help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published ahead of print on April 24, 2008, doi:10.1164/rccm.200802-207OC

Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 178, Number 3, August 2008, 290-294

A more recent version of this article appeared on August 1, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
200802-207OCv1
178/3/290    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miniati, M.
Right arrow Articles by Passera, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Miniati, M.
Right arrow Articles by Passera, M.

Submitted on February 3, 2008
Accepted on April 24, 2008

Simple and Accurate Prediction of the Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism

Massimo Miniati1*, Matteo Bottai2, Simonetta Monti3, Marco Salvadori3, Luca Serasini3, and Mirko Passera3

1 Dipartimento di Area Critica Medico-Chirurgica, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italy, 2 Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA, 3 Istitiuto di Fisiologia Clinica del Consiglio Nazionale Delle Richerche (CNR), Pisa, Italy

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: massimo.miniati{at}unifi.it.

Rationale: Clinical probability assessment is a fundamental step in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Objective: To develop a predictive model for pulmonary embolism based on clinical symptoms, signs, and the interpretation of the electrocardiogram. Methods: The model was developed from a database of 1100 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism of whom 440 had the disease confirmed by angiography or autopsy findings. It was validated in an independent sample of 400 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (71% inpatients). Easy-to-use software was developed for computing the clinical probability on palm computers and mobile phones. Results: The model comprises 16 variables of which 10 (older age, male gender, prolonged immobilization, history of deep vein thrombosis, sudden onset dyspnea, chest pain, syncope, hemoptysis, unilateral leg swelling, electrocardiographic signs of acute cor pulmonale) are positively associated, and 6 (prior cardiovascular or pulmonary disease, orthopnea, high fever, wheezes or crackles on chest auscultation) are negatively associated with pulmonary embolism. In the validation sample, 165 (41%) of 400 patients had pulmonary embolism confirmed by angiography. The prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 2% when the predicted clinical probability was slight (0 to 10%), 28% when moderate (11 to 50%), 67% when substantial (51 to 80%), and 94% when high (81 to 100%). There was no significant difference between inpatients and outpatients with respect to the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the four probability categories. Conclusions: The proposed model is simple and accurate, and it may aid physicians when assessing the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.


Key words: pulmonary embolism, diagnosis, clinical assessment







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 2008 American Thoracic Society
  ATS Sleep Tracings Quiz