NDLI: Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial

Content Provider	JAMA Network
Author	Freund, Yonathan Cachanado, Marine Aubry, Adeline Orsini, Charlotte Raynal, Pierre-Alexis Féral-Pierssens, Anne-Laure Charpentier, Sandrine Dumas, Florence Baarir, Nacera Truchot, Jennifer Desmettre, Thibaut Tazarourte, Karim Beaune, Sebastien Leleu, Agathe Khellaf, Mehdi Wargon, Mathias Bloom, Ben Rousseau, Alexandra Simon, Tabassome Riou, Bruno
Copyright Year	2018
Abstract	Importance: The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria ( PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism ( PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE. Design, Setting, and Patients: A crossover cluster–randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016. Interventions: Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography ( CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission. Results: Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, −0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, −∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, −10% [95% CI, −13% to −6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919
Ending Page	566
Starting Page	559
Page Count	8
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
ISSN	00987484
DOI	10.1001/jama.2017.21904
Issue Number	6
Journal	JAMA
Volume Number	319
Language	English
Publisher	American Medical Association
Publisher Date	2018-02-13
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	pulmonary embolism hospital emergency service thromboembolic event ct pulmonary artery angiography pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria non-inferiority trials
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Utility of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: Reason to PERC Up

Could the number of CT angiograms be reduced in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary embolism?

The Positive Rate of Pulmonary Embolism by CT Pulmonary Angiography Is High in an Emergency Department, Even in Low-Risk or Young Patients

The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism.

PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study

Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography vs Ventilation-Perfusion Lung Scanning in Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Controlled Trial

P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department

Assessment of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

Use of pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in the emergency department.

Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial

Similar Documents

Utility of a Clinical Prediction Rule to Exclude Pulmonary Embolism Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: Reason to PERC Up

Could the number of CT angiograms be reduced in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary embolism?

The Positive Rate of Pulmonary Embolism by CT Pulmonary Angiography Is High in an Emergency Department, Even in Low-Risk or Young Patients

The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism.

PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study

Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography vs Ventilation-Perfusion Lung Scanning in Patients With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Controlled Trial

P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department

Assessment of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.

Use of pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in the emergency department.

Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial