Clinical decision rules in venous thromboembolism

Clinical decision rules in primary care: necessary investments for sustainable healthcare

Clinical judgement in primary care is more often decisive than in the hospital. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) can help general practitioners facilitating the work-through of differentials that follows an initial suspicion, resulting in a concrete 'course of action': a 'rule-out' without further testing, a need for further testing, or a specific treatment. However, in daily primary care, the use of CDRs is limited to only a few isolated rules. In this paper, we aimed to provide insight into the laborious path required to implement a viable CDR. At the same time, we noted that the limited use of CDRs in primary care cannot be explained by implementation barriers alone. Through the case study of the Oudega rule for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis, we concluded that primary care CDRs come out best if they are tailor-made, taking into consideration the specific context of primary health care. Current CDRs should be evaluated frequently, and future decision rules should anticipate the latest developments such as the use of point-of-care (POC) tests. Hence, such new powerful diagnostic CDRs could improve and expand the possibilities for patient-oriented primary care.

Survey of methods used to determine if a patient has a deep vein thrombosis: An exploratory research report

BACKGROUND

The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) is encouraged in the physical therapy profession, but integrating evidence into practice can be difficult for clinicians because of lack of time and other constraints.

OBJECTIVE

To survey physical therapy clinical instructors and determine the methods they use for screening for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a type of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the lower extremities.

DESIGN

Exploratory survey.

METHODS

Twelve survey questions written specifically for this study were sent to a convenience sample of clinical instructors associated with seven universities across 43 states.

RESULTS

Eight hundred fifty clinical instructors (22.4% response rate) completed the survey. Of those who responded, 80.5% were taught to use Homans sign to screen for a possible DVT in their entry-level education and 67.9% continued to use Homans sign in clinical practice. Regardless of post-graduate education, respondents were more likely to choose Homans sign than a clinical decision rule (CDR) to screen for a suspected DVT. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of respondents failed to correctly identify one or more of the major risk factors for developing a DVT/VTE.

LIMITATIONS

The response rate was 22.4% and therefore may not fully represent the population of physical therapy clinical instructors in the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this exploratory survey indicated that approximately two-thirds of physical therapy clinical instructors used outdated DVT/VTE screening methods that they were taught in their entry-level education and nearly two-thirds did not identify the major risk factors associated with DVT/VTE. These results suggest that change is necessary in physical therapy education, clinical practice, and continuing professional development to ensure a more evidenced-based identification of DVT and VTE.

Update on the lower extremity venous ultrasonography examination

Lower extremity venous ultrasonography is an accurate method to diagnose acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Recurrent DVT is often difficult diagnosis. The decision to order ultrasonography can be based on pretest risk assessment. If the ultrasonography study is negative, the report may recommend follow-up for patients whose clinical condition changes or for patients with specific risks. Lower extremity venous ultrasonography is the gold standard for diagnosis of DVT. It is accurate and objective, and because the clinical assessment of patients is limited and its potential complication, pulmonary embolism, is significant, the impact of a positive and negative test is high.

Safety of ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for pulmonary embolism diagnosis

PURPOSE

The aim of this management outcome study was to assess the safety of ventilation/perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (V/Q SPECT) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) using for interpretation the criteria proposed in the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for V/Q scintigraphy.

METHODS

A total of 393 patients with clinically suspected PE referred to the Nuclear Medicine Department of Brest University Hospital from April 2011 to March 2013, with either a high clinical probability or a low or intermediate clinical probability but positive D-dimer, were retrospectively analysed. V/Q SPECT were interpreted by the attending nuclear medicine physician using a diagnostic cut-off of one segmental or two subsegmental mismatches. The final diagnostic conclusion was established by the physician responsible for patient care, based on clinical symptoms, laboratory test, V/Q SPECT and other imaging procedures performed. Patients in whom PE was deemed absent were not treated with anticoagulants and were followed up for 3 months.

RESULTS

Of the 393 patients, the prevalence of PE was 28 %. V/Q SPECT was positive for PE in 110 patients (28 %) and negative in 283 patients (72 %). Of the 110 patients with a positive V/Q SPECT, 78 (71 %) had at least one additional imaging test (computed tomography pulmonary angiography or ultrasound) and the diagnosis of PE was eventually excluded in one patient. Of the 283 patients with a negative V/Q SPECT, 74 (26 %) patients had another test. The diagnosis of PE was finally retained in one patient and excluded in 282 patients. The 3-month thromboembolic risk in the patients not treated with anticoagulants was 1/262: 0.38 % (95 % confidence interval 0.07-2.13).

CONCLUSION

A diagnostic management including V/Q SPECT interpreted with a diagnostic cut-off of "one segmental or two subsegmental mismatches" appears safe to exclude PE.