Dataset Information

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

Methods

COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.

Results

In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.

Conclusions

The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor.

Key points

• D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

SUBMITTER: Chassagnon G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9951833 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

Chassagnon Guillaume G El Hajjam Mostafa M Boussouar Samia S Revel Marie-Pierre MP Khoury Ralph R Ghaye Benoît B Bommart Sebastien S Lederlin Mathieu M Tran Ba Stephane S De Margerie-Mellon Constance C Fournier Laure L Cassagnes Lucie L Ohana Mickael M Jalaber Carole C Dournes Gael G Cazeneuve Nicolas N Ferretti Gilbert G Talabard Pauline P Donciu Victoria V Canniff Emma E Debray Marie-Pierre MP Crutzen Bernard B Charriot Jeremy J Rabeau Valentin V Khafagy Philippe P Chocron Richard R Leonard Lorant Ian I Metairy Loic L Ruez-Lantuejoul Lea L Beaune Sébastien S Hausfater Pierre P Truchot Jennifer J Khalil Antoine A Penaloza Andrea A Affole Thibaut T Brillet Pierre-Yves PY Roy Catherine C Pucheux Julien J Zbili Jordan J Sanchez Olivier O Porcher Raphael R

European radiology 20230224 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).<h4>Methods</h4>COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presenc ...[more]

PMID: 36826504

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this trial-based economic evaluation was to assess the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of the modified diagnostic strategy combining the YEARS rule and age-adjusted D-dimer threshold compared with the control (which used the age-adjusted D-dimer threshold only) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the Emergency Department (ED).MethodsEconomic evaluation from a healthcare system perspective alongside a non-inferiority, crossover, and cluster-randomized trial conducted in 16 EDs in France and two in Spain with three months of follow-up. The primary endpoint was the additional cost of a patient without failure of the diagnostic strategy, defined as venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis at 3months after exclusion of PE during the initial ED visit. Mean differences in 3-month failure and costs were estimated using separate generalized linear-regression mixed models, adjusted for strategy type, period, and the interaction between strategy and period as fixed effects and the hospital as a random effect. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained by dividing the incremental costs by the incremental frequency of VTE.ResultsOf the 1,414 included patients, 1,217 (86%) were analyzed in the per-protocol analysis (648 in the intervention group and 623 in the control group). At three months, there were no statistically significant differences in total costs (€-46; 95% CI: €-93 to €0.2), and the failure rate was non inferior in the intervention group (-0.64%, one-sided 97.5% CI: -∞ to 0.21%, non-inferiority margin 1.5%) between groups. The point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) indicating that each undetected VTE averted in the intervention group is associated with cost savings of €7,142 in comparison with the control group. There was a 93% probability that the intervention was dominant. Similar results were found in the as randomized population.ConclusionsGiven the observed cost decrease of borderline significance, and according to the 95% confidence ellipses, the intervention strategy has a potential to lead to cost savings as a result of a reduction in the use of chest imaging and of the number of undetected VTE averted. Policy-makers should investigate how these monetary benefits can be distributed across stakeholders.ClinicaltrialsTrial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04032769; July 25, 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify which level of D-dimer would allow the safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on the COVID database of Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). COVID-19 patients who presented at the ED of AP-HP hospitals between March 1 and May 15, 2020, and had CTPA following D-dimer dosage within 48h of presentation were included. The D-dimer sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for different D-dimer thresholds, as well as the false-negative and failure rates, and the number of CTPAs potentially avoided.ResultsA total of 781 patients (mean age 62.0 years, 53.8% men) with positive RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 were included and 60 of them (7.7%) had CTPA-confirmed PE. Their median D-dimer level was significantly higher than that of patients without PE (4,013 vs 1,198 ng·mL-1, p < 0.001). Using 500 ng·mL-1, or an age-adjusted cut-off for patients > 50 years, the sensitivity and the NPV were above 90%. With these thresholds, 17.1% and 31.5% of CTPAs could have been avoided, respectively. Four of the 178 patients who had a D-dimer below the age-adjusted cutoff had PE, leading to an acceptable failure rate of 2.2%. Using higher D-dimer cut-offs could have avoided more CTPAs, but would have lowered the sensitivity and increased the failure rate.ConclusionThe same D-Dimer thresholds as those validated in non-COVID outpatients should be used to safely rule out PE.Key points• The median D-dimer level was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with PE as compared to those without PE (4,013 ng·mL-1 vs 1,198 ng·mL-1 respectively, p < 0.001). • Using 500 ng·mL-1, or an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off to exclude pulmonary embolism, the sensitivity and negative predictive value were above 90%. • Higher cut-offs would lead to a reduction in the sensitivity below 85% and an increase in the failure rate, especially for patients under 50 years.

Project description:Rationale Abnormal values of hypercoagulability biomarkers, such as D-dimer, have been described in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has also been associated with disease severity and in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 patients with pneumonia are at greater risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the real incidence of PE is not yet clear, since studies have been limited in size, mostly retrospective, and PE diagnostic procedures were only performed when PE was clinically suspected. Objectives (1) To determine the incidence, clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics, and clinical outcomes of PE among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia with D-dimer > 1,000 ng/mL. (2) To develop a prognostic model to predict PE in these patients. Methods Single-center prospective cohort study. Consecutive confirmed cases of COVID-19 pneumonia with D-dimer > 1,000 ng/mL underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Demographic and laboratory data, comorbidities, CTPA scores, treatments administered, and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared between patients with and without PE. A risk score was constructed from all these variables. Results Between 6 April 2020 and 2 February 2021, 179 consecutive patients were included. The overall incidence of PE was 39.7% (71 patients) (CI 95%, 32–47%). In patients with PE, emboli were located mainly in segmental/subsegmental arteries (67%). Patients with PE did not differ from the non-PE group in sex, age, or risk factors for thromboembolic disease. Higher urea, D-Dimer, D-dimer-to-ferritin and D-dimer-to-lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) ratios, platelet distribution width (PDW), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) values were found in patients with PE when compared to patients with non-PE. Besides, lymphocyte counts turned out to be lower in patients with PE. A score for PE prediction was constructed with excellent overall performance [area under the ROC curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73–0.89)]. The PATCOM score stands for Pulmonary Artery Thrombosis in COVID-19 Mallorca and includes platelet count, PDW, urea concentration, and D-dimer-to-ferritin ratio. Conclusion COVID-19 patients with pneumonia and D-dimer values > 1,000 ng/mL were presented with a very high incidence of PE, regardless of clinical suspicion. Significant differences in urea, D-dimer, PDW, NLR, and lymphocyte count were found between patients with PE and non-PE. The PATCOM score is presented in this study as a promising PE prediction rule, although validation in further studies is required.

Project description:Importance:The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objective:To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE. Design, Setting, and Patients:A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016. Interventions:Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission. Results:Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.

Dataset Information

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

Publications

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets