Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 4 , Pages 321-332.e10, October 2010

Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies for Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism Among Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Undifferentiated Symptoms

  • Ram S. Duriseti, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, and the Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Ram Duriseti, MD, PhD, Division of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University Hospitals and Clinics, 701 Welch Rd, Ste C, Palo Alto, CA 94304; 650-521-4517
  • ,
  • Margaret L. Brandeau, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Received 2 September 2009; received in revised form 2 February 2010, 10 February 2010 and 10 March 2010; accepted 22 March 2010. published online 04 June 2010.

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

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 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

Refers to erratum:

  • Correction Notice

    Annals of Emergency Medicine January 2011 (Vol. 57, Issue 1, Page 70)

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 56, Issue 4 , Pages 321-332.e10, October 2010