - alternative diagnosis - probability assessment

• References

• 1 Perrier A. Pulmonary embolism: from clinical presentation to clinical probability assessment. Semin Vasc Med 2001; 01: 147-54.
• 2 The PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation-perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. JAMA 1990; 263: 2753-9.
• 3 Chunilal SD, Eikelboom JW, Attia J. et al. Does this patient have pulmonary embolism?. JAMA 2003; 290: 2849-58.
• 4 British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. Suspected acute pulmonary embolism: a practical approach. Thorax 1997; 52: S2-S21.
• 5 Kruip MJ, Leclercq MG, van der Heul C. et al. Diagnostic strategies for excluding pulmonary embolism in clinical outcome studies. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 941-51.
• 6 Goldhaber SZ. Pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2004; 364: 244.
• 7 Perrier A, Desmarais S, Miron MJ. et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in outpatients. Lancet 1999; 353: 190-5.
• 8 Musset D, Parent F, Meyer G. et al. Diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicentre outcome study. Lancet 2002; 360: 1914-20.
• 9 Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Kuntz KM. Physicians’ attitudes toward misdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a utility analysis. Acad Radiol 2000; 07: 14-20.
• 10 Iles S, Hodges AM, Darley JR. et al. Clinical experience and pre-test probability scores in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. QJM 2003; 96: 211-5.
• 11 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 416-20.
• 12 Wicki J, Perneger TV, Junod A. et al. Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 92-7.
• 13 Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D. et al. Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment for suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002; 113: 269-75.
• 14 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 98-107.
• 15 Perrier A, Roy PM, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study. Am J Med 2004; 116: 291-9.
• 16 de Monye W, Huisman MV, Pattynama PM. Observer dependency of the SimpliRed D-dimer assay in 81 consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 1999; 96: 293-8.
• 17 Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976; 16: 31-41.