Search

Background: The efficacy and safety of managing patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) without hospitalization requires objective data from US medical centers. We sought to determine the 90-day composite rate of recurrent symptomatic VTE, major bleeding events, and all-cause mortality among consecutive patients diagnosed with acute low-risk PE managed without inpatient hospitalization; and to measure patient satisfaction., Methods: We performed a prospective cohort single-arm management study conducted from January 2013 to October 2016 in five EDs. We enrolled 200 consecutive adults diagnosed with objectively confirmed acute PE and assessed to have a low risk for mortality using the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score (< 86), echocardiography, and whole-leg compression ultrasound (CUS). The primary intervention was observation in the ED or hospital (observation status) for > 12 to < 24 h, followed by outpatient management with Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients were excluded for a PESI ≥ 86, echocardiographic signs of right heart strain, DVT proximal to the popliteal vein, hypoxia, hypotension, hepatic or renal failure, contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation, or another condition requiring hospital admission. The primary outcome was 90-day composite rate of all-cause mortality, recurrent symptomatic VTE, and major bleeding., Results: The composite outcome occurred in one of 200 patients (90-day composite rate = 0.5%; 95% CI, 0.02%-2.36%). No patient suffered recurrent VTE or died during the 90-day follow-up period. A major bleed occurred in one patient. Patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their care., Conclusions: Treatment of carefully selected patients with acute PE and low risk by PESI < 86, echocardiography, and CUS without inpatient hospitalization is safe and acceptable to patients. Results must be viewed with caution because of the small sample size relative to the end point and the generalizability surrounding availability of emergent echocardiography., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02355548; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the past 3 decades, the total number of CT scans performed has grown exponentially. In 2007, > 70 million CT scans were performed in the United States. CT scan studies of the chest comprise a large portion of the CT scans performed today because the technology has transformed the management of common chest diseases, including pulmonary embolism and coronary artery disease. As the number of studies performed yearly increases, a growing fraction of the population is exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from CT scan. Data extrapolated from atomic bomb survivors and other populations exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation suggest that CT scan-associated radiation may increase an individual's lifetime risk of developing cancer. This finding, however, is not incontrovertible. Because this topic has recently attracted the attention of both the scientific community and the general public, it has become increasingly important for physicians to understand the cancer risk associated with CT scan and be capable of engaging in productive dialogue with patients. This article reviews the current literature on the public health debate surrounding CT scan and cancer risk, quantifies radiation doses associated with specific studies, and describes efforts to reduce population-wide CT scan-associated radiation exposure. CT scan examinations of the chest, including CT scan pulmonary and coronary angiography, high-resolution CT scan, low-dose lung cancer screening, and triple rule-out CT scan, are specifically considered.

Background: Objective testing for DVT is crucial because clinical assessment alone is unreliable and the consequences of misdiagnosis are serious. This guideline focuses on the identification of optimal strategies for the diagnosis of DVT in ambulatory adults., Methods: The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines., Results: We suggest that clinical assessment of pretest probability of DVT, rather than performing the same tests in all patients, should guide the diagnostic process for a first lower extremity DVT (Grade 2B). In patients with a low pretest probability of first lower extremity DVT, we recommend initial testing with D-dimer or ultrasound (US) of the proximal veins over no diagnostic testing (Grade 1B), venography (Grade 1B), or whole-leg US (Grade 2B). In patients with moderate pretest probability, we recommend initial testing with a highly sensitive D-dimer, proximal compression US, or whole-leg US rather than no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B). In patients with a high pretest probability, we recommend proximal compression or whole-leg US over no testing (Grade 1B) or venography (Grade 1B)., Conclusions: Favored strategies for diagnosis of first DVT combine use of pretest probability assessment, D-dimer, and US. There is lower-quality evidence available to guide diagnosis of recurrent DVT, upper extremity DVT, and DVT during pregnancy.