P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department
Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2018-05, Vol.20 (S1), p.S93-S94 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S94 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | S93 |
container_title | Canadian journal of emergency medicine |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Sharif, S. Kearon, C. Eventov, M. Li, M. Sneath, P. Jiang, R. Leung, R. de Wit, K. |
description | Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can identify patients who can be safely discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the PERC rule in the ED and to compare the rates of testing for PE if the PERC rule was used. Methods: This was a health records review of ED patients investigated for PE at two emergency departments over a two-year period (April 2013-March 2015). Inclusion criteria were ED physician ordered CT pulmonary angiogram, ventilation-perfusion scan, or D-dimer for investigation of PE. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. Trained researchers extracted anonymized data. The rate of CT/VQ imaging and the negative predictive value was calculated. Results: There were 1,163 patients that were tested for PE and 1,097 patients were eligible for our analysis. Of the total, 330/1,097 (30.1%; 95%CI 27.4-32.3%) had CT/VQ imaging for PE, and 48/1,097 (4.4%; 95%CI 3.3-5.8%) patients were diagnosed with PE. 806/1,097 (73.5%; 95%CI 70.8-76.0%) were PERC positive, and of these, 44 patients had a PE (5.5%; 95%CI 4.1-7.3%). Conversely, 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients were PERC negative, and of these, 4 patients had a PE (1.4%; 95%CI 0.5-3.5%). Of the PERC negative patients, 291/291 (100.0%; 95%CI 98.7-100.0%) had a D-dimer test done, and 33/291 (11.3%; 95%CI 8.2-15.5%) had a CT angiogram. If PERC was used, CT/VQ imaging would have been avoided in 33/1,097 (3%; 95%CI 2.2-4.2%) patients and the D-dimer would have been avoided in 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients. Conclusion: If the PERC rule was used in all patients with suspected PE, fewer patients would have further testing. The false negative rate for the PERC rule was low. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/cem.2018.302 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2300093959</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_cem_2018_302</cupid><sourcerecordid>2300093959</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-8e96de4b104505b11e551f2bdf1bac3cac5735203bebedd0877b82c866c3670f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkLtOwzAUhi0EEqWw8QCWWEk4tuNc2FBVLlIlGGA2tnNSUsVJsBOkvj1pqWBhOv_wndtHyCWDmAHLbiy6mAPLYwH8iMxYkrMoh0Qc_2YhT8lZCBsAxiXLZ-T9hUFyS5dfuhn1ULdrOnwgHQPSrtrHfmxc12q_pehM19TBUT82GHXjQK2vB_S1pnW7Z9GhX2Nrt7TEXvvBYTuck5NKNwEvDnVO3u6Xr4vHaPX88LS4W0WWJZxHORZpiYmZrpEgDWMoJau4KStmtBVWW5kJyUEYNFiWkGeZybnN09SKNINKzMnVz9zed58jhkFtutG300rFBQAUopDFRF3_UNZ3IXisVO9rN32nGKidQzU5VDuHanI44fEB1874ulzj39R_G74BhEpzhw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2300093959</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department</title><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Sharif, S. ; Kearon, C. ; Eventov, M. ; Li, M. ; Sneath, P. ; Jiang, R. ; Leung, R. ; de Wit, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharif, S. ; Kearon, C. ; Eventov, M. ; Li, M. ; Sneath, P. ; Jiang, R. ; Leung, R. ; de Wit, K.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can identify patients who can be safely discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the PERC rule in the ED and to compare the rates of testing for PE if the PERC rule was used. Methods: This was a health records review of ED patients investigated for PE at two emergency departments over a two-year period (April 2013-March 2015). Inclusion criteria were ED physician ordered CT pulmonary angiogram, ventilation-perfusion scan, or D-dimer for investigation of PE. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. Trained researchers extracted anonymized data. The rate of CT/VQ imaging and the negative predictive value was calculated. Results: There were 1,163 patients that were tested for PE and 1,097 patients were eligible for our analysis. Of the total, 330/1,097 (30.1%; 95%CI 27.4-32.3%) had CT/VQ imaging for PE, and 48/1,097 (4.4%; 95%CI 3.3-5.8%) patients were diagnosed with PE. 806/1,097 (73.5%; 95%CI 70.8-76.0%) were PERC positive, and of these, 44 patients had a PE (5.5%; 95%CI 4.1-7.3%). Conversely, 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients were PERC negative, and of these, 4 patients had a PE (1.4%; 95%CI 0.5-3.5%). Of the PERC negative patients, 291/291 (100.0%; 95%CI 98.7-100.0%) had a D-dimer test done, and 33/291 (11.3%; 95%CI 8.2-15.5%) had a CT angiogram. If PERC was used, CT/VQ imaging would have been avoided in 33/1,097 (3%; 95%CI 2.2-4.2%) patients and the D-dimer would have been avoided in 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients. Conclusion: If the PERC rule was used in all patients with suspected PE, fewer patients would have further testing. The false negative rate for the PERC rule was low.