Michael Perera1, Leena Aggarwal2, Ian A Scott3, Nicholas Cocks2. 1. Department of General and Acute Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. Department of Medical Assessment and Planning Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests the potential overuse of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) in the absence of consistent use of pre-test clinical prediction rules and D-dimer assays. AIM: To evaluate use and diagnostic utility of clinical prediction rules and D-dimer assay in patients with suspected PTE and quantify potentially avoidable overuse of CTPA in low risk patients. METHODS: A total of 344 consecutive patients undergoing CTPA at a tertiary hospital was studied with regards to the use of D-dimer assays and clinical prediction rules for PTE. For each patient, a modified Wells score (mWS), revised Geneva score and PISA model were calculated retrospectively; performance characteristics for each rule for PTE were determined with reference to results of CTPA. Results for the mWS and D-dimer assays (when performed) were used to estimate the overuse of CTPA according to risk category. RESULTS: Use of a clinical prediction rule was documented in only 5.0% of cases. Of 269 low-risk patients who had a calculated mWS ≤4, only 64 (23.8%) had a D-dimer assay performed, with 30 (11.1%) having a PTE on CTPA. Among 75 patients with an mWS >4, 23 (30.7%) had a PTE on CTPA (P < 0.001). Compared to other prediction rules, an mWS>4 had the highest positive predictive value (31.0%) for PTE; all rules demonstrated similar negative predictive values for low-risk scores (87-89%). After adjusting for an 11% false negative rate for PTE in patients with low-risk mWS, overuse of CTPA was reported in up to 190 (55.2%) patients. CONCLUSION: More than 50% of patients with suspected PTE may be subject to unwarranted use of CTPA in the absence of pre-test clinical prediction rules coupled with D-dimer assays.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests the potential overuse of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) in the absence of consistent use of pre-test clinical prediction rules and D-dimer assays. AIM: To evaluate use and diagnostic utility of clinical prediction rules and D-dimer assay in patients with suspected PTE and quantify potentially avoidable overuse of CTPA in low risk patients. METHODS: A total of 344 consecutive patients undergoing CTPA at a tertiary hospital was studied with regards to the use of D-dimer assays and clinical prediction rules for PTE. For each patient, a modified Wells score (mWS), revised Geneva score and PISA model were calculated retrospectively; performance characteristics for each rule for PTE were determined with reference to results of CTPA. Results for the mWS and D-dimer assays (when performed) were used to estimate the overuse of CTPA according to risk category. RESULTS: Use of a clinical prediction rule was documented in only 5.0% of cases. Of 269 low-risk patients who had a calculated mWS ≤4, only 64 (23.8%) had a D-dimer assay performed, with 30 (11.1%) having a PTE on CTPA. Among 75 patients with an mWS >4, 23 (30.7%) had a PTE on CTPA (P < 0.001). Compared to other prediction rules, an mWS>4 had the highest positive predictive value (31.0%) for PTE; all rules demonstrated similar negative predictive values for low-risk scores (87-89%). After adjusting for an 11% false negative rate for PTE in patients with low-risk mWS, overuse of CTPA was reported in up to 190 (55.2%) patients. CONCLUSION: More than 50% of patients with suspected PTE may be subject to unwarranted use of CTPA in the absence of pre-test clinical prediction rules coupled with D-dimer assays.
Authors: Robert Russell Ehrman; Adrienne Nicole Malik; Reid Kenneth Smith; Zeid Kalarikkal; Andrew Huang; Ryan Michael King; Rubin David Green; Brian James O'Neil; Robert Leigh Sherwin Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Nasen Jonathan Zhang; Philippe Rameau; Marsophia Julemis; Yan Liu; Jeffrey Solomon; Sundas Khan; Thomas McGinn Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-02-28
Authors: Juha Matias Kauppi; K E Juhani Airaksinen; Juuso Saha; Anton Bondfolk; Jussi-Pekka Pouru; Petra Purola; Samuli Jaakkola; Jarmo Lehtonen; Tuija Vasankari; Markus Juonala; Tuomas Kiviniemi Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Philip Smith; Axel Rosell; Maria Farm; Maria Bruzelius; Katherina Aguilera Gatica; Nigel Mackman; Jacob Odeberg; Charlotte Thålin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 3.752