Pulmonary embolism risk stratification: external validation of the 4-level Clinical Pretest Probability Score (4PEPS)

Background The 4-level clinical pretest probability score (4PEPS) was recently introduced as a clinical decision rule for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). Based on the score, patients are classified into clinical pretest probability categories (c-PTP). The “very low” category aims at excluding PE without further testing; “low” and “moderate” categories require D-dimer testing with specific thresholds, while patients with a “high” pretest directly proceed to imaging. Objectives To provide further external validation of the 4PEPS model. Methods The 4PEPS was applied to a previously collected prospective database of 756 patients with clinically suspected PE enrolled from European emergency departments in 2002 to 2003. The safety threshold for the failure rate in our study was calculated at 1.95% based on a 26% prevalence of PE in our study, as per the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee guidance. Results Patients were classified as follows: 90 (12%) in the very low c-PTP group, of whom 5 (5.6%; 95% CI, 2.4%-12.4%) had PE; 363 (49%) in the low c-PTP group, of whom 34 had PE (9.4%); 246 (34%) in the moderate c-PTP group, of whom 124 (50%) had PE; and 35 (5%) in the high c-PTP group of whom 30 (86%) had PE. Overall, the failure rate of the 4PEPS was 9/734 (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.59%-2.23%) Overall, 9 out of 734 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.59%-2.23%) were diagnosed with PE despite a negative 4PEPS rule; 5 (5.6%) from the very low c-PTP group, 3 (1.4%) in the low c-PTP group, and 1 (3.2%) in the moderate c-PTP group. Conclusion We provide external validation data of the 4PEPS. In this high-prevalence cohort (26% prevalence), PE prevalence in the very low-risk group was higher than expected. A prospective validation study is needed before implementing the 4PEPS model in routine clinical practice.