High concentrations of BNP distinguish patients with pulmonary embolism at higher risk of complicated in-hospital course and death from those with low BNP levels. Increased BNP or NT-pro-BNP concentrations alone, however, do not justify more invasive treatment regimens.

Summary. Background: Traditionally, patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are initially treated in the hospital with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The results of a few small non-randomized studies suggest that, in selected patients with proven PE, outpatient treatment is potentially feasible and safe. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment according to predefined criteria in patients with acute PE. Patients and Methods: A prospective cohort study of patients with objectively proven acute PE was conducted in 12 hospitals in The Netherlands between 2008 and 2010. Patients with acute PE were triaged with the predefined criteria for eligibility for outpatient treatment, with LMWH (nadroparin) followed by vitamin K antagonists. All patients eligible for outpatient treatment were sent home either immediately or within 24 h after PE was objectively diagnosed. Outpatient treatment was evaluated with respect to recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), including PE or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), major hemorrhage and total mortality during 3 months of follow-up. Results: Of 297 included patients, who all completed the follow-up, six (2.0%; 95% confidence interval

Background: The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule (CDR) in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The variables of the decision rule have different weights, which could lead to miscalculations in an acute setting. We have validated a simplified version of the revised Geneva score. Methods: Data from 1049 patients from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined to validate the simplified revised Geneva score. We constructed the simplified CDR by attributing 1 point to each item of the original CDR and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 versions by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We also assessed the clinical utility of the simplified CDR by evaluating the safety of ruling out PE on the basis of the combination of either a low-intermediate clinical probability (using a 3-level scheme) or a "PE unlikely" assessment (using a dichotomized rule) with a normal result on a highly sensitive D-dimer test. Results: The complete study population had an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23%. The diagnostic accuracy between the 2 CDRs did not differ (area under the curve for the revised Geneva score was 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.74 [0.70-0.77] for the simplified revised Geneva score). During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a combination of either a low (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) or intermediate (0%; 0.0%-2.8%) clinical probability, or a "PE unlikely" assessment (0%; 0.0%-1.2%) with the simplified score and a normal result of a D-dimer test was diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism. Conclusion: This study suggests that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not lead to a decrease in diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, which should be confirmed in a prospective study.

LBA-1 Introduction: Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are initially treated in the hospital with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The most recent guideline of the American College of Chest Physicians on Antithrombotic therapy 2008 reports some small studies on outpatient treatment in patients with pulmonary embolism, which suggest outpatient treatment in selected patients with PE is potentially effective and safe but firm recommendations for clinical practice are lacking. Clinicians urgently need reliable, easy-to-use selection criteria for selection of patients with pulmonary embolism eligible for outpatient treatment. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment according to predefined criteria (Hestia criteria) in patients with acute PE. Patients and Methods: Open-label, single-arm, multicenter clinical trial of patients with objectively proven acute pulmonary embolism, conducted in twelve hospitals in the Netherlands from 2008 to 2010. Follow-up was completed in September 2010. Patients with acute PE were triaged with the predefined Hestia criteria for eligibility for outpatient treatment starting with therapeutic weight adjusted doses of LMWH (Nadroparin), followed by vitamin K antagonists. All patients eligible for outpatient treatment according to the Hestia criteria, were sent home either immediately or within 24 hours after PE was objectively diagnosed. Outcome: Outpatient treatment was evaluated with respect to recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), including PE or deep venous thrombosis (DVT), major haemorrhage and total mortality during initial LMWH treatment and 3 months follow up. We considered outpatient treatment to be effective if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the incidence of recurrent VTE would not exceed 7%. Results: Of 297 included patients, who all completed follow-up, 6 patients (2.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8–4.3) had recurrent VTE (5 PE (1.7%), 1 DVT (0.3 %)). Three patients (1.0%, 95% CI 0.2–2.9) died during three months follow-up, but none as a result of fatal PE. One patient died of fatal intracerebral haemorrhage, the other two patients died of progressive malignancy. In addition to the patient with intracranial bleeding, one other patient had a major bleeding event (0.7 %, 95% CI 0.08%-2.4%). Conclusion: Outpatient anticoagulant treatment is effective and safe for patients with pulmonary embolism who have been selected with the Hestia criteria. (Dutch Trial Register NTR1319). Disclosures: Huisman: GSK: Research Funding; Actelion: Research Funding; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau.

To cite this article: Mos ICM, Klok FA, Kroft LJM, de Roos A, Dekkers OM, Huisman MV. Safety of ruling out acute pulmonary embolism by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with an indication for computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 1491À8.Summary. Introduction: Several outcome studies have ruled out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We performed a meta-analysis in order to determine the safety of this strategy in a specific group of patients with a strict indication for CTPA, that is, ÔlikelyÕ or ÔhighÕ clinical probability for PE, an elevated D-dimer concentration, or both. Methods: Studies that ruled out PE by normal CTPA, with or without subsequent normal bilateral compression ultrasonography (CUS), in patients with a strict indication for CTPA, were searched for in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane dataset. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of (fatal) venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a 3-month follow-up period. Results: Three studies were identified that excluded PE by CTPA alone (2020 patients), and three studies that performed additional CUS of the legs after normal CTPA (1069 patients). The pooled incidence of VTE at 3 months was 1.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8À1.8] based on a normal CTPA result as a sole test, and 1.1% (95% CI 0.6À2.0) based on normal CTPA and negative CUS findings, resulting in negative predictive values of 98.8% (95% CI 98.2À99.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.0À99.4), respectively. This compares favorably with the VTE failure rate after normal pulmonary angiography (1.7%, 95% CI 1.0À2.7). The risk of fatal PE did not differ between the diagnostic strategies (0.6% vs. 0.5%). Conclusion: A normal CTPA result alone can safely exclude PE in all patients in whom CTPA is required to rule out this disease. There is no need for additional ultrasonography to rule out VTE in these patients.