Article

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

ABSTRACT

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

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.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2005 · Academic Emergency Medicine
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2006 · Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if a d-dimer assay (Simplify D-dimer; Agen Biomedical; Brisbane, Australia) can reliably exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) by producing a posttest probability of PE < 1% in low-risk, symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Hemodynamically stable patients were evaluated for PE using a structured d-dimer-centered protocol; d-dimer testing was performed prior to imaging. Prior to testing, physicians completed an electronic data form that included their unstructured clinical estimate for the pretest probability of PE (< 15%, 15 to 40%, or > 40%) and the elements of the Charlotte rule and Canadian score for PE. Criterion standard was selective use of pulmonary vascular imaging and 90-day follow-up. We enrolled 2,302 patients (mean age, 45 +/- 16 years [+/- SD]; 31% male); 108 patients received a diagnosis of PE (4.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6 to 5.6%). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the d-dimer assay were 80.6% (95% CI, 71.8 to 87.5%) and 72.5% (95% CI, 70.6 to 74.4%), respectively. The negative likelihood ratio and negative predictive value were 0.27 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.39) and 98.7% (95% CI, 98.0 to 99.1%), respectively. The posttest prevalence of PE among low-risk patients with negative d-dimer results was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4%) for the unstructured estimate, 1.2% (95% CI, 0.7 to 2.0%) for the Canadian score, and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7%) for the Charlotte rule. The Simplify D-dimer assay had moderate sensitivity and relatively high specificity for PE in low-risk ED patients. The combination of a physician's unstructured estimate of pretest probability of PE of < 15% and a negative d-dimer result produced a posttest probability of PE of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4%).
    Preview · Article · Jun 2006 · Chest
Show more