Reassessment strategy to reduce chest imaging in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and elevated D-dimer: an exploratory cohort study

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: Patients referred by community physicians to the emergency department (ED) for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) with an elevated D-dimer result often undergo chest imaging, although the appropriate diagnostic strategy in this setting remains unclear.] as per style before objectives. Objectives: This study evaluated whether a standardized 3-step reassessment strategy could reduce chest imaging in these patients. Methods: Using data from an observational cohort study conducted in 2 French EDs between May 2022 and May 2023, a standardized 3-step reassessment strategy was retrospectively applied. The strategy combined (1) clinical probability reassessment, (2) adjustment of community laboratory D-dimer thresholds, and (3) repeat D-dimer testing in the ED using the VIDAS assay when indicated. Adult patients referred for suspected PE with a community D-dimer level of >500 ng/mL were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of chest imaging studies that would have been avoided. Results: Seventy-five patients were analyzed (median age, 59 years; 57% women). Application of the reassessment strategy would have avoided chest imaging in 37 patients, corresponding to an absolute reduction of 49 percentage points (95% CI, 37-60). Imaging avoidance occurred at step 1 in 11 patients (absolute reduction, 15 percentage points; 95% CI, 7-24), at step 2 in 14 patients (19 percentage points; 95% CI, 10-29), and at step 3 in 12 patients (16 percentage points; 95% CI, 8-26). The failure rate was 1% (95% CI, 0-7). Conclusion: In patients referred to the ED for suspected PE with an elevated community D-dimer result, application of a standardized reassessment strategy could reduce chest imaging by approximately half. The safety and generalizability of this approach warrant evaluation in larger, prospectively designed studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.