Key result
Among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and intermediate-probability lung scans, 63% were treated without a definitive imaging diagnosis, compared to 37% treated based on imaging results.
Why the study?
Are patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and intermediate-probability lung scans treated based on definitive diagnostic imaging or clinical grounds?
Observational (n=214)
Are patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and intermediate-probability lung scans treated based on definitive diagnostic imaging or clinical grounds?
Absolute Event Rate: 37% vs 63%
A majority of patients with suspected PE and intermediate-probability lung scans are managed without definitive diagnostic imaging, highlighting a potential risk for over- or undertreatment.
Frequent empiric therapy without imaging confirmation may risk mis-treatment; leaves open whether definitive diagnostics improve outcomes in suspected PE.
OBJECTIVE: We compared patient treatment with imaging strategy in patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and intermediate-probability lung scans (IPLS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 214 consecutive patients with clinically suspected PE with IPLS. RESULTS: Treatment (full anticoagulation, filter placement, or both) was given in 66 (31%) of 214 patients. Only 37% of patients were treated on the basis of definitive diagnostic imaging results. Most patients (134 [63%] of 214) were treated without an imaging diagnosis: 30 (14%) of 214 patients were treated for acute PE on clinical grounds, and the diagnosis of PE was not excluded in 104 (49%) of 214 patients. CONCLUSION: Most patients with IPLS are treated without a definitive imaging diagnosis. This lack of diagnosis may result in the overtreatment of patients who do not have acute PE or, more importantly, in the undertreatment of patients who do have acute PE. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of the current management strategies on patient outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khorasani et al. (1997) conducted an observational in Suspected pulmonary embolism with intermediate-probability lung scans (n=214). Definitive diagnostic imaging vs. Clinical grounds (no imaging diagnosis) was evaluated on Treatment based on definitive diagnostic imaging results. Among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and intermediate-probability lung scans, 63% were treated without a definitive imaging diagnosis, compared to 37% treated based on imaging results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: