PADUA score as a predictor for pulmonary embolism: a potential strategy for reducing unnecessary imaging

  • Pridvi KandagatlaEmail author
  • Sowmya Goranta
  • Heath Antoine
  • Seyed Mani Marashi
  • Nathan Schmoekel
  • Arielle H. Gupta


An objective tool that is easy to integrate with an electronic medical record may help reduce unnecessary imaging for diagnosing a pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study, we assess the PADUA score in stratifying patients based on their risk of a PE. We reviewed charts of patients that underwent a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CT-PA) between January 2014 and September 2015 at our institution. Patient demographics including gender, age, race, and variables of the PADUA score were collected. The primary outcome was a positive CT-PA for a PE. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to derive predictors for a positive CT-PA. A receiver operator curve was calculated for the PADUA score and an optimal cutoff was calculated. Diagnostic test statistics were performed. Our study included 1067 patients. Of these, 185 (17.3%) had a PE. These patients tended to be older (64.3 SD 15.9 vs. 59.7 years SD 17.4, p < 0.01), have a higher proportion of Black patients (38.9% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.03), have a higher median [IQR] PADUA score (4.0 [3–6] vs. 3.0 [1–4], p < 0.01), and a higher rate of a DVT/PE history (30.3% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.01). Independent predictors included a DVT/PE history (OR: 7.65, 95% CI 4.89–12.0, p < 0.01), limited mobility (OR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.01–2.14, p = 0.046), and age 70 or greater (OR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.03–2.11, p = 0.03). The PADUA score had an AUC of 0.64 (95% CI 0.60–0.69, p = 0.046). The optimal cutoff was 4 and the sensitivity and specificity were 57.3% and 66.8%, respectively. The positive predictive and negative predictive values were 22.6% and 88.2%, respectively. The PADUA is a possible tool to stratify patients prior to performing a CT-PA. By using the score to guide management, we may be able to reduce unnecessary imaging through the implementation of the score in an EMR system. Further prospective research is warranted.


Imaging Pulmonary embolism PADUA CT 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ et al (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366:1596–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kandagatla PG, Stefanou AJ (2018) Current status of the radiologic assessment of diverticular disease. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 31:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee ES, Lee JM (2014) Imaging diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a state-of-the-art review. World J Gastroenterol 20:7864–7877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoon H, Lee DH (2014) New approaches to gastric cancer staging: beyond endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. World J Gastroenterol 20:13783–13790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apfaltrer P, Henzler T, Blanke P, Krazinski AW, Silverman JR et al (2013) Computed tomography for planning transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Imaging 28:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohkuma R, Mohan R, Baltodano PA, Lacayo MJ, Broyles JM et al (2014) Abdominally based free flap planning in breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:483–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Evans J, Vandiver L, Morrow C, Hunt J, Dissanaike S (2012) The increased use of computed tomography scanning for diagnosing superficial soft tissue infections: a disturbing trend of increased radiation with no benefit. Am J Surg 204:988–994 (discussion 994–985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Segard T, Macdonald WB (2013) Changing trends in venous thromboembolism-related imaging in Western Australian teaching hospitals, 2002–2010. Med J Aust 198:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011) Time trends in pulmonary embolism in the United States: evidence of overdiagnosis. Arch Intern Med 171:831–837Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, Gottschalk A, Hales CA et al (2006) Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 354:2317–2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell AM, Jones AE, Tumlin JA, Kline JA (2012) Prospective study of the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy among patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism by contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Acad Emerg Med 19:618–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schauer DA, Linton OW (2009) National Council on radiation protection and measurements report shows substantial medical exposure increase. Radiology 253:293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szucs-Farkas Z, Christe A, Megyeri B, Rohacek M, Vock P et al (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography pulmonary angiography with reduced radiation and contrast material dose: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Invest Radiol 49:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shen JH, Chen HL, Chen JR, Xing JL, Gu P et al (2016) Comparison of the Wells score with the revised Geneva score for assessing suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 41:482–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schriger DL, Elder JW, Cooper RJ (2017) Structured clinical decision aids are seldom compared with subjective physician judgment, and are seldom superior. Ann Emerg Med 70:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akhter M, Kline J, Kannan V, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C (2018) Discrepancy between clinician gestalt and subjective component of the wells score in the evaluation of pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med 71:796–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barbar S, Noventa F, Rossetto V, Ferrari A, Brandolin B et al (2010) A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: the Padua Prediction Score. J Thromb Haemost 8:2450–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R, Cooper JM, Paterno MD et al (2005) Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 352:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kahn SR, Lim W, Dunn AS, Cushman M, Dentali F et al (2012) Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 141:e195S–e226SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Germini F, Agnelli G, Fedele M, Galli MG, Giustozzi M et al (2016) Padua prediction score or clinical judgment for decision making on antithrombotic prophylaxis: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis 42:336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C et al (2000) Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 83:416–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Posadas-Martinez ML, Vazquez FJ, Giunta DH, Waisman GD, de Quiros FG et al (2014) Performance of the Wells score in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism during hospitalization: a delayed-type cross sectional study in a community hospital. Thromb Res 133:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gruettner J, Walter T, Lang S, Meyer M, Apfaltrer P et al (2015) Importance of Wells score and Geneva score for the evaluation of patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. In Vivo 29:269–272Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, Sanchez O, Aujesky D et al (2006) Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 144:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caprini JA (2005) Thrombosis risk assessment as a guide to quality patient care. Dis Mon 51:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pannucci CJ, Barta RJ, Portschy PR, Dreszer G, Hoxworth RE et al (2012) Assessment of postoperative venous thromboembolism risk in plastic surgery patients using the 2005 and 2010 Caprini Risk score. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pannucci CJ, Swistun L, MacDonald JK, Henke PK, Brooke BS (2017) Individualized venous thromboembolism risk stratification using the 2005 Caprini score to identify the benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis in surgical patients: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 265:1094–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grant PJ, Greene MT, Chopra V, Bernstein SJ, Hofer TP et al (2016) Assessing the Caprini score for risk assessment of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Am J Med 129:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iles S, Hodges AM, Darley JR, Frampton C, Epton M et al (2003) Clinical experience and pre-test probability scores in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. QJM 96:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryHenry Ford Health System, Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Hurley Medical CenterFlintUSA
  3. 3.Henry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  4. 4.Henry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations