The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index: Underused Despite Its Clinical Merits

Opinion and practice survey about the use of prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

Methods for prognosis assessment and patient management in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are much debated among physicians. We conducted an online survey to determine physician's attitudes and barriers towards the use of prognostic models when treating patients with acute PE.

METHOD

Physicians members of the French and the European scientific societies for emergency medicine or of a French thrombosis research network were reached by their respective scientific societies and invited to participate via email. The questionnaire was a mixture of close-ended with yes-no or multiple-choice options and a small number of open-ended questions.

RESULTS

The survey included 461 respondents. The most commonly used prognostic tools were clinical judgment (36%) and prognostic models (29.5%). Prognostic models were used by 57% of respondents in more than half of all cases and prognostic indicators by 62% in addition to prognostic models. Affiliation group and type of hospital emerged as independent predictors for choosing prognostic models. Many (52%) reported lack of familiarity with the models and reported clinical judgment (60%) or hospital checklists (73%) as being as good as or better than prognostic models. The highest acceptable 30-day mortality rate limit for early discharge or outpatient management was deemed to be 1%, but few patients are discharged early or completely managed on an outpatient basis.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides new information for implementing knowledge translation strategies to improve prognostic risk assessment for acute PE patients, and highlights the need for considering the use of clinical judgment and hospital checklists in future clinical research.

Frequency of use and acceptability of clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism among Swiss general internal medicine residents

INTRODUCTION

Whether clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism are accepted and used among general internal medicine residents remains uncertain. We therefore evaluated the frequency of use and acceptability of the Revised Geneva Score (RGS) and the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and explored which factors were associated with rule use.

MATERIALS/METHODS

In an online survey among general internal medicine residents from 10 Swiss hospitals, we assessed rule acceptability using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) and explored the association between physician and training-related factors and rule use using mixed logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The response rate was 50.4% (433/859). Overall, 61% and 36% of the residents reported that they always or regularly use the RGS and the PESI, respectively. The mean overall OADRI score was 4.3 (scale 0-6) for the RGS and 4.1 for the PESI, indicating a good acceptability. Rule acceptability (odds ratio [OR] 6.19 per point, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.64-10.51), prior training in emergency medicine (OR 5.14, CI 2.20-12.01), and availability of internal guidelines recommending RGS use (OR 4.25, CI 2.15-8.43) were associated with RGS use. Rule acceptability (OR 6.43 per point, CI 4.17-9.92) and rule taught at medical school (OR 2.06, CI 1.24-3.43) were associated with PESI use.

CONCLUSIONS

The RGS was more frequently used than the PESI. Both rules were considered acceptable. Rule acceptability, prior training in emergency medicine, availability of internal guidelines, and rule taught at medical school were associated with rule use and represent potential targets for quality improvement interventions.