Key result
A panel of pulse oximetry, ECG, and troponin T was superior for sensitivity (71% vs 61%) and noninferior for specificity (62% vs 57%) compared to echocardiography for predicting adverse outcomes.
Why the study?
Does a novel panel of pulse oximetry, ECG, and troponin T have prognostic equivalence to echocardiography for predicting adverse outcomes in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism?
Population
200 normotensive emergency department and hospital inpatients with diagnosed pulmonary embolism
Comparison
A novel panel consisting of pulse oximetry… vs Cardiologist-interpreted echocardiography
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
May aid bedside risk stratification in normotensive PE; leaves open prospective validation before replacing echocardiography.
Cohort (n=200)
Does a novel panel of pulse oximetry, ECG, and troponin T have prognostic equivalence to echocardiography for predicting adverse outcomes in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism?
Absolute Event Rate: 71% vs 61%
A panel of pulse oximetry, ECG, and troponin T is superior in sensitivity and noninferior in specificity to echocardiography for risk stratifying normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism.
Kline et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Normotensive pulmonary embolism (n=200). Panel of pulse oximetry, 12-lead electrocardiography, and serum troponin T vs. Echocardiography was evaluated on In-hospital circulatory shock or intubation, or death, recurrent pulmonary embolism, or severe cardiopulmonary disability at 6-month follow-up. A panel of pulse oximetry, ECG, and troponin T was superior for sensitivity (71% vs 61%) and noninferior for specificity (62% vs 57%) compared to echocardiography for predicting adverse outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: