Differentiating Low-Risk and No-Risk PE Patients

The PERC Score

Christopher R. Carpenter, Samuel M Keim, Rawle A. Seupaul, Jesse M. Pines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging diagnoses in emergency medicine. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) score, a decision aid to reliably distinguish low-risk from very low-risk PE patients, has been derived and validated. Clinical Question: Can a subset of patients with sufficiently low risk for PE be identified who require no diagnostic testing? Evidence Review: The PERC score derivation and validation trials were located using PubMed and Web of Science. A critical appraisal of this research is presented. Results: One single-center and another multi-center validation trial both confirmed that the eight-item PERC score identified a very low-risk subset of patients in whom PE was clinically contemplated with a negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.25) in the larger trial. If applied, the rule would have identified 20% of potential PE patients as very low risk. Conclusion: The PERC score provides clinicians with an easily remembered, validated clinical decision rule that allows physicians to forego diagnostic testing for pulmonary embolus in a very low-risk population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)317-322
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Emergency Medicine
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2009

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Embolism
Decision Support Techniques
Emergency Medicine
Embolism
PubMed
Confidence Intervals
Physicians
Lung
Research
Population

Keywords

  • clinical decision rules
  • D-dimer
  • evidence-based medicine
  • pulmonary embolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Differentiating Low-Risk and No-Risk PE Patients : The PERC Score. / Carpenter, Christopher R.; Keim, Samuel M; Seupaul, Rawle A.; Pines, Jesse M.

In: Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 3, 04.2009, p. 317-322.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carpenter, Christopher R. ; Keim, Samuel M ; Seupaul, Rawle A. ; Pines, Jesse M. / Differentiating Low-Risk and No-Risk PE Patients : The PERC Score. In: Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 317-322.
@article{b377594d40ef4279a4052e16c5f2d5ff,
title = "Differentiating Low-Risk and No-Risk PE Patients: The PERC Score",
abstract = "Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging diagnoses in emergency medicine. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) score, a decision aid to reliably distinguish low-risk from very low-risk PE patients, has been derived and validated. Clinical Question: Can a subset of patients with sufficiently low risk for PE be identified who require no diagnostic testing? Evidence Review: The PERC score derivation and validation trials were located using PubMed and Web of Science. A critical appraisal of this research is presented. Results: One single-center and another multi-center validation trial both confirmed that the eight-item PERC score identified a very low-risk subset of patients in whom PE was clinically contemplated with a negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95{\%} confidence interval 0.11-0.25) in the larger trial. If applied, the rule would have identified 20{\%} of potential PE patients as very low risk. Conclusion: The PERC score provides clinicians with an easily remembered, validated clinical decision rule that allows physicians to forego diagnostic testing for pulmonary embolus in a very low-risk population.",
keywords = "clinical decision rules, D-dimer, evidence-based medicine, pulmonary embolism",
author = "Carpenter, {Christopher R.} and Keim, {Samuel M} and Seupaul, {Rawle A.} and Pines, {Jesse M.}",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.06.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "317--322",
journal = "Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0736-4679",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differentiating Low-Risk and No-Risk PE Patients

T2 - The PERC Score

AU - Carpenter, Christopher R.

AU - Keim, Samuel M

AU - Seupaul, Rawle A.

AU - Pines, Jesse M.

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging diagnoses in emergency medicine. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) score, a decision aid to reliably distinguish low-risk from very low-risk PE patients, has been derived and validated. Clinical Question: Can a subset of patients with sufficiently low risk for PE be identified who require no diagnostic testing? Evidence Review: The PERC score derivation and validation trials were located using PubMed and Web of Science. A critical appraisal of this research is presented. Results: One single-center and another multi-center validation trial both confirmed that the eight-item PERC score identified a very low-risk subset of patients in whom PE was clinically contemplated with a negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.25) in the larger trial. If applied, the rule would have identified 20% of potential PE patients as very low risk. Conclusion: The PERC score provides clinicians with an easily remembered, validated clinical decision rule that allows physicians to forego diagnostic testing for pulmonary embolus in a very low-risk population.

AB - Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging diagnoses in emergency medicine. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) score, a decision aid to reliably distinguish low-risk from very low-risk PE patients, has been derived and validated. Clinical Question: Can a subset of patients with sufficiently low risk for PE be identified who require no diagnostic testing? Evidence Review: The PERC score derivation and validation trials were located using PubMed and Web of Science. A critical appraisal of this research is presented. Results: One single-center and another multi-center validation trial both confirmed that the eight-item PERC score identified a very low-risk subset of patients in whom PE was clinically contemplated with a negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.25) in the larger trial. If applied, the rule would have identified 20% of potential PE patients as very low risk. Conclusion: The PERC score provides clinicians with an easily remembered, validated clinical decision rule that allows physicians to forego diagnostic testing for pulmonary embolus in a very low-risk population.

KW - clinical decision rules

KW - D-dimer

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - pulmonary embolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62749099578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62749099578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.06.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jemermed.2008.06.017

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 317

EP - 322

JO - Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0736-4679

IS - 3

ER -