JOURNAL ARTICLE
Detection of Pulmonary Embolism in High-Risk Children.
Journal of Pediatrics 2016 November
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 2 commonly used adult-based pulmonary embolism (PE) algorithms in pediatric patients and to derive a pediatric-specific clinical decision rule to evaluate children at risk for PE, given the paucity of data to guide diagnostic imaging in children for whom PE is suspected.
STUDY DESIGN: We performed a single-center retrospective study among 561 children <22 years of age undergoing either D-dimer testing or radiologic evaluation (computed tomography or ventilation-perfusion scan) in the emergency department setting for concern of PE. A diagnosis of PE required radiologic confirmation and anticoagulant treatment. We evaluated the test characteristics of the Wells criteria and Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) low-risk rule and used recursive partition analysis to derive a clinical decision rule.
RESULTS: Among the 561 patients included in the study, 36 (6.4%) were diagnosed with PE. The Wells criteria demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 60%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the PERC were 100% and 24%, respectively. A clinical decision rule including the presence of oral contraceptive use, tachycardia, and oxygen saturation <95% demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 56%, respectively, a positive and negative likelihood ratio of 2.0 and 0.2, and a positive and negative predictive value of 0.12 and 0.99, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PE is low among children not receiving estrogen therapy and without tachycardia and hypoxia in those with an initial suspicion of PE. Application of the PERC rule and Wells criteria should be used cautiously in the pediatric population.
STUDY DESIGN: We performed a single-center retrospective study among 561 children <22 years of age undergoing either D-dimer testing or radiologic evaluation (computed tomography or ventilation-perfusion scan) in the emergency department setting for concern of PE. A diagnosis of PE required radiologic confirmation and anticoagulant treatment. We evaluated the test characteristics of the Wells criteria and Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) low-risk rule and used recursive partition analysis to derive a clinical decision rule.
RESULTS: Among the 561 patients included in the study, 36 (6.4%) were diagnosed with PE. The Wells criteria demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 60%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the PERC were 100% and 24%, respectively. A clinical decision rule including the presence of oral contraceptive use, tachycardia, and oxygen saturation <95% demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 56%, respectively, a positive and negative likelihood ratio of 2.0 and 0.2, and a positive and negative predictive value of 0.12 and 0.99, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PE is low among children not receiving estrogen therapy and without tachycardia and hypoxia in those with an initial suspicion of PE. Application of the PERC rule and Wells criteria should be used cautiously in the pediatric population.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Management of heart failure in patients with kidney disease - updates from the 2021 ESC guidelines.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2023 January 24
2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting: Carbohydrate-containing Clear Liquids with or without Protein, Chewing Gum, and Pediatric Fasting Duration-A Modular Update of the 2017 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting.Anesthesiology 2023 Februrary 2
Chronic Kidney Disease, Urinary Tract Infections and Antibiotic Nephrotoxicity: Are There Any Relationships?Medicina 2022 December 28
Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia: Revised Edition 2023.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2023 January 24
How I Treat Multiple myeloma in the geriatric patient.Blood 2023 January 25
Management of Latent Tuberculosis Infection.JAMA 2023 January 20
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app