Background We sought to determine clinical variables in children tested for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) that predict PE+ outcome for the development of paediatric PE prediction rule.
Methods Data were collected by query of a laboratory database for D-dimer from January 2004 to December 2014 for a large multicentre hospital system and the radiology database for pulmonary vascular imaging in children aged 5–17. Using explicit, predefined methods, trained abstractors, determined if D-dimer was sent in the evaluation of PE and then recorded predictor data which was tested for association with PE+ outcome using univariate techniques.
Results D-dimer was ordered in 526 children for clinical suspicion of PE. Thirty-four of 526 were PE+ (6.4%, 95% CI 4.3% to 8.7%). The radiology database identified 17 additional patients with PE (n=51 PE+ total). Children evaluated for PE were primarily in the ED setting (80%), teenagers (88%) and 2:1 female:male. Children with PE had higher mean heart and higher respiratory rate and a lower pulse oximetry and haemoglobin concentration. On univariate analysis, five conditions were more frequent in PE+ compared with no PE: surgery, central line, limb immobility, prior PE or deep vein thrombosis and cancer.
Conclusions The rate of PE diagnosis in children with D-dimer was 6.4%, similar to that seen in adults; most children with PE are over 13 years and had clinical predictors known to increase probability of PE in symptomatic adults. Future studies should use these criteria to develop a clinical decision rule for PE in children.
- pulmonary embolism
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors JK and JAK: study design and funding. All authors: protocol writing, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation.
Funding The Eli Lilly Foundation Physician Scientist Award.
Competing interests JAK, MD Indiana Lysis Technologies; Founder Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Consultant Mallinckrodt, NIH, Roche Diagnostica; Grant/Research Support.
Ethics approval Indiana University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (18 February 2016, protocol # 1502856953A003).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.