Capacidad de diferentes reglas de decisión clínica para descartar tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes de 35 o menos años atendidos en servicios de urgencias: análisis post-hoc de tres cohortes prospectivas / Pulmonary embolism rule-out decision-making tools for patients aged 35 years or younger in hospital emergency departments: a post-hoc analysis of performance in 3 prospective cohorts

RESUMEN

Objetivos: Evaluar la capacidad de la regla PERC (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria) y la regla modificada por edad (PERC-35) para descartar tromboembolia pulmonar (TEP) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en pacientes # 35 años. El objetivo secundario fue analizar otras reglas de decisión clínica. Método: Análisis post-hoc de 3 estudios de cohorte europeos (PROPER, PERCEPIC y MODIGLIANI). Se incluyeron pacientes # 35 años con sospecha de TEP en SUH y con seguimiento a 3 meses. La seguridad y eficacia de PERC yPERC-35 se evaluaron con su tasa de error -no detectar TEP- y la proporción de pacientes con diagnóstico de TEP descartado. Se evaluó la seguridad y eficacia de las reglas YEARS y PEGeD. Resultados: Se analizaron 1.235 pacientes # 35 años. Hubo 22 (1,8%, IC 95% 1,2-2,7) TEP diagnosticados a los 3 meses. Hubo 6 (1,0%, IC 95% 0,5-2,2) y 5 (0,9%, IC 95% 0,4-2,1) TEP no diagnosticados con las reglas PERC y PERC-35 respectivamente. Estas reglas permitieron descartar TEP en 591 (48,2%, IC 95% 45,4- 51,0) y 554 (46,2%, IC 95% 43,4- 49,0) respectivamente. La tasa de error de YEARS y PEGeD fue del 0,4% (IC 95% 0,1- 1,1) y 0,5% (IC 95% 0,2-1,2), con una eficacia similar. Conclusiones: En pacientes # 35 años, las reglas PERC y PERC-35 mostraron perfiles de seguridad y eficacia similares. Sin embargo, el amplio intervalo de confianza comunicado en este estudio no permite confirmar su seguridad. (AU)

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To assess the performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) and the age-modified PERC-35 tool in hospital emergency departments (EDs) for evaluating patients aged 35 years or younger. A secondary aim was to assess other decision-making criteria. Method: Post-hoc analysis of 3 European cohort studies. We included data for patients aged 35 years or younger suspected of PE who were followed for 3 months. The safety and efficacy of applying the PERC and PERC-35 were assessed with the diagnostic error rate (failure to detect PE) and the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of applying the YEARS and PEGeD criteria. Results: Data for 1235 patients aged 35 years or younger were analyzed. Twenty-two (1.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-2.7%) PE cases were diagnosed at 3 months. Six (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.2%) and 5 (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) PE cases were not diagnosed by the PERC and PERC-35 tools, respectively. These tools allowed PE to be ruled out in 591 (48.2%; 95% CI, 45.4%-51.0%) and 554 (46.2%; 95% CI, 43.4%-49.0%) cases, respectively. The error rates of the YEARS and PEGeD criteria, respectively, were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.1%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.2%); their efficacy was similar. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profiles of the PERC and PERC-35 algorithms were similar in patients aged 35 years or younger. However, the large confidence intervals we report do not allow us to confirm the safety of using the tools in patients in this age group. (AU)