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1481-8035</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1481-8043</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/cem.2018.302</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Embolisms ; Emergency medical care ; Health risk assessment ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical imaging ; Poster Presentations ; Pulmonary embolisms</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2018-05, Vol.20 (S1), p.S93-S94</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharif, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearon, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eventov, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sneath, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, K.</creatorcontrib><title>P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department</title><title>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><description>Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can identify patients who can be safely discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the PERC rule in the ED and to compare the rates of testing for PE if the PERC rule was used. Methods: This was a health records review of ED patients investigated for PE at two emergency departments over a two-year period (April 2013-March 2015). Inclusion criteria were ED physician ordered CT pulmonary angiogram, ventilation-perfusion scan, or D-dimer for investigation of PE. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. Trained researchers extracted anonymized data. The rate of CT/VQ imaging and the negative predictive value was calculated. Results: There were 1,163 patients that were tested for PE and 1,097 patients were eligible for our analysis. Of the total, 330/1,097 (30.1%; 95%CI 27.4-32.3%) had CT/VQ imaging for PE, and 48/1,097 (4.4%; 95%CI 3.3-5.8%) patients were diagnosed with PE. 806/1,097 (73.5%; 95%CI 70.8-76.0%) were PERC positive, and of these, 44 patients had a PE (5.5%; 95%CI 4.1-7.3%). Conversely, 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients were PERC negative, and of these, 4 patients had a PE (1.4%; 95%CI 0.5-3.5%). Of the PERC negative patients, 291/291 (100.0%; 95%CI 98.7-100.0%) had a D-dimer test done, and 33/291 (11.3%; 95%CI 8.2-15.5%) had a CT angiogram. If PERC was used, CT/VQ imaging would have been avoided in 33/1,097 (3%; 95%CI 2.2-4.2%) patients and the D-dimer would have been avoided in 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients. Conclusion: If the PERC rule was used in all patients with suspected PE, fewer patients would have further testing. The false negative rate for the PERC rule was low.</description><subject>Embolisms</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Poster Presentations</subject><subject>Pulmonary embolisms</subject><issn>1481-8035</issn><issn>1481-8043</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptkLtOwzAUhi0EEqWw8QCWWEk4tuNc2FBVLlIlGGA2tnNSUsVJsBOkvj1pqWBhOv_wndtHyCWDmAHLbiy6mAPLYwH8iMxYkrMoh0Qc_2YhT8lZCBsAxiXLZ-T9hUFyS5dfuhn1ULdrOnwgHQPSrtrHfmxc12q_pehM19TBUT82GHXjQK2vB_S1pnW7Z9GhX2Nrt7TEXvvBYTuck5NKNwEvDnVO3u6Xr4vHaPX88LS4W0WWJZxHORZpiYmZrpEgDWMoJau4KStmtBVWW5kJyUEYNFiWkGeZybnN09SKNINKzMnVz9zed58jhkFtutG300rFBQAUopDFRF3_UNZ3IXisVO9rN32nGKidQzU5VDuHanI44fEB1874ulzj39R_G74BhEpzhw</recordid><startdate>201805</startdate><enddate>201805</enddate><creator>Sharif, S.</creator><creator>Kearon, C.</creator><creator>Eventov, M.</creator><creator>Li, M.</creator><creator>Sneath, P.</creator><creator>Jiang, R.</creator><creator>Leung, R.</creator><creator>de Wit, K.