Comparison of Wells and Revised Geneva Rule to Assess Pretest Probability of Pulmonary Embolism in High‐Risk Hospitalized Elderly Adults

ObjectivesTo assess and compare the diagnostic power for pulmonary embolism (PE) of Wells and revised Geneva scores in two independent cohorts (training and validation groups) of elderly adults hospitalized in a non-emergency department. DesignProspective clinical study, January 2011 to January 2013. SettingUnit of Internal Medicine inpatients, University of Catania, Italy. ParticipantsElderly adults (mean age 7612), presenting with dyspnea or chest pain and with high clinical probability of PE or D-dimer values greater than 500ng/mL (N=203), were enrolled and consecutively assigned to a training (n=101) or a validation (n=102) group. The clinical probability of PE was assessed using Wells and revised Geneva scores. MeasurementsClinical examination, D-dimer test, and multidetector computed angiotomography were performed in all participants. The accuracy of the scores was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analyses. ResultsPE was confirmed in 46 participants (23%) (24 training group, 22 validation group). In the training group, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.85-0.98) for the Wells score and 0.69 (95% CI=0.56-0.82) for the revised Geneva score (P<.001). These results were confirmed in the validation group (P<.05). The positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) (two indices combining sensitivity and specificity) of the Wells score were superior to those of the revised Geneva score in the training (LR+, 7.90 vs 1.34; LR-, 0.23 vs 0.66) and validation (LR+, 13.5 vs 1.46; LR-, 0.47 vs 0.54) groups. ConclusionIn high-risk elderly hospitalized adults, the Wells score is more accurate than the revised Geneva score for diagnosing PE.