Observational studyThe American journal of emergency medicine2015
Independent evaluation of a simple clinical prediction rule to identify right ventricular dysfunction in patients with shortness of breath.
Observational study in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographics and Outcomes of Pulmonary Hypertension Patients in United States Emergency Departments.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2020Article
- The use of echocardiographic indices in defining and assessing right ventricular systolic function in critical care research.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Health Disparities in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Blueprint for Action. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Review
- Derivation of a screening tool to identify patients with right ventricular dysfunction or tricuspid regurgitation after negative computerized tomographic pulmonary angiography of the chest.Pulmonary circulation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany patients have unexplained persistent dyspnea after negative computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We hypothesized that many of these patients have isolated right ventricular (RV) dysfunction from treatable causes. We previously derived a clinical decision rule (CDR) for predicting RV dysfunction consisting of persistent dyspnea and normal CTPA, finding that 53% of CDR-positive patients had isolated RV dysfunction. Our goal is to validate this previously derived CDR by measuring the prevalence of RV dysfunction and outcomes in dyspneic emergency department patients.
methodsA secondary analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study that enrolled patients presenting with suspected PE was performed. We included patients with persistent dyspnea, a nonsignificant CTPA, and formal echo performed. Right ventricular dysfunction was defined as RV hypokinesis and/or dilation with or without moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation.
resultsA total of 7940 patients were enrolled. Two thousand six hundred sixteen patients were analyzed after excluding patients without persistent dyspnea and those with a significant finding on CTPA. One hundred ninety eight patients had echocardiography performed as standard care. Of those, 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-25%) and 33% (95% CI, 25%-42%) exhibited RV dysfunction and isolated RV dysfunction, respectively. Patients with isolated RV dysfunction or overload were more likely than those without RV dysfunction to have a return visit to the emergency department within 45 days for the same complaint (39% vs 18%; 95% CI of the difference, 4%-38%).
conclusionThis simple clinical prediction rule predicted a 33% prevalence of isolated RV dysfunction or overload. Patients with isolated RV dysfunction had higher recidivism rates and a trend toward worse outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.