Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients

2018; American Medical Association; Volume: 319; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1001/jama.2017.21904

1538-3598

Yonathan Freund, Marine Cachanado, Adeline Aubry, Charlotte Orsini, Pierre-Alexis Raynal, Anne‐Laure Féral‐Pierssens, Sandrine Charpentier, Florence Dumas, N. Baarir, Jennifer Truchot, T. Desmettre, Karim Tazarourte, Sébastien Beaune, Agathe Leleu, Mehdi Khellaf, Mathias Wargon, Ben Bloom, Alexandra Rousseau, Tabassome Simon, Bruno Riou,

Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial.To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE.A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016.Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative.The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission.Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]).Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.