Revision of Clinical Pre-Test Probability Scores in Hospitalized Patients with Pulmonary Embolism and SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: The need for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) is based on clinical scores in association with D-dimer measurements. PE is a recognized complication in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection due to a pro-thrombotic state which may reduce the usefulness of preexisting pre-test probability scores. Aim: The purpose was to analyze new clinical and laboratory parameters while comparing existing and newly proposed scoring system for PE detection in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (HCP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 270 consecutive HCPs who underwent CTPA due to suspected PE. The Modified Wells, Revised Geneva, Simplified Geneva, YEARS, 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (4PEPS), and PE rule-out criteria (PERC) scores were calculated and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was measured. Results: Overall incidence of PE among our study group of HCPs was 28.1%. The group of patients with PE had a significantly longer COVID-19 duration upon admission, at 10 vs 8 days, p = 0.006; higher D-dimer levels of 10.2 vs 5.3 µ g/L, p < 0.001; and a larger proportion of underlying chronic kidney disease, at 16% vs 7%, p = 0.041. From already established scores, only 4PEPS and the modified Wells score reached statistical significance in detecting the difference between the HCP groups with or without PE. We proposed a new chronic kidney disease, D-dimers, 10 days of illness before admission (CDD-10) score consisting of the three aforementioned variables: C as chronic kidney disease (0.5 points if present), D as D-dimers (negative 1.5 points if normal, 2 points if over 10.0 µ g/L), and D-10 as day-10 of illness carrying 2 points if lasting more than 10 days before admission or 1 point if longer than 8 days. The CDD-10 score ranged from -1.5 to 4.5 and had an AuROC of 0.672, p < 0.001 at cutoff value at 0.5 while 4PEPS score had an AuROC of 0.638 and Modified Wells score 0.611. The clinical probability of PE was low (0%) when the CDD-10 value was negative, moderate (24%) for CDD-10 ranging 0-2.5 and high (43%) when over 2.5. Conclusions: Better risk stratification is needed for HCPs who require CTPA for suspected PE. Our newly proposed CDD-10 score demonstrates the best accuracy in predicting PE in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evaluation of the "hemoptysis" item in clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Hemoptysis is not common in pulmonary embolism (PE) and lacks specificity for its diagnosis. However, this item is present in different validated scores that estimate the clinical probability of PE. The relevance of this item in clinical decision rules (CDRs) is not clearly established. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of removing the "hemoptysis" item from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDR in patients with low clinical probability of PE. DESIGN: This was a post hoc analysis of two European prospective cohorts, which included 2968 patients presenting to the ED with a low clinical probability of PE (PROPER and PERCEPIC) and a 3-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was the false-negative rate of a CDR score without the hemoptysis item. Secondary endpoints included the potential reduction of chest imaging if the item hemoptysis was to be removed and risk stratification of the Geneva and Wells scores without the hemoptysis item. RESULTS: Of 2968 patients included (mean ± SD age 46 ± 18 years, 53% female), 87 patients (3%) had a PE diagnosed at 3 months. A total of 2908 were followed-up at 3 months and analyzed. Using the PERC rule with and without the hemoptysis item, there were 13 and 14 missed cases of PE, respectively (failure rate 0.45% [95% CI 0.25%-0.78%] and 0.48% [95% CI 0.27%-0.82%]). Using the YEARS strategy, there were 11 missed PE cases with or without the hemoptysis item (false-negative rate 0.57% [95% CI 0.30%-1.05%]). With the PERC and YEARS rule, removing the hemoptysis item would have led to a 1% reduction in chest imaging. The PEGeD strategy was not modified by the removal of the hemoptysis item. CONCLUSIONS: The hemoptysis item could be safely removed from the PERC, YEARS, and PEGeD CDRs. However, there was no subsequent clinically relevant reduction of chest imaging.

Utility of EBUS-TBNA in diagnosing mediastinal tuberculous lymphadenitis in East London.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise and describe the diagnostic utility of Endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) in intrathoracic tuberculosis in a cohort of patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown aetiology. METHODS: Consecutive patients with intrathoracic lymphadenopathy undergoing EBUS-TBNA between 2012 and 2016 were identified. Demographic data, biopsy cytopathology and mycobacteriology results, HIV and vitamin D status, susceptibility results and final diagnoses were recorded. Pre- and post-procedure probability scores were assigned to each case to reflect the probability of tuberculosis. RESULTS: 315 cases were identified; 54 (17.1%) had tuberculosis and 261 (82.9%) had a non-tuberculosis diagnosis. amongst TB cases, the sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was 59.3% (95% CI 45.06-72.14), specificity 100% (95% CI 98.19-100) and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 92.23% (95% CI 88.31-94.95). 19/54 (35%) TB cases were confirmed by EBUS mycobacterial culture and 13/54 (24.1%) by cytopathology.  33 (61.1%) of the TB cases, had a low to medium pre-test probability score assigned prior to EBUS-TBNA. Amongst EBUS culture-confirmed cases, we found a resistance rate of 10.5% to one or more first line TB drugs, with one case of multi-drug resistant TB. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the utility of EBUS-TBNA in the diagnosis of intrathoracic tuberculosis in an undifferentiated cohort of patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown aetiology and advocate sending samples for mycobacterial culture in all cases in high tuberculosis incidence areas.

