Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies for Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism Among Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Undifferentiated Symptoms
Study objective
Symptoms associated with pulmonary embolism can be nonspecific and similar to many competing diagnoses, leading to excessive costly testing and treatment, as well as missed diagnoses. Objective studies are essential for diagnosis. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies in an emergency department (ED) for patients presenting with undifferentiated symptoms suggestive of pulmonary embolism.
Methods
Using a probabilistic decision model, we evaluated the incremental costs and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years gained) of 60 testing strategies for 5 patient pretest categories (distinguished by Wells score [high, moderate, or low] and whether deep venous thrombosis is clinically suspected). We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
Results
In the base case, for all patient pretest categories, the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy is to use an initial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer test, followed by compression ultrasonography of the lower extremities if the D-dimer is above a specified cutoff. The level of the preferred cutoff varies with the Wells pretest category and whether a deep venous thrombosis is clinically suspected. D-dimer cutoffs higher than the current recommended cutoff were often preferred for patients with even moderate and high Wells categories. Compression ultrasonography accuracy had to decrease below commonly cited levels in the literature before it was not part of a preferred strategy.
Conclusion
When pulmonary embolism is suspected in the ED, use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer assay, often at cutoffs higher than those currently in use (for patients in whom deep venous thrombosis is not clinically suspected), followed by compression ultrasonography as appropriate, can reduce costs and improve outcomes.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Supervising editor: Steven M. Green, MD
Author contributions: RSD was responsible for model conception, research, coding, analytics, and the article. MLB was responsible for advising, article reviews, and rewriting. RSD and MLB were responsible for figure construction. RSD had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. RSD takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercia, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this agreement. Dr. Duriseti was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Brandeau is supported by grant R01-DA15612 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Reprints not available from the authors.
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Please see page 322 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article.
Provide feedback on this article at the journal's Web site, www.annemergmed.com.
PII: S0196-0644(10)00276-3
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.03.029
© 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Refers to erratum:
- Correction Notice
