Increasing Safe Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Controlled Pragmatic Trial.

Background: Many low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization. Objective: To evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE. Design: Controlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676). Setting: All 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California). Patients: Adult ED patients with acute PE. Intervention: Ten intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls. Measurements: The primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Among 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation. Limitation: Lack of random allocation. Conclusion: Implementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management. Primary Funding Source: Garfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.

Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Variation, Patient Characteristics, and Outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Outpatient management of emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism is uncommon. We seek to evaluate the facility-level variation of outpatient pulmonary embolism management and to describe patient characteristics and outcomes associated with home discharge. METHODS: The Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism (MAPLE) study is a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute pulmonary embolism undertaken in 21 community EDs from January 2013 to April 2015. We gathered demographic and clinical variables from comprehensive electronic health records and structured manual chart review. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between patient characteristics and home discharge. We report ED length of stay, consultations, 5-day pulmonary embolism-related return visits and 30-day major hemorrhage, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 2,387 patients, 179 were discharged home (7.5%). Home discharge varied significantly between EDs, from 0% to 14.3% (median 7.0%; interquartile range 4.2% to 10.9%). Median length of stay for home discharge patients (excluding those who arrived with a new pulmonary embolism diagnosis) was 6.0 hours (interquartile range 4.6 to 7.2 hours) and 81% received consultations. On adjusted analysis, ambulance arrival, abnormal vital signs, syncope or presyncope, deep venous thrombosis, elevated cardiac biomarker levels, and more proximal emboli were inversely associated with home discharge. Thirteen patients (7.2%) who were discharged home had a 5-day pulmonary embolism-related return visit. Thirty-day major hemorrhage and recurrent venous thromboembolism were uncommon and similar between patients hospitalized and those discharged home. All-cause 30-day mortality was lower in the home discharge group (1.1% versus 4.4%). CONCLUSION: Home discharge of ED patients with acute pulmonary embolism was uncommon and varied significantly between facilities. Patients selected for outpatient management had a low incidence of adverse outcomes.

Risk stratifying emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism: Does the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index perform as well as the original?

INTRODUCTION: The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated prognostic score to estimate the 30-day mortality of emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). A simplified version (sPESI) was derived but has not been as well studied in the U.S. We sought to validate both indices in a community hospital setting in the U.S. and compare their performance in predicting 30-day all-cause mortality and classification of cases into low-risk and higher-risk categories. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults with acute objectively confirmed PE from 1/2013 to 4/2015 across 21 community EDs. We evaluated the misclassification rate of the sPESI compared with the PESI. We assessed accuracy of both indices with regard to 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 3006 cases of acute PE, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 4.4%. The sPESI performed as well as the PESI in identifying low-risk patients: both had similar sensitivities, negative predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios. The sPESI, however, classified a smaller proportion of patients as low risk than the PESI (27.5% vs. 41.0%), but with similar low-risk mortality rates (<1%). Compared with the PESI, the sPESI overclassified 443 low-risk patients (14.7%) as higher risk, yet their 30-day mortality was 0.7%. The sPESI underclassified 100 higher-risk patients (3.3%) as low risk who also had a low mortality rate (1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Both indices identified patients with PE who were at low risk for 30-day mortality. The sPESI, however, misclassified a significant number of low-mortality patients as higher risk, which could lead to unnecessary hospitalizations.