Poor adherence to the recommended pulmonary embolism diagnostic pathway in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Alia M Hadid, Ala Jalabi, Mahmoud Anka, Arif Alper Cevik
{"title":"Poor adherence to the recommended pulmonary embolism diagnostic pathway in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Alia M Hadid,&nbsp;Ala Jalabi,&nbsp;Mahmoud Anka,&nbsp;Arif Alper Cevik","doi":"10.4103/2452-2473.366486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Pulmonary embolus (PE) is a form of venous thromboembolism associated with increased morbidity and mortality if not diagnosed and treated early. Variations in clinical presentation make the diagnosis challenging. The gold standard for diagnosing PE is a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Physicians show a low threshold for over-investigating PE. The evaluation of patients with suspected PE should be efficient, including but not limited to the use of risk stratification methods. This study aims to assess the adherence to the recommended diagnostic pathways of ordering CTPAs in patients with suspected PE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included patients above 18 years of age who received a CTPA for a suspected PE in the emergency department (ED) of a hospital between 2015 and 2019. Patient demographic data, chief complaint, variables of the Wells and pulmonary emboli rule-out criteria scores, pregnancy status, investigations, and the patient's final PE diagnosis were extracted from the hospital electronic medical records. Diagnostic pathways that took place were compared to the internationally recommended pathway.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred and eighty-six patients were included in this study. The mean age was 51.01 (±19.5) years, and 377 (69.3%) patients were female. The recommended PE diagnostic pathway to order CTPA was incorrectly followed in 288 patients (59.3%). Seventy-five (15.4%) patients received an unnecessary CTPA. D-dimer test was ordered unnecessarily in 144 patients (29.6%). The overall prevalence of PE in our population was 9.47% (<i>n</i>: 46). Out of the 75 unnecessarily ordered CTPAs, 2 (2.7%) showed PE, while CTPAs ordered using the correct pathway showed 31 (10.9%) PEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study revealed that approximately two-thirds of all CTPA requests did not adhere to the recommended PE clinical decision pathway. There was a significant improper and unnecessary utilization of CTPA imaging and D-dimer testing. Improvements seem imperative to enhance physicians' clinical approach to PE diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f6/dc/TJEM-23-44.PMC9930389.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.366486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Pulmonary embolus (PE) is a form of venous thromboembolism associated with increased morbidity and mortality if not diagnosed and treated early. Variations in clinical presentation make the diagnosis challenging. The gold standard for diagnosing PE is a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Physicians show a low threshold for over-investigating PE. The evaluation of patients with suspected PE should be efficient, including but not limited to the use of risk stratification methods. This study aims to assess the adherence to the recommended diagnostic pathways of ordering CTPAs in patients with suspected PE.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients above 18 years of age who received a CTPA for a suspected PE in the emergency department (ED) of a hospital between 2015 and 2019. Patient demographic data, chief complaint, variables of the Wells and pulmonary emboli rule-out criteria scores, pregnancy status, investigations, and the patient's final PE diagnosis were extracted from the hospital electronic medical records. Diagnostic pathways that took place were compared to the internationally recommended pathway.

Results: Four hundred and eighty-six patients were included in this study. The mean age was 51.01 (±19.5) years, and 377 (69.3%) patients were female. The recommended PE diagnostic pathway to order CTPA was incorrectly followed in 288 patients (59.3%). Seventy-five (15.4%) patients received an unnecessary CTPA. D-dimer test was ordered unnecessarily in 144 patients (29.6%). The overall prevalence of PE in our population was 9.47% (n: 46). Out of the 75 unnecessarily ordered CTPAs, 2 (2.7%) showed PE, while CTPAs ordered using the correct pathway showed 31 (10.9%) PEs.

Conclusion: Our study revealed that approximately two-thirds of all CTPA requests did not adhere to the recommended PE clinical decision pathway. There was a significant improper and unnecessary utilization of CTPA imaging and D-dimer testing. Improvements seem imperative to enhance physicians' clinical approach to PE diagnosis.

Abstract Image

急诊科对推荐的肺栓塞诊断途径的依从性差:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的:肺栓塞(PE)是一种静脉血栓栓塞,如果不及早诊断和治疗,其发病率和死亡率会增加。临床表现的变化使诊断具有挑战性。诊断PE的金标准是ct肺血管造影(CTPA)。医生显示过度调查PE的门槛很低。对疑似PE患者的评估应该是有效的,包括但不限于使用风险分层方法。本研究旨在评估对疑似PE患者订购CTPAs的推荐诊断途径的依从性。方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了2015年至2019年期间在某医院急诊科(ED)因疑似PE接受CTPA治疗的18岁以上患者。从医院电子病历中提取患者人口统计数据、主诉、Wells变量和肺栓塞排除标准评分、妊娠状况、调查和患者最终PE诊断。将发生的诊断途径与国际推荐的途径进行比较。结果:共纳入486例患者。平均年龄51.01(±19.5)岁,女性377例(69.3%)。288例(59.3%)患者错误地遵循了推荐的PE诊断途径来订购CTPA。75例(15.4%)患者接受了不必要的CTPA。144例(29.6%)患者被要求进行不必要的d -二聚体检测。我们人群中PE的总患病率为9.47% (n: 46)。在75个不必要的ctpa中,2个(2.7%)显示PE,而使用正确途径订购的ctpa显示31个(10.9%)PE。结论:我们的研究显示,大约三分之二的CTPA请求没有遵循推荐的PE临床决策途径。CTPA成像和d -二聚体检测存在明显的不当和不必要的使用。改进似乎势在必行,以提高医生的临床方法PE诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信