Capnometry in suspected pulmonary embolism with positive D-dimer in the field.

19Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

NTRODUCTION: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is one of the greatest diagnostic challenges in prehospital emergency setting. Most patients with suspected PE have a positive D-dimer and undergo diagnostic testing. Excluding PE with additional non-invasive tests would reduce the need for further imaging tests. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of combination of clinical probability and end-tidal carbon dioxide (PetCO2) for evaluation of suspected PE with abnormal concentrations of D-dimer in prehospital emergency setting. METHODS: We assessed clinical probability of PE and PetCO2 measurement in 100 consecutive patients with suspected PE and positive D-dimer in the field. PetCO2 > 28 mmHg was considered as the best cut-off point. PE was excluded or confirmed by hospital physicians in the University Clinical Center Maribor by computer tomography (CT), ventilation/perfusion scan echocardiography and pulmonary angiography. RESULTS: PE was confirmed in 41 patients. PetCO2 had a sensitivity of 92.6% (95% CI, 79 to 98%), a negative predictive value of 94.2% (95% CI, 83 to 99%), a specificity of 83% (95% CI, 71 to 91%) and a positive predictive value of 79.2% (95% CI, 65 to 89%). Thirty-five patients (35%) had both a low (PE unlikely) clinical probability and a normal PetCO2 (sensitivity: 100%, 95% CI: 89 to 100%) and twenty-eight patients (28%) had both a high clinical probability (PE likely) and abnormal PetCO2 (specificity: 93.2%, 95% CI: 83 to 98%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of clinical probability and PetCO2 may safely rule out PE in patients with suspected PE and positive D-dimer in the prehospital setting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rumpf, T. H., Krizmaric, M., & Grmec, S. (2009). Capnometry in suspected pulmonary embolism with positive D-dimer in the field. Critical Care (London, England), 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8197

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free