Comparison of the Wells score and the revised Geneva score as a tool to predict pulmonary embolism in outpatients over age 65.

TITLE: Comparison of the Wells score and the revised Geneva score as a tool to predict pulmonary embolism in outpatients over 65 years of age. INTRODUCTION: The incidence and mortality of pulmonary embolism (PE) is high in the elderly. The Wells score (SW) and the revised Geneva score (RGS) have been validated in patient populations with a large age range. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of these two scores in diagnosis of PE in patients over 65 years of age. METHOD: A prospective multicentre study (nine French and three Belgian centres) was conducted at the same time as the PERCEPIC study. A total of 1757 patients admitted with suspected PE were included and divided into two groups according to age (≥65 years or <65 years). The pre-test probability of PE was assessed prospectively for the RGS. The SW was calculated retrospectively. The predictive accuracy of the two scores was compared by the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curves. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of PE was 11.3%. The prevalence among patients aged ≥65 in the low, moderate and high pre-test probability groups, evaluated using the WS and was respectively 13.5% (CI 95%: CI 9.9-17.3), 28.2% (CI 22.1-34.3), 50% (CI 26-74) and 8.1% (CI 3.2-12.9), 22.3% (CI 18.2-26.3), 43.7% (CI 25.6-61.9) using the RGS. The AUC for the WS and RGS for patients aged ≥65 was 0.632 (CI 0.574-0.691) and 0.610 (CI 0.555-0.666). The difference between the AUCs was not statistically significant (p = .441). CONCLUSION: In the population for this study, the WS and RGS have the same PE diagnostic accuracy in patients over age 65. This result should be validated in a prospective study that directly compares these scores.

Assessment on antibody test for diagnosis performance of heparin induced thrombocytopenia / 临床检验杂志

Objective To assess the antibody test for the diagnosis performance of heparin induced thrombocytopenia(HIT).Methods 52 plasma samples of patients with HIT,126 plasma samples of heparin treated patients without HIT and 50 plasma samples of healthy individuals were collected from 2014 September to 2016 November.According to thrombosis,the patients were further divided into two groups:isolated HIT group without thrombosis (30 cases) and heparin induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITY) group (22 cases).The whole HIT antibody in plasma was assayed by using ACL-TOP 700 coagulation analyzer and reagent (HemosIL HIT-AbPF4-H).The IgG-specific HIT antibody in plasma was assayed by using ACL AcuStar chemiluminescent analyzer and reagent (HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgGPF4-H).Results The levels of whole antibody and IgG-specific antibody in the patients of heparin control group was higher than those in healthy control (U value was 1 644.0 and 1 911.0,respectively,P ＜ 0.01).The levels of two HIT antibodies in HIT patients group were higher than those in the patients of heparin control group (U value was 550.0 and 4.7,respectively,P ＜ 0.01).ROC curve showed that the sensitivities of both whole antibody and IgG-specific antibody were 100％,and up-regulating the cut-off value could improve the specificity of both tests.The positive incidence of the whole antibody was 27.8％ in the heparin control group and 100％ in HIT patients group while the cut-off value was 1.50 U/mL.The positive incidence of IgG-specific antibody was 0 in the heparin control group and 100％ in the HIT patients group while the cut-off value was 1.51 U/mL.While the cut-off value of IgG-specific antibody was 2.32 U/mL,the diagnosis sensitivity of thrombosis assessment was 90.9％ and the specificity was 80.0％.In case the cut-off value exceeded 2.32 U/mL,the accumulating risk of HIT increased significantly in HIT patients within 15 days (Log-rank x2 =56.577,P ＜ 0.01).Conclusion The whole antibody and IgG-specific antibody could contribute to excluding diagnosis,diagnosis or risk assessment for the suspected HIT patients.

Suspicion of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in internal medicine: How appropriate is the ordering of anti-PF4/heparin antibody testing?

