Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis: Ultrasound Wells Score vs Traditional Wells Score
NCT ID: NCT02190110
Last Updated: 2016-02-09
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
444 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2014-08-31
2015-07-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Wells score accuracy is not optimal. Vein and lung US can be rapidly performed at bedside as an extension of physical examination and have a high specificity. The aim of this study is to evaluate if the combination of clinical data reported in the Wells score and US data obtained from vein and lung US (US Wells score) has a better diagnostic accuracy compared to traditional Wells score.
In adult patients suspected of PE traditional Wells score will be calculated and vein and lung US (multiorgan US) will be performed in all patients and and US Wells score calculated. The US Wells score differs from the traditional Wells score in the following items: "signs and symptoms of DVT", replaced by "vein US showing DVT", and "alternative diagnosis less likely than PE" replaced by "alternative diagnosis less likely than PE after multiorgan US". This latter item is considered positive if at least one subpleural infarct is detected at lung US, and negative if no subpleural infarcts are detected and an alternative diagnosis like pneumonia, pleural effusion or diffuse interstitial syndrome may explain the symptoms of presentation. If no findings are detected at lung US, the points for the item remain the same assigned by traditional Wells score. Final diagnosis of PE will be preferentially established by MCTPA and in patients discharged without a second level imaging test because of negative Wells or d-dimer, and patients with not conclusive second level diagnostic test, will enter the 3 months follow-up protocol.
The diagnostic performance of traditional and US Wells scores will be assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios. Failure rate and efficacy of d-dimer in patients stratified as "PE likely" and "PE unlikely" will also be calculated.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Point-of-care Ultrasound in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
NCT04882579
Early Systolic Notching in Pulmonary Embolism
NCT04413825
Diagnostic Strategy for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Based on 4PEPS
NCT06015529
Risk Assessment Strategies in Pulmonary Embolism
NCT04327960
Accuracy of Multi-organ Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism
NCT01635257
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Suspected pulmonary embolism patients
Adult patients (more than 18 years old) suspected of PE will be recruited at the time of the medical evaluation and before a final diagnosis is established
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients presenting with dyspnea, thoracic pain or syncope, palpitations, cardiac arrest
* Suspicion of PE
Exclusion Criteria
* Presence of a diagnosis alternative to PE objectively demonstrated after the first assessment.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Peiman Nazerian
Medical Doctor Emergency Medicine
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Peiman Nazerian, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italia
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi
Florence, , Italy
Ospedale San Paolo, Università degli studi di Milano
Milan, , Italy
Department of Internal Medicine, Università degli studi di Perugia
Perugia, , Italy
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Luigi Gonzaga
Torino, , Italy
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1001
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.