[Utility of probability scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review].
Utilidad de las escalas de predicción diagnósticas de embolia de pulmón en pacientes con infección por SARS-CoV-2: una revisión sistemática.
COVID-19
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography
Diagnostic prediction model
Hypercoagulable state
Pulmonary embolism
Thromboinflammation
Journal
Revista clinica espanola
ISSN: 1578-1860
Titre abrégé: Rev Clin Esp
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 8608576
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
19
05
2022
accepted:
04
07
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
11
8
2022
entrez:
10
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature. A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies. Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level < 3000 ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE. Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.
Sections du résumé
Background and objective
UNASSIGNED
Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level < 3000 ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35945950
doi: 10.1016/j.rce.2022.07.004
pii: S0014-2565(22)00120-5
pmc: PMC9353599
doi:
Types de publication
English Abstract
Journal Article
Review
Langues
spa
Pagination
40-49Informations de copyright
© 2022 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.
Références
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Aug 13;8:714003
pubmed: 34485411
Clin Radiol. 2020 Oct;75(10):780-788
pubmed: 32684301
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Dec;50:526-531
pubmed: 34547695
Acad Radiol. 2020 May;27(5):614-617
pubmed: 32276755
Eur Respir J. 2021 Aug 5;58(2):
pubmed: 33986033
Blood. 2020 Jun 4;135(23):2033-2040
pubmed: 32339221
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jun 7;154(11):709-18
pubmed: 21646554
Thromb Res. 2020 Nov;195:95-99
pubmed: 32682004
Chest. 2021 Oct;160(4):1471-1480
pubmed: 34153340
Crit Care Resusc. 2020 Apr 15;22(2):95-97
pubmed: 32294809
Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 Jul 31;87(8):461-468
pubmed: 32409435
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2021 Jul;52(1):76-84
pubmed: 33145663
Cureus. 2021 Sep 3;13(9):e17687
pubmed: 34650862
J Thromb Haemost. 2004 Aug;2(8):1247-55
pubmed: 15304025
Ann Intern Med. 1998 Dec 15;129(12):997-1005
pubmed: 9867786
Radiology. 2021 Feb;298(2):E70-E80
pubmed: 33320063
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3478-3486
pubmed: 34287774
mBio. 2020 Dec 11;11(6):
pubmed: 33310781
Med Clin (Engl Ed). 2021 Feb 12;156(3):112-117
pubmed: 33521296
Thromb Haemost. 2020 Jun;120(6):998-1000
pubmed: 32316063
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Nov;110(5):e409-e411
pubmed: 32305287
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Am J Med. 2021 May;134(5):688-690
pubmed: 33316254
Thromb Res. 2020 Sep;193:86-89
pubmed: 32531548
Intern Med J. 2021 Aug;51(8):1236-1242
pubmed: 33834578
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Mar 10;2021:8851736
pubmed: 33778084
Cardiovasc J Afr. 2022 Mar 4;33:1-5
pubmed: 35244670
Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jan 8;161(1):92-7
pubmed: 11146703
Br J Radiol. 2020 Sep 01;93(1113):20200407
pubmed: 32735448
Ann Vasc Surg. 2020 Aug;67:10-13
pubmed: 32474145
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 28;381(22):2125-2134
pubmed: 31774957
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 1;5(7):831-840
pubmed: 32219363
Expert Rev Hematol. 2020 Nov;13(11):1265-1275
pubmed: 32997543
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
pubmed: 3287615
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Nov 06;2020:9126148
pubmed: 33204727
Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390(10091):289-297
pubmed: 28549662
Blood. 2020 Jul 23;136(4):489-500
pubmed: 32492712