Thrombocytopenia is frequent in hospitalized patients, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is often suspected when a decrease in platelet count is concomitant with heparin treatment. ELISA tests used for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies detection usually have high sensitivity but only fair specificity for HIT. Pre-test probability scores (such as 4 Ts or HEP scores) have been validated and a low probability score rules out HIT without anti-PF4/heparin testing. The aims of this study are to evaluate the appropriateness of anti-PF4/heparin testing according to pre-test probabilities of HIT and to compare the abilities of the 4 Ts and HEP scores to avoid inappropriate anti-PF4/heparin testing. This retrospective observational study included 74 consecutive patients hospitalized in a general internal medicine division who had anti-PF4/heparin testing for suspicion of HIT. 4 Ts and HEP scores were computed retrospectively. About 73% of patients who had ordering of an anti-PF4/heparin were at low risk according to the 4 Ts score, and 46% according to the HEP score. Heparin was discontinued in 61% and 62% of low-risk patients according to 4 Ts and HEP scores and switched to alternative anticoagulant in 31% and 32% of them, respectively. No case of HIT was diagnosed in patients with a low-risk score. One major bleeding and no thrombosis were observed. For the 4 Ts score, the sensitivity was 100%, the negative predictive value (NPV) was 100%, the specificity was 77%, and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 20% (95% CI: 7-44). For the HEP score, the sensitivity was 100%, the NPV was 100%, the specificity was 49%, and the PPV was 10%. In conclusion, pre-test probability scores were vastly underused in this internal medicine population despite their ability to rule out HIT without laboratory testing in a large proportion of patients. Appropriate use of those instruments should be actively promoted.

Probability scores and diagnostic algorithms in pulmonary embolism: are they followed in clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION: Clinical probability scores (CPS) determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for the tests required in these patients. Our objective is to investigate if PE is diagnosed according to clinical practice guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of clinically suspected PE in the emergency department between January 2010 and December 2012. A D-dimer value ≥ 500 ng/ml was considered positive. PE was diagnosed on the basis of the multislice computed tomography angiography and, to a lesser extent, with other imaging techniques. The CPS used was the revised Geneva scoring system. RESULTS: There was 3,924 cases of suspected PE (56% female). Diagnosis was determined in 360 patients (9.2%) and the incidence was 30.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants/year. Sensitivity and the negative predictive value of the D-dimer test were 98.7% and 99.2% respectively. CPS was calculated in only 24 cases (0.6%) and diagnostic algorithms were not followed in 2,125 patients (54.2%): in 682 (17.4%) because clinical probability could not be estimated and in 482 (37.6%), 852 (46.4%) and 109 (87.9%) with low, intermediate and high clinical probability, respectively, because the diagnostic algorithms for these probabilities were not applied. CONCLUSIONS: CPS are rarely calculated in the diagnosis of PE and the diagnostic algorithm is rarely used in clinical practice. This may result in procedures with potential significant side effects being unnecessarily performed or to a high risk of underdiagnosis.

Comparison of different cardiac risk scores for coronary artery disease in symptomatic women: do female-specific risk factors matter?

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death in women and there is a need for more accurate risk assessment scores. The aims of our study were to compare the accuracy of several widely used cardiac risk assessment scores in predicting the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on CT coronary angiography (CTCA) in symptomatic women and to explore which female-specific risk factors were independent predictors of obstructive CAD on CTCA and whether adding these risk factors to pre-test probability scores would improve their predictive value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from a cohort of 228 consecutively included symptomatic women undergoing evaluation for CAD and referred for CTCA. Obstructive CAD was defined as ≥50% luminal stenosis on CTCA. Pre-test probability for CAD was calculated according to the Diamond and Forrester score, New score, Duke clinical score, and an updated Diamond and Forrester score. Female-specific factors were obtained by a written questionnaire. Pre-test probability scores were compared with ROC analysis and showed that only the New score and the updated Diamond and Forrester score were significant predictive scores for obstructive CAD on CTCA (area under the curve, AUC, 0.67, p < 0.01; AUC 0.61, p = 0.04, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and oestrogen status were independent predictors of obstructive CAD when adjusted for the pre-test probability scores. The updated Diamond and Forrester score was used for net reclassification improvement (NRI) analysis, since the New score already accounts for oestrogen status. Adding GDM and oestrogen status to the updated Diamond and Forrester score resulted in a significant NRI (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large variability in prediction of obstructive CAD using different pre-test probability risk scores in symptomatic women. Logistic regression analysis revealed that oestrogen status and GDM were independently associated with the occurrence of obstructive stenosis on CTCA. The predictive ability of cardiac pre-test probability scores improved significantly with the addition of oestrogen status and GDM.