Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism

Abstract Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potentially life-threatening condition. Since it is considered a ‘do not miss’ diagnosis, PE tends to be over-investigated beyond the evidence-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS), which in turn subjects patients to unnecessary ra...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Koshiar Medson, Jimmy Yu, Lovisa Liwenborg, Peter Lindholm, Eli Westerlund
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2022-11-01
Series:BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02242-1
_version_ 1811211038651056128
author Koshiar Medson
Jimmy Yu
Lovisa Liwenborg
Peter Lindholm
Eli Westerlund
author_facet Koshiar Medson
Jimmy Yu
Lovisa Liwenborg
Peter Lindholm
Eli Westerlund
author_sort Koshiar Medson
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potentially life-threatening condition. Since it is considered a ‘do not miss’ diagnosis, PE tends to be over-investigated beyond the evidence-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS), which in turn subjects patients to unnecessary radiation and contrast agent exposure with no apparent benefits in terms of outcome. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the yield of ‘clinical hunch’ (gestalt) and four CDSS: the PERC Rule, Wells score, revised Geneva score, and Years criteria. Methods A review was conducted on the Electronic Medical Records (EMR) of 1566 patients from the Emergency Department at a tertiary teaching hospital who underwent CTPA from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of December 2019. The scores for the four CDSS were calculated retrospectively from the EMR data. We considered that a CTPA had been ordered on a clinical hunch when there was no mention of CDSS in the EMR, and no D-dimer test. A bypass of CDSS was confirmed when any step of the diagnostic algorithms was not followed. Results Of the total 1566 patients who underwent CTPA, 265 (17%) were positive for PE. The diagnosis yield from the five decision groups (clinical hunch and four CDSS) was as follows—clinical hunch, 15%; PERC rule, 18% (6% when bypassed); Wells score, 19% (11% when bypassed); revised Geneva score, 26% (13% when bypassed); and YEARS criteria, 18% (6% when bypassed). Conclusion Clinicians should trust the evidence-based clinical decision support systems in line with the international guidelines to diagnose PE.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T05:06:07Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6a0f016a67d04dfdba3fb43b64b06a4a
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2466
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T05:06:07Z
publishDate 2022-11-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Pulmonary Medicine
spelling doaj.art-6a0f016a67d04dfdba3fb43b64b06a4a2022-12-22T03:46:53ZengBMCBMC Pulmonary Medicine1471-24662022-11-012211710.1186/s12890-022-02242-1Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolismKoshiar Medson0Jimmy Yu1Lovisa Liwenborg2Peter Lindholm3Eli Westerlund4Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska InstitutetDepartment of Imaging and Physiology, Cardiothoracic Section, Karolinska University HospitalDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska InstitutetDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska InstitutetDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska InstitutetAbstract Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potentially life-threatening condition. Since it is considered a ‘do not miss’ diagnosis, PE tends to be over-investigated beyond the evidence-based clinical decision support systems (CDSS), which in turn subjects patients to unnecessary radiation and contrast agent exposure with no apparent benefits in terms of outcome. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the yield of ‘clinical hunch’ (gestalt) and four CDSS: the PERC Rule, Wells score, revised Geneva score, and Years criteria. Methods A review was conducted on the Electronic Medical Records (EMR) of 1566 patients from the Emergency Department at a tertiary teaching hospital who underwent CTPA from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of December 2019. The scores for the four CDSS were calculated retrospectively from the EMR data. We considered that a CTPA had been ordered on a clinical hunch when there was no mention of CDSS in the EMR, and no D-dimer test. A bypass of CDSS was confirmed when any step of the diagnostic algorithms was not followed. Results Of the total 1566 patients who underwent CTPA, 265 (17%) were positive for PE. The diagnosis yield from the five decision groups (clinical hunch and four CDSS) was as follows—clinical hunch, 15%; PERC rule, 18% (6% when bypassed); Wells score, 19% (11% when bypassed); revised Geneva score, 26% (13% when bypassed); and YEARS criteria, 18% (6% when bypassed). Conclusion Clinicians should trust the evidence-based clinical decision support systems in line with the international guidelines to diagnose PE.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02242-1Pulmonary embolismClinical decision support systemsCTPADiagnosticsWells scorePERC rule
spellingShingle Koshiar Medson
Jimmy Yu
Lovisa Liwenborg
Peter Lindholm
Eli Westerlund
Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Pulmonary embolism
Clinical decision support systems
CTPA
Diagnostics
Wells score
PERC rule
title Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
title_full Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
title_fullStr Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
title_full_unstemmed Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
title_short Comparing ‘clinical hunch’ against clinical decision support systems (PERC rule, wells score, revised Geneva score and YEARS criteria) in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
title_sort comparing clinical hunch against clinical decision support systems perc rule wells score revised geneva score and years criteria in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
topic Pulmonary embolism
Clinical decision support systems
CTPA
Diagnostics
Wells score
PERC rule
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02242-1
work_keys_str_mv AT koshiarmedson comparingclinicalhunchagainstclinicaldecisionsupportsystemspercrulewellsscorerevisedgenevascoreandyearscriteriainthediagnosisofacutepulmonaryembolism
AT jimmyyu comparingclinicalhunchagainstclinicaldecisionsupportsystemspercrulewellsscorerevisedgenevascoreandyearscriteriainthediagnosisofacutepulmonaryembolism
AT lovisaliwenborg comparingclinicalhunchagainstclinicaldecisionsupportsystemspercrulewellsscorerevisedgenevascoreandyearscriteriainthediagnosisofacutepulmonaryembolism
AT peterlindholm comparingclinicalhunchagainstclinicaldecisionsupportsystemspercrulewellsscorerevisedgenevascoreandyearscriteriainthediagnosisofacutepulmonaryembolism
AT eliwesterlund comparingclinicalhunchagainstclinicaldecisionsupportsystemspercrulewellsscorerevisedgenevascoreandyearscriteriainthediagnosisofacutepulmonaryembolism