Morning Report: 9/19/2014

Thanks to Dr. Grock for today’s Morning Report!

 

Case 1: 75 year old female with pmhx DVT no longer on Coumadin, recent radical mastectomy currently on chemo/rad for breast cancer presents after long flight with pleuritic chest pain and shortness of breath. She is tachycardic, tachypnic, and hypoxic.

Diagnosis? PE

How to Diagnose? CTPA

 

Case 2: 27 year old female, no pmhx, on OCPs, Mom currently with DVT, presents with chest pain, mild decreased ET and mild SOB. HR 101, RR 18, 120/70, 98% on RA.

Diagnosis? More difficult

Concerned for PE? Maybe

How to evaluate patient for PE?

 

Step 1: Gestalt – do you think this person needs a PE workup? If no, done. If yes, see Step 2

 

Step 2: PERC [2]- If all 8 negative, clinically ruled out PE. If 1 or more positive, see Step 3

  1. age < 50
  2. HR < 100
  3. SpO2 > 95%
  4. No unilateral leg swelling
  5. No hemoptysis
  6. No recent trauma or surgery
  7. No prior DVT or PE
  8. No hormone use

 

 

Step 3: D-Dimer? I use Wells Criteria [3] with score < 4 low risk and, therefore, appropriate for D-Dimer. If D-Dimer negative, ruled out PE. If D-Dimer positive, do CTPA. For scores >4. Jump to CTPA. If wells >4 and D-Dimer negative? Means little. Incidence of PE too high in this group to effectively rule out with D-Dimer. Do the CTPA.

 

Wells Criteria

  1. Clinical signs and symptoms of DVT? (+3)
  2. Pulmonary embolism is most likely diagnosis (+3)
  3. HR > 100 (+1.5)
  4. Immobilization >3 days or surgery in previous 4 weeks (+1.5)
  5. Previous PE or DVT (+1.5)
  6. Hemoptysis (+1)
  7. Malignancy with treatment in past 6 months, or palliative (+1)

 

Score <4 qualifies using D dimer to rule out PE [JAMA 295 (2): 172-9]

 

Special note: Remember D-Dimer has high sensitivity, low specificity.

 

 

Interestingly D-Dimer increases with age

Study 1: ADJUST-PE [4]

-Prospective, in Europe

– 3324 patients (clinical suspicion of PE without exclusion criteria) with 331 having D-Dimer > 500, but < age-adjusted cutoff of age x 10 who completed follow-up and 810 with D-Dimer <500 who completed follow-up

– All assessed with RGS or Wells Score

– All patients followed-up by phone call at 3 months

– Presumed false negative rate for ADJUSTED D-Dimer = 1/331, 0.3% [95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%). For conventional D-Dimer = 1/810, 0.1%[95%CI, 0.0%-0.7%]).

– In the pos D-Dimer and neg CTPA group, 0.5% (95% CI 0.2%-1%) had suspected or proven VTE in the next 90 days.

 

 

Study 2 [5]

-Retrospective

– 3500 with CTPA for PE =>923 over age 50 with CTPA, D-Dimer, and Revised Geneva Score<10

– Used age x 10 for upper limit of D-Dimer

– False neg = neg D-dimer, with +CTPA <90 days (in Utah in hospital system that ran half of all hospitals)

– If ADJUSTED D-Dimer 273 ruled out

– If conventional D-Dimer 104 ruled out

– Decrease imaging by 18% in >50

12.4% in 51-65

24.7% 66-74

24.9% >75

– ADJUSTED D-dimer Sens 97.6 (92.6-99.6), Spec 32.4 (29.3-35.6)

-Conventional D-dimer Sens 100 (96.5-100), Spec 12.4 (10.3-14.7)

-Negative LR 0.07 (95% CI 0.02-0.29)

– Neg conventional D-Dimer = 0% (95% CI 0-2.8%) PE in <90 days

– Of neg ADJUSTED D-Dimer and + CTPA

4 patients:2 had neg CTPA on initial encounter (RGS 4,3) – WHICH SHOULDN’T really count, 2 on initial CTPA (RGS 1,1)

LR 0.7% (95% CI 0.1-2.6%)

 

 

Another scoring system for funsies!

           The Revised Geneva Score [6]

Risk factors

  1. Age > 65 y = 1 point
  2. Previous DVT or PE = 3 points
  3. Surgery (under general anesthesia) or fracture (of the lower limbs) within 1 mo = 2 points
  4. Active malignant condition (solid or hematologic malignant condition, currently active or considered cured <1 yr) = 2 points

 

Symptoms

  1. Unilateral lower-limb pain = 3 points
  2. Hemoptysis = 2 points

 

 

Clinical signs

  • Heart rate

75–94 beats/min = 3 points

>95 beats/min = 5 points

  • Pain on lower-limb deep venous palpation and unilateral edema = 4 points

 

 

Clinical probability:

Low 0–3 (around 9% prevalence of PE)

Intermediate 4–10 (around 27% prevalence of PE)

High >11 (around 40% prevalence of PE)

 

 

References:

[1] Boka, K et al. Pulmonary Embolism Scoring Systems, emedicine. Feb 2014. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1918940-overview#a1

[2] Kline JA et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost. 2008 May;6(5):772-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02944.x. Epub 2008 Mar 3.

[3] Wolf SJ et al. Prospective validation of Wells Criteria in the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Nov;44(5):503-10.

[4] Righini M. et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA. 2014 Mar 19;311(11):1117-24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.2135.

[5] Woller et al. Assessment of the safety and efficiency of using an age-adjusted d-dimer threshold to exclude suspected pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2014 May 15. doi: 10.1378/chest.13-2386.

[6] Le Gal G Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 7;144(3):165-71.

The views expressed on this blog are the author's own and do not reflect the views of their employer. Please read our full disclaimer here. Any references to clinical cases refer to patients treated at a virtual hospital, Janus General Hospital.
The following two tabs change content below.

Jay Khadpe MD

Editor in Chief of "The Original Kings of County" Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine Assistant Residency Director SUNY Downstate / Kings County Hospital

Latest posts by Jay Khadpe MD (see all)

1 comment for “Morning Report: 9/19/2014

  1. Ian deSouza
    September 22, 2014 at 9:51 am

    Nice post, Grock. Don’t ever use the word “funnies” again please.

    Two issues here. Many MDs who have patients with isolated tachycardia go straight to gestalt positive or “concern for PE” (do not pass GO, and do not collect $200). Always, systematically go through the more likely causes of tachycardia before you go to “PE”. These scoring systems assist with this concept as well.

    Remember that patients with minor symptoms and no risk factors MAY have a PE, but is that PE clinically important? The conservative MD will say that they ALL are and the patient requires admission. But, it seem probable that we all have small PEs every now and then, existing in a constant push/pull of thrombosis/-lysis. And, there is some good studies showing that even IF your patient has a PE, he/she can be managed as an outpatient.

Comments are closed.