The mortality benefit threshold for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism
- PMID: 22978741
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01432.x
The mortality benefit threshold for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism
Abstract
Objectives: The mortality benefit for pulmonary embolism (PE) is the difference in mortality between treated and untreated patients. The mortality benefit threshold is the mortality benefit above which testing for a condition should be initiated and below which it should not. To illustrate this concept, the authors developed a decision model to estimate the mortality benefit threshold at several pretest probabilities for low-risk emergency department (ED) patients with possible PE and compare those thresholds with contemporary management of PE in the United States and what is known and not known about treatment benefits with anticoagulation.
Methods: The authors built a decision model of a 25-year-old female with suspected PE. Model inputs were obtained from the literature or clinical judgment when data were unavailable. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to derive the mortality benefit threshold at several fixed pretest probabilities, and two-way sensitivity analysis was used to determine drivers of the mortality benefit threshold.
Results: At a 15% pretest probability, the mortality benefit threshold was 3.7%; at 10% it was 5.2%; at 5% it was 9.8%; at 2% it was 23.5%; at 1% it was 46.3%; and at 0.5% it was 92.1%. In two-way sensitivity analyses, D-dimer specificity, CT angiography (CTA)/CT venography (CTV) sensitivity, annual cancer risk, probability of death from renal failure, and probability of major bleeding were major model drivers.
Conclusions: The mortality benefit threshold for initiating PE testing is very high at low pretest probabilities of PE, which should be considered by clinicians in their diagnostic approach to PE in the ED. The mortality benefit threshold is a novel way of exploring the benefits and risks of ED-based testing, particularly in situations like PE where testing (i.e., CT use) carries real risks and the benefits of treatment are uncertain.
© 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Similar articles
-
Testing low-risk patients for suspected pulmonary embolism: a decision analysis.Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Apr;55(4):316-326.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.12.001. Epub 2010 Jan 12. Ann Emerg Med. 2010. PMID: 20061065
-
Potential impact of adjusting the threshold of the quantitative D-dimer based on pretest probability of acute pulmonary embolism.Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Apr;16(4):325-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00368.x. Epub 2009 Mar 6. Acad Emerg Med. 2009. PMID: 19298619
-
Value of quantitative D-dimer assays in identifying pulmonary embolism: implications from a sequential decision model.Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Jul;13(7):755-66. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.02.011. Epub 2006 May 24. Acad Emerg Med. 2006. PMID: 16723725
-
New diagnostic and treatment modalities for pulmonary embolism: one path through the confusion.Mt Sinai J Med. 2006 Mar;73(2):528-41. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006. PMID: 16568195 Review.
-
[Diagnosis and therapy of pulmonary embolism].Vasa. 2006 Aug;35(3):135-46. doi: 10.1024/0301-1526.35.3.135. Vasa. 2006. PMID: 16941402 Review. German.
Cited by
-
Decision threshold models in medical decision making: a scoping literature review.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Sep 27;24(1):273. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02681-2. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024. PMID: 39334341 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical