An Emergency Department Guideline for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism: An Outcome Study

Grand Rapids MERC/Michigan State University Program in Emergency Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.01). 02/2005; 12(1):20-5. DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.08.046
Source: PubMed


To assess the clinical outcome of patients suspected of pulmonary embolism (PE) following implementation of an emergency department (ED) diagnostic guideline.
A prospective observational study of all patients suspected of PE who presented to the ED during a four-month study period. The authors' modification of the Charlotte criteria recommended D-dimer testing in those younger than 70 years of age with a low clinical suspicion of PE and no unexplained hypoxemia, unilateral leg swelling, recent surgery, hemoptysis, pregnancy, or prolonged duration of symptoms. The primary outcome was the identification of venous thromboembolism during a three-month follow-up period. The negative predictive value of the overall diagnostic strategy and the test characteristics of D-dimer were calculated.
A total of 1,207 consecutive patients were evaluated for suspected PE; 71 (5.8%) were diagnosed with venous thromboembolism. One missed case of PE was identified on follow-up, yielding a negative predictive value of 99.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 99.5% to 100%). The missed case was a patient who presented with pleuritic chest pain and shortness of breath; a chest radiograph revealed pneumothorax, and the physician decided not to pursue the positive D-dimer result. The patient returned six weeks later with PE. Subgroup analysis of patients having D-dimer performed (n = 677) yields a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.70 to 0.77).
Implementation of a PE diagnostic guideline in a community ED setting is safe and has improved the specificity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer test when compared with previous studies.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael D Brown, Oct 10, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical decision rules have been validated for estimation of pretest probability in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). However, many clinicians prefer to use clinical gestalt for this purpose. The authors compared the unstructured clinical estimate of pretest probability for PE with two clinical decision rules. This prospective, observational study was conducted from October 2001 to July 2004 at an urban academic emergency department with an annual census of 105,000. A total of 2,603 patients were enrolled; mean age (+/- SD) was 45 (+/- 16) years, and 70% were female. All patients were evaluated for PE using a previously published protocol, including D-dimer and alveolar dead space measurements, and selected use of pulmonary vascular imaging. All had 45-day follow-up. Interobserver agreement for each pretest probability estimation method was measured in a separate group of 154 patients. The overall prevalence of PE was 5.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.9% to 6.8%). Most were deemed low risk for PE, including 69% by the unstructured estimate < 15%, 73% by the Canadian score < 2, and 88% by the Charlotte rule "safe." The corresponding prevalence of disease in each of these low-risk groups was 2.6%, 3.0%, and 4.2%. Weighted Cohen's kappa values were 0.60 (95% CI = 0.46 to 0.74) for the unstructured clinical estimate < 15%, 0.47 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.61) for the Canadian score < 2, and 0.85 (95% CI = 0.69 to 1.0) for the Charlotte rule "safe." The unstructured clinical estimate of low pretest probability for PE compares favorably with the Canadian score and the Charlotte rule. Interobserver agreement for the unstructured estimate is moderate.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 07/2005; 12(7):587-93. DOI:10.1197/j.aem.2005.02.010 · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pulmonary embolism is one of the greatest diagnostic challenges in emergency medicine. New techniques and strategies constantly arise for the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. A review of the new diagnostic and treatment modalities for pulmonary embolism (PE) suggests that it should be suspected in any patient with unexplained dyspnea, tachypnea, or chest pain. All patients suspected of PE must be risk stratified, ideally with a criteria-validated clinical decision rule. After assessing pre-test probability, D-dimer assays will reliably exclude PE in the low risk group and no further imaging is warranted. Computed tomography (CT) angiogram is the initial imaging study of choice for stable patients. V/Q scans should be used only when CT is not available or if the patient has a contraindication to CT scans or intravenous contrast. Bedside echocardiography or stabilization of the patient and CT angiogram are the initial tests for suspected massive PE. If PE is confirmed, hypotensive patients should be treated with thrombolytics. Both heparin and low molecular weight heparin are equally effective initial treatments for stable patients with suspected or confirmed PE. Because accurate screening and identification of pulmonary embolism frequently requires more than a single test, knowledge of existing diagnostic techniques allows an evidence-based strategy for diagnosis. New therapeutic choices may benefit patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism.
    Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 04/2006; 73(2):528-41. · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the effect of introducing a rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) D-dimer on the percentage of emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism (PE), the use of associated laboratory testing, pulmonary vascular imaging, and the diagnoses of PE. Patients evaluated for PE during three 120-day periods were enrolled: immediately before (period 1), immediately after (period 2), and one year after the introduction of a rapid ELISA D-dimer in the hospital. The frequency of ED patients evaluated for PE with any test, with D-dimer testing, and with pulmonary vascular imaging and the frequency of PE diagnosis during each time period were determined. The percentage of patients evaluated for PE nearly doubled; from 1.36% (328/24,101) in period 1 to 2.58% (654/25,318) in period 2 and 2.42% (583/24,093) in period 3. The percentage of patients who underwent D-dimer testing increased more than fourfold; from 0.39% (93/24,101) in period 1 to 1.83% (464/25,318) in period 2 and 1.77% (427/24,093) in period 3. The percentage of patients who underwent pulmonary vascular imaging increased from 1.02% (247/24,101) in period 1 to 1.36% (344/25,318) in period 2 and to 1.39% (334/24,093) in period 3. There was no difference in the percentage of patients diagnosed as having PE in period 1 (0.20% [47/24,101]), period 2 (0.27% [69/25,318]), and period 3 (0.24% [58/24,093]). In the study's academic ED, introduction of ELISA D-dimer testing was accompanied by an increase in PE evaluations, D-dimer testing, and pulmonary vascular imaging; there was no observed change in the rate of PE diagnosis.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 06/2006; 13(5):519-24. DOI:10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.012 · 2.01 Impact Factor
Show more