To cite this article: Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2: 1247-55.See also Le Gal G, Bounameaux H. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism: running after the decreasing prevalence of cases among suspected patients.This issue, pp 1244-6; Linkins L.-A., Bates SM, Ginsberg JS, Kearon C. Use of different D-dimer levels to exclude venous thromboembolism depending on clinical pretest probability. This issue, pp 1256-60.Summary. Overuse of the D-dimer to screen for possible pulmonary embolism (PE) can have negative consequences. This study derives and tests clinical criteria to justify not ordering a D-dimer. The test threshold was estimated at 1.8% using the method of Pauker and Kassirer. The PE rule-out criteria were derived from logistic regression analysis with stepwise backward elimination of 21 variables collected on 3148 emergency department patients evaluated for PE at 10 US hospitals. Eight variables were included in a block rule: Age < 50 years, pulse < 100 bpm, SaO 2 > 94%, no unilateral leg swelling, no hemoptysis, no recent trauma or surgery, no prior PE or DVT, no hormone use. The rule was then prospectively tested in a low-risk group (1427 patients from two hospitals initially tested for PE with a D-dimer) and a very lowrisk group (convenience sample of 382 patients with chief complaint of dyspnea, PE not suspected). The prevalence of PE was 8% (95% confidence interval: 7-9%) in the low-risk group and 2% (1-4%) in the very low-risk group on longitudinal follow-up. Application of the rule in the low-risk and very lowrisk populations yielded sensitivities of 96% and 100% and specificities of 27% and 15%, respectively. The prevalence of PE in those who met the rule criteria was 1.4% (0.5-3.0%) and 0% (0-6.2%), respectively. The derived eight-factor block rule reduced the pretest probability below the test threshold for D-dimer in two validation populations, but the rule's utility was limited by low specificity.
Summary. Backgound: Over-investigation of low-risk patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) represents a growing problem. The combination of gestalt estimate of low suspicion for PE, together with the PE rule-out criteria [PERC()): age < 50 years, pulse < 100 beats min, SaO 2 ‡ 95%, no hemoptysis, no estrogen use, no surgery/trauma requiring hospitalization within 4 weeks, no prior venous thromboembolism (VTE), and no unilateral leg swelling], may reduce speculative testing for PE. We hypothesized that low suspicion and PERC()) would predict a post-test probability of VTE(+) or death below 2.0%. Methods: We enrolled outpatients with suspected PE in 13 emergency departments. Clinicians completed a 72-field, web-based data form at the time of test order. Low suspicion required a gestalt pretest probability estimate of <15%. The main outcome was the composite of image-proven VTE(+) or death from any cause within 45 days. Results: We enrolled 8138 patients, 85% of whom had a chief complaint of either dyspnea or chest pain. Clinicians reported a low suspicion for PE, together with PERC()), in 1666 patients (20%). At initial testing and within 45 days, 561 patients (6.9%, 95% confidence interval 6.5-7.6) were VTE(+), and 56 others died. Among the low suspicion and PERC()) patients, 15 were VTE(+) and one other patient died, yielding a false-negative rate of 16/1666 (1.0%, 0.6-1.6%). As a diagnostic test, low suspicion and PERC()) had a sensitivity of 97.4% (95.8-98.5%) and a specificity of 21.9% (21.0-22.9%). Conclusions:The combination of gestalt estimate of low suspicion for PE and PERC()) reduces the probability of VTE to below 2% in about 20% of outpatients with suspected PE.
Objective To evaluate the diagnostic performance of chest x-ray (CXR) compared to computed tomography (CT) for detection of pulmonary opacities in adult emergency department (ED) patients. Methods We conducted an observational cross sectional study of adult patients presenting to 12 EDs in the United States from July 1, 2003 through November 30, 2006 who underwent both CXR and chest CT for routine clinical care. CXRs and CT scans performed on the same patient were matched. CXRs and CT scans were interpreted by attending radiologists and classified as containing pulmonary opacities if the final radiologist report noted opacity, infiltrate, consolidation, pneumonia, or bronchopneumonia. Using CT as a criterion standard, the diagnostic test characteristics of CXR to detect pulmonary opacities were calculated. Results The study cohort included 3,423 patients. Shortness of breath, chest pain and cough were the most common complaints, with 96.1% of subjects reporting at least one of these symptoms. Pulmonary opacities were visualized on 309 (9.0%) CXRs and 191 (5.6 %) CT scans. CXR test characteristics for detection of pulmonary opacities included: sensitivity 43.5% (95% CI: 36.4%–50.8%); specificity 93.0% (95% CI: 92.1%–93.9%); positive predictive value 26.9% (95% CI: 22.1%–32.2%); and negative predictive value 96.5% (95% CI: 95.8%–97.1%). Conclusion In this multicenter cohort of adult ED patients with acute cardiopulmonary symptoms, CXR demonstrated poor sensitivity and positive predictive value for detecting pulmonary opacities. Reliance on CXR to identify pneumonia may lead to significant rates of misdiagnosis.
Objectives Available D-dimer assays have low specificity and may increase radiographic testing for pulmonary embolism (PE). To help clinicians better target testing, this study sought to quantify the effect of risk factors for a positive quantitative D-dimer in patients evaluated for PE. Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for PE with a quantitative D-dimer were eligible for inclusion. The main outcome of interest was a positive D-dimer. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined by multivariable logistic regression. Adjusted estimates of relative risk were also calculated. Results A total of 4,346 patients had D-dimer testing, of whom 2,930 (67%) were women. A total of 2,500 (57%) were white, 1,474 (34%) were black or African American, 238 (6%) were Hispanic, and 144 (3%) were of other race or ethnicity. The mean (±SD) age was 48 (±17) years. Overall, 1,903 (44%) D-dimers were positive. Model fit was adequate (c-statistic = 0.739, Hosmer and Lemeshow p-value = 0.13). Significant positive predictors of D-dimer positive included female sex; increasing age; black (vs. white) race; cocaine use; general, limb, or neurologic immobility; hemoptysis; hemodialysis; active malignancy; rheumatoid arthritis; lupus; sickle cell disease; prior venous thromboembolism (VTE; not under treatment); pregnancy and postpartum state; and abdominal, chest, orthopedic, or other surgery. Warfarin use was protective. In contrast, several variables known to be associated with PE were not associated with positive D-dimer results: body mass index (BMI), estrogen use, family history of PE, (inactive) malignancy, thrombophilia, trauma within 4 weeks, travel, and prior VTE (under treatment). Conclusions Many factors are associated with a positive D-dimer test. The effect of these factors on the usefulness of the test should be considered prior to ordering a D-dimer.
Total admissions and hospital charges for PE have increased over the past two decades. However, the population-adjusted admission rate has increased disproportionately to the incidence of patients with severe PE. We hypothesize that these findings reflect a concerning national movement toward more admissions of less severe PE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.