Dataset Information

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

Objective

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

Methods

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

Results

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

Discussion

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

Conclusion

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

SUBMITTER: Vinson DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7089595 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary embolism that are easily applicable in primary care.DesignSystematic review followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of retrieved models to primary care medicine.Setting300 general practices in the Netherlands.ParticipantsIndividual patient dataset of 598 patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care.Main outcome measuresDiscriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search, assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models.ResultsTen published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models (range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to 53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and 48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively; absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after referral to secondary care.ConclusionsFive diagnostic pulmonary embolism prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.

Project description:BackgroundThe management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care have not been characterized.ObjectiveTo describe 30-day outcomes stratified by initial site-of-care decisions DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a large, diverse community-based US health system (2013-2019) MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day serious adverse events (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). The secondary outcome was 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization, either initial or delayed.Key resultsAmong 652 patient encounters (from 646 patients), median age was 64 years; 51.5% were male and 70.7% identified as non-Hispanic white. Overall, 134 cases (20.6%) were sent home from primary care and 518 cases (79.4%) were initially referred to the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Among the referred, 196 (37.8%) were discharged home from the ED without events. Eight patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0.5-2.4%) experienced a 30-day serious adverse event: 4 venous thromboemboli (0.6%), 1 major bleed (0.2%), and 3 deaths (0.5%). Seven of these patients were initially hospitalized, and 1 had been sent home from primary care. All 3 deaths occurred in patients with known metastatic cancer initially referred to the ED, hospitalized, then enrolled in hospice following discharge. Overall, 328 patients (50.3%) were hospitalized within 7 days: 322 at the time of the index diagnosis and 6 following initial outpatient management (4 clinic-only and 2 clinic-plus-ED patients).ConclusionsPatients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in this primary care setting uncommonly experienced 30-day adverse events, regardless of initial site-of-care decisions. Over 20% were managed comprehensively by primary care. Delayed 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization was rare among the 51% treated as outpatients. Primary care management of acute pulmonary embolism appears to be safe and could have implications for cost-effectiveness and patient care experience.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) spend 5-7 days in hospital even though only 4.5% will develop serious complications during this time. In particular, the group of patients with incidentally diagnosed PE (i-PE) includes many patients with low risk features potentially ideal for outpatient management; however the evidence for their optimal management is lacking hence relative practices may vary considerably. We describe the development process, components, links and function of a nurse-led service for the management of patients with i-PE, developed in accordance to the UK Medical Research Council complex intervention guidance.MethodsPhase 0 (Theoretical underpinning): The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) was selected for patient risk assessment and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for the management of PE in cancer patients (2007) was selected as quality measure. Historical registry and audit data from our centre regarding i-PE incidence and management for the period between 2006 and 2009 illustrating the then current practices were reviewed. Phase 1 (Modelling): Modelling of the pathway included the following: a) Identification of training needs, planning and implementation of training schemes and development of transferable competencies and training materials. b) Mapping patient pathways and flow and c) Production of key documentation and Standard Operating Procedures for the delivery of the service.ResultsPhase 2 (Implementation and testing of the intervention): During the initial 12 months of implementation, remedial action was taken to address identified deficiencies regarding patient referral to the pathway, compliance with treatment protocol, patient follow up, selection challenges from the use of PESI in cancer patients and challenges regarding the "first-pass" identification of i-PE.ConclusionWe have developed and piloted a complex intervention to manage cancer patients with incidental PE in an outpatient setting. Adherence to evidence- based care, improvement of communication between professionals and patients, and improved quality of data is demonstrated.