Key result
The 4PEPS algorithm rules out PE without imaging in ~58% of patients with low failure rates.
Why the study?
The 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) was developed to reduce imaging testing in suspected PE patients, but required external validation in an independent cohort.
Does the 4PEPS algorithm safely rule out pulmonary embolism and reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=3,465)
Does the 4PEPS algorithm safely rule out pulmonary embolism and reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism?
The 4PEPS algorithm can safely rule out pulmonary embolism without imaging in over half of suspected cases, though its 1.3% failure rate highlights the need for prospective validation.
May reduce imaging in suspected PE; leaves open prospective validation before routine use.
BACKGROUND: The recently published 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) integrates different aspects from currently available diagnostic strategies to further reduce imaging testing in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). AIM: To externally validate the performance of 4PEPS in an independent cohort. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of the prospective diagnostic management YEARS study, the primary outcome measures were discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm). Multiple imputation was used for missing 4PEPS items. Based on 4PEPS, PE was considered ruled out in patients with a very low clinical pre-test probability (CPTP) without D-dimer testing, in patients with a low CPTP and D-dimer <1000 μg/L, and in patients with a moderate CPP and D-dimer below the age-adjusted threshold. RESULTS: Of the 3465 patients, 474 (14 %) were diagnosed with VTE at baseline or during 3-month follow-up. Discriminatory performance of the 4PEPS items was good (area under ROC-curve, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.80-0.84) as was calibration. Based on 4PEPS, PE could be considered ruled out without imaging in 58 % (95%CI 57-60) of patients (efficiency), for an overall failure rate of 1.3 % (95%CI 0.86-1.9). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective external validation, 4PEPS appeared to safely rule out PE with a high efficiency. Nevertheless, although not exceeding the failure rate margin by ISTH standards, the observed failure rate in our analysis appeared to be higher than in the original 4PEPS derivation and validation study. This highlights the importance of a prospective outcome study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stals et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (n=3,465). 4-level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS) was evaluated on Discrimination, calibration, efficiency (proportion of imaging tests potentially avoided), and failure rate (VTE diagnosis at baseline or follow-up in patients with a negative 4PEPS algorithm) (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84). The 4PEPS algorithm ruled out pulmonary embolism without imaging in 58% of patients, with an overall failure rate of 1.3% (95% CI 0.86-1.9) and good discrimination (AUC 0.82).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: