Síguenos en Twitter     Síguenos en Facebook     Síguenos en YouTube     Siguenos en Linkedin     Correo Grupsagessa     Gmail     Yahoo Mail     Dropbox     Instagram     Slack     Google Drive     Print     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon     StumbleUpon


Mi foto
FACP. Colegio de médicos de Tarragona Nº 4305520 / fgcapriles@gmail.com


Buscar en contenido


martes, 11 de febrero de 2014


By Jason West. MD | February 11th, 2014
"Kline et al developed a clinical decision tool based on parameters that could be obtained from a brief initial assessment to reasonably exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) without the use of D-dimer in order to prevent unnecessary cost and the use of medical resources [1]. Many of us have used the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) rule by now, but we should be clear on what it includes. Are we using it appropriately?"

  • Gestalt or some form of risk stratification should be employed first before using the PERC rule, which is reserved for low pretest probability cases. 
  • Because the negative LR of the PERC rule is 0.17, this allows you to have a maximum pretest probability of about 10.7% to apply the PERC rule to risk stratify your patient down to the standard risk of 2% (see below). 
  • The maximum suggested prevalence for PE in order to use the PERC rule is 7%. 
  • Pleuritic chest pain may increase the likelihood of PE more than some variables within existing decision rules. 
  • The PERC rule should not be used in isolation to rule out PE in pregnant or postpartum patients. 
  • The PERC rule includes hypoxemia or tachycardia at any point during the evaluation.