Expired CME Article

Determining the Clinical Probability of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism

Authors: Dan Hunt, MD, FACP

Abstract

Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are potentially life-threatening problems that present diagnostic challenges. To employ objective diagnostic tests in an efficient, safe, and cost-effective manner, the clinical probability of these disorders should be estimated before testing. A number of clinical prediction rules are available for suspected deep venous thrombosis, while there are three major prediction rules available for estimating the probability of pulmonary embolism. Recent modifications of the Wells score for deep venous thrombosis simplify its use. Although the Wells score for pulmonary embolism is commonly used, two other rules are useful for this disorder as well. This review summarizes the clinical prediction rules and gives recommendations about their application.


Key Points


* Clinical prediction rules that incorporate findings from history, examination, and simple tests allow the clinician to determine the probability of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in patients suspected of these disorders.


* The Wells score has been validated for deep venous thrombosis and appears to function well across a range of clinical venues that include the inpatient wards and emergency room.


* Three clinical prediction rules—the Wells score, the Geneva score, and the Pisa model—are useful for predicting the probability of pulmonary embolism.


* The prediction rules for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism allow the clinician to use and interpret the D-dimer test, as well as diagnostic algorithms.


* Clinical impression appears to be helpful in modifying the clinical probability determined by these clinical prediction rules.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Goldhaber SZ. Pulmonary embolism. Lancet 2004;363:1295–1305.
 
2. Scarvelis D, Wells PS. Diagnosis and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. CMAJ 2006;175:1087–1092.
 
3. Stein PD, Hull RD, Patel KC, et al. D-dimer for the exclusion of acute venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:589–602.
 
4. Segal JB, Streiff MB, Hoffman LV, et al. Management of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review for a practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:211–222.
 
5. Stevens SM, Elliott CG, Chan KJ, et al. Withholding anticoagulation after a negative result on duplex ultrasonography for suspected symptomatic deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:985–991.
 
6. Schoepf UJ, Goldhaber SZ, Costello P. Spiral computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation 2004;109:2160–2167.
 
7. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2317–2327.
 
8. Arnason T, Wells PS, Forster AJ. Appropriateness of diagnostic strategies for evaluating suspected venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost 2007;97:195–201.
 
9. Roy PM, Colombet I, Durieux P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. BMJ 2005;331:259.
 
10. Wells PS, Hirsh J, Anderson DR, et al. Accuracy of clinical assessment of deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet 1995;345:1326–1330.
 
11. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Bormanis J, et al. Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management. Lancet 1997;350:1795–1798.
 
12. Michiels JJ, Gadisseur A, van der Planken M, et al. Different accuracies of rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent, turbidimetric, and agglutination D-dimer assays for thrombosis exclusion: impact on diagnostic work-ups of outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Semin Thromb Hemost 2006;32:678–693.
 
13. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1227–1235.
 
14. Kahn SR, Joseph L, Abenhaim L, et al. Clinical prediction of deep vein thrombosis in patients with leg symptoms. Thromb Haemost 1999;81:353–357.
 
15. Constans J, Nelzy ML, Salmi LR, et al. Clinical prediction of lower limb deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic hospitalized patients. Thromb Haemost 2001;86:985–990.
 
16. Subramaniam RM, Snyder B, Heath R, et al. Diagnosis of lower limb deep venous thrombosis in emergency department patients: performance of Hamilton and modified Wells scores. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:678–685.
 
17. Oudega R, Hoes AW, Moons KG. The Wells rule does not adequately rule out deep venous thrombosis in primary care patients. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:100–107.
 
18. Di Nisio M, Rutjes AW, Buller HR. Combined use of clinical pretest probability and D-dimer test in cancer patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2006;4:52–57.
 
19. Riddle DL, Hoppener MR, Kraaijenhagen RA, et al. Preliminary validation of clinical assessment for deep vein thrombosis in orthopaedic outpatients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;432:252–257.
 
20. Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G, et al. Clinically important deep vein thrombosis in the intensive care unit: a survey of intensivists. Crit Care 2004;8:R145–R152.
 
21. Crowther MA, Cook DJ, Griffith LE, et al. Deep venous thrombosis: clinically silent in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2005;20:334–340.
 
22. Crowther MA, Cook DJ, Griffith LE, et al. Neither baseline tests of molecular hypercoagulability nor D-dimer levels predict deep venous thrombosis in critically ill medical-surgical patients. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:48–55.
 
23. Bigaroni A, Perrier A, Bounameaux H. Is clinical probability assessment of deep vein thrombosis by a score really standardized? Thromb Haemost 2000;83:788–789.
 
24. Miron MJ, Perrier A, Bounameaux H. Clinical assessment of suspected deep vein thrombosis: comparison between a score and empirical assessment. J Intern Med 2000;247:249–254.
 
25. Blattler W, Martinez I, Blattler IK. Diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis and alternative diseases in symptomatic outpatients. Eur J Intern Med 2004;15:305–311.
 
26. Perrier A, Miron MJ, Desmarais S, et al. Using clinical evaluation and lung scan to rule out suspected pulmonary embolism: is it a valid option in patients with normal results of lower-limb venous compression ultrasonography? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:512–516.
 
27. Wells PS, Ginsberg JS, Anderson DR, et al. Use of a clinical model for safe management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:997–1005.
 
28. Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D, et al. Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113:269–275.
 
29. Wicki J, Perneger TV, Junod AF, et al. Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:92–97.
 
30. Miniati M, Monti S, Bottai M. A structured clinical model for predicting the probability of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2003;114:173–179.
 
31. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:98–107.
 
32. Tamariz LJ, Eng J, Segal JB, et al. Usefulness of clinical prediction rules for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. Am J Med 2004;117:676–684.
 
33. Ollenberger GP, Worsley DF. Effect of patient location on the performance of clinical models to predict pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2006;118:685–690.
 
34. Moores LK, Collen JF, Woods KM, et al. Practical utility of clinical prediction rules for suspected acute pulmonary embolism in a large academic institution. Thromb Res 2004;113:1–6.
 
35. Miniati M, Bottai M, Monti S. Comparison of 3 clinical models for predicting the probability of pulmonary embolism. Medicine (Baltimore) 2005;84:107–114.
 
36. Monreal M, Munoz-Torrero JF, Naraine VS, et al. Pulmonary embolism in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure. Am J Med 2006;119:851–858.
 
37. van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295:172–179.
 
38. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:165–171.
 
39. Rodger MA, Maser E, Stiell I, et al. The interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2005;116:101–107.
 
40. Carrier M, Wells PS, Rodger MA. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside with low pre-test probability and D-dimer: Safety and clinical utility of 4 methods to assign pre-test probability. Thromb Res 2006;117:469–474.
 
41. Wells PS, Owen C, Doucette S, et al. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA 2006;295:199–207.
 
42. Oudega R, Moons KG, Hoes AW. Ruling out deep venous thrombosis in primary care: a simple diagnostic algorithm including D-dimer testing. Thromb Haemost 2005;94:200–205.