Review of Different Scoring Systems in Assessing the Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism
Ajala Aisha Oluwabunmi *
Department of Internal Medicine University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Negedu John
China Medical University, Liaoning province, China.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism remains to be fatal and measures should therefore be taken early enough. It remains one of the most challenging diagnoses in emergency medicine. A mini-review of the scoring criteria for pulmonary embolism in clinical assessments was carried out. The five strategies discussed include; the revised Wells’ criteria, the revised Geneva score, the YEAR algorithm for pulmonary embolism, Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria and 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) All these strategies have advantages and disadvantages. They are also best applicable in different situations. Considering that PE is fatal, these methods are all crucial in determining the probability of PE. Doctors should be able to think through each individual patient.
Keywords: Pulmonary embolism, testing criteria, 4PEPS
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Sci-Hub Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Gestalt, Scoring Systems, and Artificial Intelligence. Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2021;42(02):176–182 10.1055/s-0041-1723936
Available:https://sci-hub.se/10.1055/s-0041-1723936
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 16].
Huang W, Cohen AT, Martin AC, Anderson FA. Magnitude of venous thromboembolism risk in us hospitals: impact of evolving national guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Am J Med. 2019;132(5):588–95.
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30658087/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 6].
Anderson FA, Zayaruzny M, Heit JA, Fidan D, Cohen AT. Estimated annual numbers of US acute-care hospital patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Am J Hematol. 2007;82(9):777–82. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17626254/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 6].2022 Feb 6].
Padley SPG, Hansell DM. Imaging techniques. Clin Respir Med. 2008;1–68.
Tapson VF. Acute Pulmonary Embolism.
;358(10):1037–52. Available:http://dx.doi.org/101056/NEJMra072753 Available:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra072753
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 6].
Hacking C, Pugh L. Wells criteria for pulmonary embolism. Radiopaedia.org; 2017;684.
Available:http://radiopaedia.org/articles/53[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27
Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G, Quentin-Georget S, Soulie C, Thys F, et al. Comparison of the Unstructured Clinician Gestalt, the Wells Score, and the Revised Geneva Score to Estimate Pretest Probability for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;62(2): 117-124.e2. Available:http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196064412017180/fulltext
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 16].
Es N van, Kraaijpoel N, Klok FA, Huisman MV, Exter PL Den, Mos ICM, et al. The original and simplified Wells rules and age-adjusted D-dimer testing to rule out pulmonary embolism: An individual patient data meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2017;15(4):678–84. Available:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jth.13630
Togale MD, Gupta P. Study to determine Wells criteria as a reliable clinical tool in diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: a one year cross-sectional single centric hospital based study. Int Surg J. 2021;8(12):3634.
Boka K, Soo Hoo G. Pulmonary embolism clinical scoring systems: Overview, Modified Wells Scoring System, Revised Geneva Scoring System. 2022 Feb 27. Available:https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1918940-overview
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 15].
Wolf SJ, Mccubbin TR, Feldhaus KM, Faragher JP, Adcock DM. Prospective Validation of Wells Criteria in the Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism. November 2004 4 4 : 5 ann als of emergency medicine 503. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;44:503–10.
Modi S, Deisler R, Gozel K, Reicks P, Irwin E, Brunsvold M, et al. Wells criteria for DVT is a reliable clinical tool to assess the risk of deep venous thrombosis in trauma patients. World J Emerg Surg 2016;2022; 11(1).
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27279896/
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 15].
Kabrhel C, McAfee AT, Goldhaber SZ. The contribution of the subjective component of the Canadian Pulmonary Embolism Score to the overall score in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 2022;12(10):915–20.
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16204134/
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 15].
Touhami O, Marzouk S Ben, Bennasr L, Touaibia M, Souli I, Felfel MA, et al. Are the Wells Score and the Revised Geneva Score valuable for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in pregnancy? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;221: 166–71. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29310042/
[Accessed on 2021 Sep 15].
Klok FA, Kruisman E, Spaan J, Nijkeuter M, Righini M, Aujesky D, et al. Comparison of the revised Geneva score with the Wells rule for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2008(1):40–4.
