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


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


Direct vs. Video Laryngoscopy in 10 Minutes

Buscar en contenido


martes, 20 de febrero de 2018


R.E.B.E.L.EM - February 19, 2018
"Background: The diagnosis of PE is a tricky thing. We want to limit over-testing patients and therefore, over-diagnosis. On the other hand, we don’t want to limit testing so much that we miss the diagnosis where treatment would make a difference. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) was created to reduce testing in patients who have a low probability of PE (i.e. prevalence of <1.8%) in which further testing would not be necessary. There have been many observational trials published on this score but until now there has not been a prospective randomized clinical trial (The PROPER Trial)...
Author Conclusion: “Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department.”
Clinical Take Home Point: In a “low risk” patient population, use of PERC over usual care, was non-inferior in both diagnosis and mortality associated with PE. An added benefit of using PERC over usual care in this study was a 10% decrease in imaging and 40min decrease in ED LOS."