Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism

Jeffrey Kline, Alice Mitchell, C. Kabrhel, P. B. Richman, D. M. Courtney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

231 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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, SaO2 > 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 low-risk 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 low-risk 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1247-1255
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Volume2
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Embolism
Hospital Emergency Service
Hemoptysis
Dyspnea
Population
Leg
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Hormones
Confidence Intervals
fibrin fragment D
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • D-dimer
  • Decision rule
  • Decision-making
  • Deep venous thrombosis
  • Likelihood ratio
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Venous thromboembolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. / Kline, Jeffrey; Mitchell, Alice; Kabrhel, C.; Richman, P. B.; Courtney, D. M.

In: Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Vol. 2, No. 8, 08.2004, p. 1247-1255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ecc4922732144ff08c541dd8913f0b81,
title = "Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism",
abstract = "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, SaO2 > 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 low-risk 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 low-risk 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.",
keywords = "D-dimer, Decision rule, Decision-making, Deep venous thrombosis, Likelihood ratio, Pulmonary embolism, Venous thromboembolism",
author = "Jeffrey Kline and Alice Mitchell and C. Kabrhel and Richman, {P. B.} and Courtney, {D. M.}",
year = "2004",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00790.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "1247--1255",
journal = "Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis",
issn = "1538-7933",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

AU - Mitchell, Alice

AU - Kabrhel, C.

AU - Richman, P. B.

AU - Courtney, D. M.

PY - 2004/8

Y1 - 2004/8

N2 - 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, SaO2 > 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 low-risk 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 low-risk 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.

AB - 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, SaO2 > 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 low-risk 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 low-risk 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.

KW - D-dimer

KW - Decision rule

KW - Decision-making

KW - Deep venous thrombosis

KW - Likelihood ratio

KW - Pulmonary embolism

KW - Venous thromboembolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13244256881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13244256881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00790.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00790.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 15304025

AN - SCOPUS:13244256881

VL - 2

SP - 1247

EP - 1255

JO - Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

JF - Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

SN - 1538-7933

IS - 8

ER -