Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (the PERC rule)
June 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm by NickIf you missed Sohan’s last lecture as a resident, the June 4th Journal Club, well, here’s a brief recap. For those of you who were there for his tour-de-force, you’ll no doubt want to refer to these notes from his talk in your future practice.
Sohan discussed the original PERC rule derivation paper and its recent validation — the papers below are accessible using our password system:
Kline JA, et al. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2: 1247–55. (PMID: 15304025)
Kline JA, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 772–80. (PMID: 18318689).
Sohan started with a lit review, going back to DeBakey’s 1954 discussion of 3 million PE’s, where it was first noted that PE is tough to diagnose and its prevalence is unclear. Even now, very little has changed. We don’t know the true incidence, we don’t know how many we miss, we don’t know which PE’s are clinically relevant, and we don’t know when to pursue this diagnosis. Even the Well’s criteria, which I mentioned here a couple of years ago, are not too clean — because they give more points to the physician’s judgment than to any other sign or lab result.
So we’ve been left with the unfortunate, all-to-common situation of considering D-dimers for every poor patient who presents with vague chest discomfort or dyspnea. If that dimer is positive, and it often is falsely so, we’re forced down a road of angiography , contrast, radiation, and other potential sources of morbidity.
Is there a way out of this? Is there a simple decision rule we can apply, at the bedside, using nothing but history and physical, to prevent this unnecessary testing?
Kline et al thought so — and the rule they proposed is discussed below.
Read More »
Posted in Pulmonary Embolism, Risk Stratification, Journal Club, Blog | 2 Comments »