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201805</creationdate><title>P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department</title><author>Sharif, S. ; Kearon, C. ; Eventov, M. ; Li, M. ; Sneath, P. ; Jiang, R. ; Leung, R. ; de Wit, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1422-8e96de4b104505b11e551f2bdf1bac3cac5735203bebedd0877b82c866c3670f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Embolisms</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Poster Presentations</topic><topic>Pulmonary embolisms</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharif, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kearon, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eventov, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sneath, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leung, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Wit, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharif, S.</au><au>Kearon, C.</au><au>Eventov, M.</au><au>Li, M.</au><au>Sneath, P.</au><au>Jiang, R.</au><au>Leung, R.</au><au>de Wit, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><date>2018-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>S93</spage><epage>S94</epage><pages>S93-S94</pages><issn>1481-8035</issn><eissn>1481-8043</eissn><abstract>Introduction: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) can be challenging because the signs and symptoms are often non-specific. Studies have shown that evidence-based algorithms are not always adhered to in the Emergency Department (ED), which leads to unnecessary CT scanning. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) can identify patients who can be safely discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the PERC rule in the ED and to compare the rates of testing for PE if the PERC rule was used. Methods: This was a health records review of ED patients investigated for PE at two emergency departments over a two-year period (April 2013-March 2015). Inclusion criteria were ED physician ordered CT pulmonary angiogram, ventilation-perfusion scan, or D-dimer for investigation of PE. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded. PE was considered to be present during the emergency department visit if PE was diagnosed on CT or VQ (subsegmental level or above), or if the patient was subsequently found to have PE or deep vein thrombosis during the next 30 days. Trained researchers extracted anonymized data. The rate of CT/VQ imaging and the negative predictive value was calculated. Results: There were 1,163 patients that were tested for PE and 1,097 patients were eligible for our analysis. Of the total, 330/1,097 (30.1%; 95%CI 27.4-32.3%) had CT/VQ imaging for PE, and 48/1,097 (4.4%; 95%CI 3.3-5.8%) patients were diagnosed with PE. 806/1,097 (73.5%; 95%CI 70.8-76.0%) were PERC positive, and of these, 44 patients had a PE (5.5%; 95%CI 4.1-7.3%). Conversely, 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients were PERC negative, and of these, 4 patients had a PE (1.4%; 95%CI 0.5-3.5%). Of the PERC negative patients, 291/291 (100.0%; 95%CI 98.7-100.0%) had a D-dimer test done, and 33/291 (11.3%; 95%CI 8.2-15.5%) had a CT angiogram. If PERC was used, CT/VQ imaging would have been avoided in 33/1,097 (3%; 95%CI 2.2-4.2%) patients and the D-dimer would have been avoided in 291/1,097 (26.5%; 95%CI 24.0-29.2%) patients. Conclusion: If the PERC rule was used in all patients with suspected PE, fewer patients would have further testing. The false negative rate for the PERC rule was low.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/cem.2018.302</doi><tpages>2</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1481-8035 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2018-05, Vol.20 (S1), p.S93-S94 |
issn | 1481-8035 1481-8043 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2300093959 |
source | EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Embolisms Emergency medical care Health risk assessment Medical diagnosis Medical imaging Poster Presentations Pulmonary embolisms |
title | P104: Evaluating the use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in the emergency department |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T14%3A57%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=P104:%20Evaluating%20the%20use%20of%20the%20pulmonary%20embolism%20rule-out%20criteria%20in%20the%20emergency%20department&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Sharif,%20S.&rft.date=2018-05&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=S93&rft.epage=S94&rft.pages=S93-S94&rft.issn=1481-8035&rft.eissn=1481-8043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/cem.2018.302&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2300093959%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2300093959&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_cem_2018_302&rfr_iscdi=true |