Dataset Information

Establishing diagnostic criteria and treatment of subsegmental pulmonary embolism: A Delphi analysis of experts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Improved imaging techniques have increased the incidence of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ssPE). Indirect evidence is suggesting that ssPE may represent a more benign presentation of venous thromboembolism not necessarily requiring anticoagulant treatment. However, correctly diagnosing ssPE is challenging with reported low interobserver agreement, partly due to the lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria.

Objectives

We sought to derive uniform diagnostic criteria for ssPE, guided by expert consensus.

Methods

Based on an extensive literature review and expert opinion of a Delphi steering committee, two surveys including statements regarding diagnostic criteria and management options for ssPE were established. These surveys were conducted electronically among two panels, respectively: expert thoracic radiologists and clinical venous thromboembolism specialists. The Delphi method was used to achieve consensus after multiple survey rounds. Consensus was defined as a level of agreement >70%.

Results

Twenty-nine of 40 invited radiologists (73%) and 40 of 51 clinicians (78%) participated. Following two survey rounds by the expert radiologists, consensus was achieved on 15 of 16 statements, including on the established diagnostic criteria for ssPE (96% agreement): a contrast defect in a subsegmental artery, that is, the first arterial branch division of any segmental artery independent of artery diameter, visible in at least two subsequent axial slices, using a computed tomography scanner with a desired maximum collimator width of ≤1 mm. These criteria were approved by 83% of the clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) specialists. The clinical expert panel favored anticoagulant treatment in case of prior VTE, antiphospholipid syndrome, pregnancy, cancer, and proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Conclusion

The results of this analysis provide standard radiological criteria for ssPE that may be applicable in both clinical trials and practice.

SUBMITTER: den Exter PL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7695556 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 8% of acute pulmonary emboli are confined to the subsegmental arteries. The 2016 and 2021 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guidelines and expert panel reports suggest the use of structured surveillance without anticoagulation for select ambulatory patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism who do not have active cancer, deep vein thrombosis, impaired cardiopulmonary reserve, marked symptoms, or increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism; however, guideline uptake in community practice is unknown, as is the proportion of outpatients eligible for surveillance.ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence of surveillance among outpatients with acute subsegmental pulmonary embolism and to estimate the proportion of patients eligible for structured surveillance using modified CHEST criteria.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted across 21 US community hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. Adult outpatients with acute subsegmental pulmonary embolism were included. Patients with the following higher-risk characteristics were excluded: codiagnoses requiring hospitalization, non-low-risk vital signs (ie, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, pulse ≥110 bpm, or peripheral cutaneous pulse oximetry ≤92%), prediagnosis anticoagulant use, or hospice care. Data analysis was performed from November 2022 to February 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the (1) prevalence of surveillance and (2) eligibility for surveillance using 2 sets of criteria: the CHEST criteria modified by excluding patients with higher-risk characteristics or right ventricular dysfunction and a stricter set of criteria requiring age younger than 65 years and no more than 1 embolus. The prevalence of structured surveillance was calculated and the proportion of patients eligible for surveillance was estimated.ResultsOf the 666 outpatients with acute subsegmental pulmonary embolism included in this study, 229 with lower-risk characteristics were examined. Their median age was 58 (IQR, 42-68) years; more than half were men (120 [52.4%]) and self-identified as non-Hispanic White (128 [55.9%]). Six patients (2.6%) were initially not treated with anticoagulants. Among the lower-risk cohort, only 1 patient (0.4% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.4%]) underwent structured surveillance, without 90-day sequelae. Thirty-five patients (15.3% of the lower-risk group and 5.3% of the full cohort) were surveillance eligible using modified CHEST criteria. Fifteen patients (6.6% of the lower-risk group and 2.3% of the full cohort) were surveillance eligible using stricter criteria.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of lower-risk outpatients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism, few were eligible for structured surveillance, and only a small proportion of eligible patients underwent surveillance despite the CHEST guideline. If forthcoming trials find surveillance safe and effective, substantial uptake into clinical practice may require more than passive diffusion.

Project description:BackgroundThere are no criteria specifically for evaluating the quality of implementation research and recommending implementation strategies likely to have impact to practitioners. We describe the development and application of the Best Practices Tool, a set of criteria to evaluate the evidence supporting HIV-specific implementation strategies.MethodsWe developed the Best Practices Tool from 2022-2023 in three phases. (1) We developed a draft tool and criteria based on a literature review and key informant interviews. We purposively selected and recruited by email interview participants representing a mix of expertise in HIV service delivery, quality improvement, and implementation science. (2) The tool was then informed and revised through two e-Delphi rounds using a survey delivered online through Qualtrics. The first and second round Delphi surveys consisted of 71 and 52 open and close-ended questions, respectively, asking participants to evaluate, confirm, and make suggestions on different aspects of the rubric. After each survey round, data were analyzed and synthesized as appropriate; and the tool and criteria were revised. (3) We then applied the tool to a set of research studies assessing implementation strategies designed to promote the adoption and uptake of evidence-based HIV interventions to assess reliable application of the tool and criteria.ResultsOur initial literature review yielded existing tools for evaluating intervention-level evidence. For a strategy-level tool, additions emerged from interviews, for example, a need to consider the context and specification of strategies. Revisions were made after both Delphi rounds resulting in the confirmation of five evaluation domains - research design, implementation outcomes, limitations and rigor, strategy specification, and equity - and four evidence levels - best, promising, more evidence needed, and harmful. For most domains, criteria were specified at each evidence level. After an initial pilot round to develop an application process and provide training, we achieved 98% reliability when applying the criteria to 18 implementation strategies.ConclusionsWe developed a tool to evaluate the evidence supporting implementation strategies for HIV services. Although specific to HIV in the US, this tool is adaptable for evaluating strategies in other health areas.