PERC rule: Difference between revisions
Neil.m.young (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "==Source== <references/>" to "==References== <references/>") |
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - " PE " to " PE ") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
*Use only if you would be confident in excluding PE with a neg D-dimer | *Use only if you would be confident in excluding [[PE]] with a neg D-dimer | ||
*If all are present AND low suspicion for PE, no D-dimer needed: | *If all are present AND low suspicion for PE, no D-dimer needed: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Validation== | ==Validation== | ||
*Validated on 7527 patients | *Validated on 7527 patients | ||
**Only 0.9% had PE when PERC negative, no deaths | **Only 0.9% had [[PE]] when PERC negative, no deaths | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Latest revision as of 19:23, 27 January 2017
Background
- Use only if you would be confident in excluding PE with a neg D-dimer
- If all are present AND low suspicion for PE, no D-dimer needed:
PERC Rule Calculator
Check all of the following that are true:
- Age <50yr
- Pulse ox >94% (room air)
- HR <100
- No prior PE or DVT
- No recent surgery or trauma (within prior 4wk)
- No hemoptysis
- No estrogen use
- No unilateral leg swelling
In patients with low suspicion for PE (best-guess pre-test probability <15%) AND all are true, only 0.9% had PE (n=7527) and it can be ruled-out without further testing (i.e. no need for d-dimer)[1][2]
Validation
- Validated on 7527 patients
- Only 0.9% had PE when PERC negative, no deaths
See Also
External Links
See Also
References
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Kline JA, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 772–80. (PMID: 18318689).