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

OBJECTIVES: To 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.DESIGN: Prospective clinical study, January 2011 to January 2013.SETTING: Unit of Internal Medicine inpatients, University of Catania, Italy.PARTICIPANTS: Elderly adults (mean age 76 ± 12), presenting with dyspnea or chest pain and with high clinical probability of PE or D-dimer values greater than 500 ng/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.MEASUREMENTS: Clinical 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.RESULTS: PE 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.CONCLUSION: In high-risk elderly hospitalized adults, the Wells score is more accurate than the revised Geneva score for diagnosing PE.