Validation and impact of a simplified clinical decision rule for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in primary care: design of the PECAN prospective diagnostic cohort management study

ZorgDomein als oplossing bij inclusieproblemen

De inclusie van deelnemers voor wetenschappelijke onderzoeken in de eerstelijnszorg valt bijna altijd zwaar tegen. Dit artikel beschrijft hoe een onderzoek naar een nieuwe diagnostische strategie daardoor bijna mislukte. Een alternatieve inclusieprocedure bleek echter wonderwel te werken.

Pulmonary embolism diagnosis: clinical assessment at the front door

This first of two practice reviews addresses pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis considering important aspects of PE clinical presentation and comparing evidence-based PE testing strategies. A companion paper addresses the management of PE. Symptoms and signs of PE are varied, and emergency physicians frequently use testing to 'rule out' the diagnosis in people with respiratory or cardiovascular symptoms. The emergency clinician must balance the benefit of reassuring negative PE testing with the risks of iatrogenic harms from over investigation and overdiagnosis.

Performance of C-Reactive Protein, Procalcitonin, TAT Complex, and Factor VIII in Addition to D-Dimer in the Exclusion of Venous Thromboembolism in Primary Care Patients

BACKGROUND

In primary care, D-dimer-combined with a clinical assessment-is recommended for ruling-out venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, D-dimer testing frequently yields false-positive results, notably in the elderly, and the search for novel biomarkers thus continues. We assessed the added diagnostic value of 4 promising laboratory tests.

METHODS

Plasma samples from 256 primary care patients suspected of VTE were collected. We explored added value (beyond D-dimer) of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), thrombin-antithrombin III complex (TAT-c), and factor VIII (FVIII). Diagnostic performance of these biomarkers was assessed univariably and by estimating their area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Added diagnostic potential beyond D-dimer testing was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Plasma samples of 237 VTE-suspected patients were available for analysis-36 patients (25%) confirmed deep vein thrombosis, 11 patients (12%) pulmonary embolism. Apart from D-dimer, only CRP, and FVIII levels appeared to be higher in patients with VTE compared to patients without VTE. The AUCs for these 3 markers were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.69-0.84) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68-0.83), respectively, whereas the AUC for D-dimer was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94). Combining these biomarkers in a multivariable logistic model with D-dimer did not improve these AUCs meaningfully.

CONCLUSIONS

In our dataset, we were unable to demonstrate any added diagnostic performance beyond D-dimer testing of novel biomarkers in patients suspected of VTE in primary care. As such, D-dimer testing appears to remain the best choice in the exclusion of clinically suspected VTE in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NL5974. (METC protocol number: 16-356/M; NL56475.041.16.).

Real-life impact of clinical prediction rules for venous thromboembolism in primary care: a cross-sectional cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) followed by D-dimer testing were shown to safely rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE) in about half of all suspected patients in controlled and experienced study settings. Yet, its real-life impact in primary care is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the real-life impact of CPRs for suspected VTE in primary care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis (n=993) and suspected pulmonary embolism (n=484).

INTERVENTIONS

General practitioners received an educational instruction on how to use CPRs in suspected VTE. We did not rectify incorrect application of the CPR in order to mimic daily clinical care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were the diagnostic failure rate, defined as the 3-month incidence of VTE in the non-referred group, and the efficiency, defined as the proportion of non-referred patients in the total study population. Secondary outcomes were determinants for and consequences of incorrect application of the CPRs.

RESULTS

In 267 of the included 1477 patients, VTE was confirmed. When CPRs were correctly applied, the failure rate was 1.51% (95% CI 0.77 to 2.86), and the efficiency was 58.1% (95% CI 55.2 to 61.0). However, the CPRs were incorrectly applied in 339 patients, which resulted in an increased failure rate of 3.31% (95% CI 1.07 to 8.76) and a decreased efficiency of 35.7% (95% CI 30.6 to 41.1). The presence of concurrent heart failure increased the likelihood of incorrect application (adjusted OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47 to 7.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Correct application of CPRs for VTE in primary care is associated with an acceptable low failure rate at a high efficiency. Importantly, in nearly a quarter of patients, the CPRs were incorrectly applied that resulted in a higher failure rate and a considerably lower efficiency.

The prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and respiratory decline: A three-setting comparison

BACKGROUND

The risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recognized. The prevalence of PE in patients with respiratory deterioration at the Emergency Department (ED), the regular ward, and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are not well-established.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate how often PE was present in individuals with COVID-19 and respiratory deterioration in different settings, and whether or not disease severity as measured by CT-severity score (CTSS) was related to the occurrence of PE.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Between April 6th and May 3rd, we enrolled 60 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 from the ED, regular ward and ICU who met the pre-specified criteria for respiratory deterioration.

RESULTS

A total of 24 (24/60: 40% (95% CI: 28-54%)) patients were diagnosed with PE, of whom 6 were in the ED (6/23: 26% (95% CI: 10-46%)), 8 in the regular ward (8/24: 33% (95% CI: 16-55%)), and 10 in the ICU (10/13: 77% (95% CI: 46-95%)). CTSS (per unit) was not associated with the occurrence of PE (age and sex-adjusted OR 1.06 (95%CI 0.98-1.15)).

CONCLUSION

The number of PE diagnosis among patients with COVID-19 and respiratory deterioration was high; 26% in the ED, 33% in the regular ward and 77% in the ICU respectively. In our cohort CTSS was not associated with the occurrence of PE. Based on the high number of patients diagnosed with PE among those scanned we recommend a low threshold for performing computed tomography angiography in patients with COVID-19 and respiratory deterioration.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.