연구배경: 급성 폐색전증의 발생을 예측하는 Wels 및 Geneva 예측 모형은 서구에서 잘 확립되어 있다. 폐색전증의 역학이 서구와 다를 것으로 보이는 국내에서의 예측모형의 유용성에 대해서 평가 하고자 한다. 방 법: 단일 의료기관에서 폐색전증 의심 하에 multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT)를 시행한 환자 210명을 대상으로 후향적으로 조사하였다. 성별 구성은 남자 90명(42.9%), 여자 120명(57.1%)이었고, 평균 연령은 63.3±15.9세였다. 의무기록을 바탕으로 Wels 및 개정된 Geneva 예측 모형으로 폐색전증의 가능성에 대해 저위험군, 중등도 위험군, 고위험군으로 분류하였다.결 과: 폐색전증으로 진단된 환자는 210명 중 41명(19.5%)이었다. Wels 예측 모형을 적용한 폐색전증 발병 가능성 평가에서는, 2명(1%)이 저위험군, 137명(62.5%)이 중등도 위험군, 71명(3.8%)이 고위험군으로 분류되었고, 각 군에서 폐색전증의 발생률은 10%, 18.2%, 19.7%Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Vol. 64. No. 4, Apr. 2008271였다. 개정된 Geneva 예측 모형을 적용할 경우 4명(21%)이 저위험군, 160명(76.2%)이 중등도 위험군, 6명(2.8%)이 고위험군으로 분류되었고, 각 군에서 폐색전증의 발생률은 4.5%, 2.5%, 50%로 나타났다. Receiver operating charac-teristic (ROC) 곡선 분석에서 개정된 Geneva 예측 모형이 Wels 예측 모형에 비해 정확도가 높았다. 두 예측 모형 사이의 일치율은 불량했다(κ coefficient=0.06).
Background: Estimation of the probability of a patient having an acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for patients with a suspected PE are well established in North America and Europe. However, an assessment of the prediction rules for a PE has not been clearly defined in Korea. The aim of this study is to assess the prediction rules for patients with a suspected PE in Korea. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 210 inpatients or patients that visited the emergency ward with a suspected PE where computed tomography pulmonary angiography was performed at a single institution between January 2005 and March 2007. Simplified Wells rules and revised Geneva rules were used to estimate the clinical probability of a PE based on information from medical records. Results: Of the 210 patients with a suspected PE, 49 (19.5%) patients had an actual diagnosis of a PE. The proportion of patients classified by Wells rules and the Geneva rules had a low probability of 1% and 21%, an intermediate probability of 62.5% and 76.2%, and a high probability of 33.8% and 2.8%, respectively. The prevalence of PE patients with a low, intermediate and high probability categorized by the Wells rules and Geneva rules was 100% and 4.5% in the low range, 18.2% and 22.5% in the intermediate range, and 19.7% and 50% in the high range, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the revised Geneva rules had a higher accuracy than the Wells rules in terms of detecting PE. Concordance between the two prediction rules was poor (κ coefficient=0.06). Conclusion: In the present study, the two prediction rules had a different predictive accuracy for pulmonary embolisms. Applying the revised Geneva rules to inpatients and emergency ward patients suspected of having PE may allow a more effective diagnostic process than the use of the Wells rules.
1. Anderson FA Jr, Wheeler HB, Goldberg RJ, Hosmer DW, Patwardhan NA, Jovanovic B, et al. A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The Worcester DVT Study. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:933-8.
2. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C, Gent M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism:increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000;83:416-20.
3. Wicki J, Perneger TV, Junod AF, Bounameaux H,Perrier A. Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:92-7.
4. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, Gottschalk A, Hales CA, Hull RD, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2317-27.
5. Kim TW, Kim WK, Lee JH, Kim SB, Kim SW, Suh C,et al. Low prevalence of activated protein C resistance and coagulation factor V Arg506 to Gln mutation among Korean patients with deep vein thrombosis. J Korean Med Sci 1998;13:587-90.
6. Choi WI, Park JS, Min BR, Park JH, Chae JN, Jeon YJ,et al. Estimated incidence of acute pulmonary embolism in a university teaching hospital. Tuberc Respir Dis 2007;63(suppl 2):68.
7. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Aujesky D,Bounameaux H, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:165-71.
8. Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D, Roy PM,Gourdier AL, Cornuz J, et al. Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113:269-75.
9. Moores LK, Collen JF, Woods KM, Shorr AF. Practical utility of clinical prediction rules for suspected acute pulmonary embolism in a large academic institution.Thromb Res 2004;113:1-6.
10. Sanson BJ, Lijmer JG, Mac Gillavry MR, Turkstra F,Prins MH, Buller HR. Comparison of a clinical probability estimate and two clinical models in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. ANTELOPE-Study Group. Thromb Haemost 2000;83:199-203.
11. Kruip MJ, Slob MJ, Schijen JH, van der Heul C, Buller HR. Use of a clinical decision rule in combination with D-dimer concentration in diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective management study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1631-5.