The additional value of the CRP test in patients in whom the primary care physician excluded pulmonary embolism.

Link to article at PubMed

Related Articles

The additional value of the CRP test in patients in whom the primary care physician excluded pulmonary embolism.

Eur J Gen Pract. 2013 Sep;19(3):143-9

Authors: Lucassen WA, Kuijs-Augustijn M, Erkens PM, Geersing GJ, Büller HR, van Weert HC

Abstract
BACKGROUND: After excluding pulmonary embolism (PE) with an unlikely Wells-decision rule and a negative D-dimer test, the general practitioner still has to differentiate between clinically relevant and clinically non-relevant diseases accounting for the presented symptoms. A negative D-dimer test makes clinically relevant disease less likely. The C-reactive protein (CRP) test could be of additional value to make this differentiation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether an unlikely Wells-decision rule in combination with a negative point of care D-dimer test not only can safely exclude PE but also, in combination with a negative CRP-test, any other clinically relevant disease.
METHODS: We used data of a prospective study including 598 primary care patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. We included all patients, referred to secondary care for reference testing, with an unlikely Wells-decision rule and a negative point of care D-dimer test. We included 191 patients and imputed the CRP-test results in 60 patients. Alternative diagnoses were divided in clinically relevant diseases and clinically non-relevant diseases. A ROC-curve was constructed to determine the optimal CRP-cut-off. Results: The optimal CRP cut-off value appeared to be 10 mg/l. A total of 116 patients had a CRP < 10 mg/l of whom 12 patients (10%) had a clinically relevant disease. Two patients (2%) needed hospital admission. A total of 75 patients had a CRP ≥ 10 mg/l of whom 32 patients (43%) had a clinically relevant disease. Fifteen patients (20%) were admitted to hospital.
CONCLUSION: The CRP-test is enhancing diagnostic decision making in patients in whom the general practitioner excluded PE.

PMID: 23577661 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *