Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Adherence to risk-assessment protocols to guide computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism

Bondfolk Anton; Airaksinen K E Juhani; Lehtonen Jarmo; Jaakkola Samuli; Juonala Markus; Purola Petra; Kiviniemi Tuomas; Pouru Jussi-Pekka; Kauppi Juha Matias; Saha Juuso; Vasankari Tuija

Adherence to risk-assessment protocols to guide computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism

Bondfolk Anton
Airaksinen K E Juhani
Lehtonen Jarmo
Jaakkola Samuli
Juonala Markus
Purola Petra
Kiviniemi Tuomas
Pouru Jussi-Pekka
Kauppi Juha Matias
Saha Juuso
Vasankari Tuija
Katso/Avaa
Publisher´s PDF (359.7Kb)
Lataukset: 

Oxford University Press
doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab020
URI
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab020
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022012710546
Tiivistelmä

Aims
The use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) has considerably increased due developing technology and better availability of imaging. The underuse of pre-test probability scores and overuse of CTPA has been previously reported. We sought to investigate the indications for CTPA at a University Hospital emergency clinic and seek for factors eliciting the potential overuse of CTPA.
Methods and results
Altogether 1001 patients were retrospectively collected and analysed from the medical records using a structured case report form. PE was diagnosed in 222/1001 (22.2%) of patients. Patients with PE had more often prior PE/deep vein thrombosis, bleeding/thrombotic diathesis and less often asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or decompensated heart failure. Patients were divided into three groups based on Wells PE risk-stratification score and two groups based on the revised Geneva score. A total of 9/382 (2.4%), 166/527 (31.5%), and 47/92 (52.2%) patients had PE in the CTPA in the low, intermediate, and high pre-test likelihood groups according to Wells score, and 200/955 (20.9%) and 22/46 (47.8%) patients had PE in the CTPA in the low-intermediate and the high pre-test likelihood groups according to the revised Geneva score, respectively. D-dimer was only measured from 568/909 (62.5%) and 597/955 (62.5%) patients who were either in the low or the intermediate-risk group according to Wells score and the revised Geneva score. Noteworthy, 105/1001 (10.5%) and 107/1001 (10.7%) of the CTPAs were inappropriately ordered according to the Wells score and the revised Geneva score. Altogether 168/1001 (16.8%) could theoretically be avoided.
Conclusions
This study highlights scant utilization of guideline-recommended risk-stratification tools in CTPA use at the emergency department.

Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [19207]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste