A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Wells and Geneva scores using a 500 ng/mL D-dimer cutoff, as well as the age-adjusted D-dimer (AADD), YEARS, and pulmonary embolism graduated D-dimer (PEGeD) algorithms, in patients with and without COVID-19. Various D-dimer cutoffs were also evaluated. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective study included emergency department patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The diagnostic performances of clinical prediction algorithms were compared between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups. <b>Results:</b> We analyzed data from 1423 patients; the PE and COVID-19 positivity rates were 7.3% and 69.9%, respectively. In COVID-19-positive patients, the Wells score with a 500 ng/mL D-dimer cutoff demonstrated 97.22% sensitivity (95% CI: 80.53-100.00) and 4.99% specificity (95% CI: 3.58-6.39). Using AADD raised the specificity to 7.81% (95% CI: 6.08-9.54) while maintaining 97.22% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.43-100.00); similar findings were observed with the Geneva score. The YEARS algorithm had 86.11% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.12-94.10) and 32.75% specificity (95% CI: 29.73-35.78), whereas the PEGeD algorithm showed 86.11% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.12-94.10) and 34.06% specificity (95% CI: 31.00-37.12). Both algorithms demonstrated slightly improved specificity and accuracy in COVID-19-positive patients. <b>Conclusions:</b> The YEARS and PEGeD algorithms showed slight improvements in specificity and accuracy among COVID-19-positive patients. The Wells and Geneva scores maintained higher sensitivity but lower specificity across groups. Adjusting the D-dimer cutoffs increased the specificity but increased the risk of missed diagnoses. Overall, COVID-19 had a minimal impact on PE diagnostic algorithm performances.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13237008
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.10
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism

Merve Ekşioğlu, Burcu Azapoğlu Kaymak, Atilla Halil Elhan, Tuba Cimilli Öztürk
2 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
1.10
article

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism

Merve Ekşioğlu, Burcu Azapoğlu Kaymak, Atilla Halil Elhan, Tuba Cimilli Öztürk
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Wells and Geneva scores using a 500 ng/mL D-dimer cutoff, as well as the age-adjusted D-dimer (AADD), YEARS, and pulmonary embolism graduated D-dimer (PEGeD) algorithms, in patients with and without COVID-19. Various D-dimer cutoffs were also evaluated. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective study included emergency department patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The diagnostic performances of clinical prediction algorithms were compared between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups. <b>Results:</b> We analyzed data from 1423 patients; the PE and COVID-19 positivity rates were 7.3% and 69.9%, respectively. In COVID-19-positive patients, the Wells score with a 500 ng/mL D-dimer cutoff demonstrated 97.22% sensitivity (95% CI: 80.53-100.00) and 4.99% specificity (95% CI: 3.58-6.39). Using AADD raised the specificity to 7.81% (95% CI: 6.08-9.54) while maintaining 97.22% sensitivity (95% CI: 93.43-100.00); similar findings were observed with the Geneva score. The YEARS algorithm had 86.11% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.12-94.10) and 32.75% specificity (95% CI: 29.73-35.78), whereas the PEGeD algorithm showed 86.11% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.12-94.10) and 34.06% specificity (95% CI: 31.00-37.12). Both algorithms demonstrated slightly improved specificity and accuracy in COVID-19-positive patients. <b>Conclusions:</b> The YEARS and PEGeD algorithms showed slight improvements in specificity and accuracy among COVID-19-positive patients. The Wells and Geneva scores maintained higher sensitivity but lower specificity across groups. Adjusting the D-dimer cutoffs increased the specificity but increased the risk of missed diagnoses. Overall, COVID-19 had a minimal impact on PE diagnostic algorithm performances.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 13(23)
Ankara University (TR), Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi (TR), Fatih Sultan Mehmet Eğitim Ve Araştırma Hastanesi (TR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
1.10
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.