18 DHC 2026
21 - 23 January 2026
Clinical abstracts (5)
sessie klinisch
1355: PERC value in diagnosing PE in SCD patients
22 January
10:45 11:00
Sanjay Thakoerdin
Paper

The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in patients with sickle cell disease: a retrospective cohort study

Sanjay Thakoerdin (1,2), Chanel de Ruiter (1), Ludo Beenen (3), Aafke Gaartman (1,2), Nick van Es (4), Bart Biemond (1,2,5,6)
(1) Amsterdam UMC, Hematology, Amsterdam, (2) Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam institue for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam, (3) Amsterdam UMC, Radiology, Amsterdam, (4) Amsterdam UMC, Vascular medicine, Amsterdam, (5) Sanquin, Red blood cell research, Amsterdam, (6) Amsterdam UMC, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam
No potential conflicts of interest
Introduction

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hypercoagulable state and associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with SCD frequently present at the emergency department (ED) due to vaso-occlusive painful episodes (VOE). However, these patients are often suspected of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) due to overlapping symptoms, potentially resulting in over-diagnosis with Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA). Currently, there is no reliable method to safely rule out PE in SCD patients. D-dimer levels are chronically high in SCD, making D-dimer-based criteria like YEARS ineffective. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) is used to rule out PE in low-risk patients (<15%), based on clinical gestalt or low Wells score.

Methods

This study retrospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the PERC in SCD patients suspected of PE who had undergone CTPA. This single-center retrospective study analyzed SCD patients who underwent CTPA for suspected PE, using data from electronic records. Sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and failure rate of the PERC criteria and a Wells score (without D-dimer) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). PE was considered excluded if no PERC were met. We also examined the link between chest pain not recognized as VOE and a PE diagnosis.

Results

A total of 162 CTPAs were performed in 67 SCD patients (median age 34, 61% female). Of these, 119 (72%) were in patients with HbSS/HbSβ0 and 45 (28%) in patients with HbSC/HbSβ+. PE was confirmed in 12 cases (7.3%). As shown in table 1, PERC had 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 76%-100%) and 38% specificity (95% CI: 31%-46%) with an efficiency of 35% (95% CI: 28%-43%) and a failure rate of 0% (95% CI 0%-6%). A Wells score of >4 without D-dimer showed a sensitivity and specificity of 42% (95% CI: 19%-68%) and 93% (95% CI: 88%-96%) respectively, with an efficiency and a failure rate of 91% (95% CI: 80%-91%) and 4.8% (95% CI: 2.3%-9.5%) respectively. Chest pain not identified as VOE was predictive of PE with 83% sensitivity, 74% specificity, and a positive and negative likelihood ratio of 3.2 (95% CI 2.2-4.6) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.8) respectively.

Conclusion

Based on these findings, CTPA could have been withheld in 35% of SCD patients suspected of PE with the PERC while maintaining a failure rate of 0%. Chest pain not recognized as VOE had a strong predictive value in diagnosing PE in SCD patients and adding it to a potential SCD-specific PERC in a larger prospective study might further improve the performance of the PERC.

Attachments
#1 Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Register
×