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17973649/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy P-M, Sanchez O, Aujesky D, Bounameaux H, et al. Prediction of Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department: The Revised Geneva Score. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2006 Feb 7 [cited 2021 Sep 16];144(3):165. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16461960/
Klok FA, Mos ICM, Nijkeuter M, Righini M, Perrier A, Le Gal G, et al. Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism. Arch Intern Med [Internet]. 2008 Oct 27 [cited 2022 Feb 27];168(19):2131–6. Available:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/414578
Geneva Scoring for Pulmonary Embolism Simplified Further. NEJM J Watch [Internet]. 2008 Oct 29 [cited 2022 Feb 27];2008. Available:https://www.jwatch.org/FW200810290000001/2008/10/29/geneva-scoring-pulmonary-embolism-simplified
Cohen SL, Feizullayeva C, McCandlish JA, Sanelli PC, McGinn T, Brenner B, et al. Comparison of international societal guidelines for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism during pregnancy. Lancet Haematol [Internet]. 2020 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Feb 27];7(3):e247– 58. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32109405/
van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S, Beenen LFM, van Bemmel T, van Es J, et al. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2017 Jul 15 [cited 2022 Feb 27];390(10091):289–97.
Available;https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28549662/
Eddy M, Robert-Ebadi H, Richardson L, Bellesini M, Verschuren F, Moumneh T, et al. External validation of the YEARS diagnostic algorithm for suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost [Internet]. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Feb 27];18(12):3289–95. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32869501/
de Wit K, Motalo O, Dalmia S. Just the facts: testing patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Can J Emerg Med 2022];1–4. Available:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43678-021-00260-2
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27.
van der Pol LM, Dronkers CEA, van der Hulle T, den Exter PL, Tromeur C, Heringhaus C, et al. The YEARS algorithm for suspected pulmonary embolism: shorter visit time and reduced costs at the emergency department. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(4):725–33. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29431911/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Langlois E, Cusson-Dufour C, Moumneh T, Elias A, Meyer G, Lacut K, et al. Could the YEARS algorithm be used to exclude pulmonary embolism during pregnancy? Data from the CT-PE-pregnancy study. J Thromb Haemost. 2019;17(8):1329–34. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31108013/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Luu IHY, Kroon FPB, Buijs J, Krdzalic J, de Kruif MD, Leers MPG, et al. Systematic screening for pulmonary embolism using the YEARS algorithm in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the Emergency Department. Thromb Res. 2021;207:113–5. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601306/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Singh B, Mommer SK, Erwin PJ, Mascarenhas SS, Parsaik AK. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in pulmonary embolism--revisited: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(9):701–6.
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23038695/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Crawford MH. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in low-risk patients 2018-05-30 AHC Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing; 2018.
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Kline JA, Ellison AM, Kanis J, Pike JW, Hall CL. Evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule out criteria (PERC rule) in children evaluated for suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2018;168:1–4. Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29864629/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Freund Y, Rousseau A, Guyot-Rousseau F, Claessens YE, Hugli O, Sanchez O, et al. PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: Study Protocol for the PROPER Randomized Controlled Study. Trials.;16(1).
Hugli O, Righini M, Le Gal G, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Verschuren F, et al. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9(2):300–4.
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21091866/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Kline JA, Slattery D, O’Neil BJ, Thompson JR, Miller CD, Schreiber D, et al. Clinical features of patients with pulmonary embolism and a negative PERC rule result. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(1): 122–4
Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23260692/
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Dambrine S, Zech F, Thys F, Roy PM. Performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (the PERC rule) combined with low clinical probability in high prevalence population. Thromb Res. 2022;129(5). Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22424852/ [Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].
Roy PM, Friou E, Germeau B, Douillet D, Kline JA, Righini M, et al. Derivation and Validation of a 4-Level Clinical Pretest Probability Score for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism to Safely Decrease Imaging Testing. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(6): 669–77. Available:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2776853
[Accessed on 2022 Feb 27].