MOdified DIagnostic strateGy to safely ruLe-out pulmonary embolism In the emergency depArtment: study protocol for the Non-Inferiority MODIGLIANI cluster cross-over randomized trial

Anne-Laure Philippon, Margaux Dumont, Sonia Jimenez, Sarah Salhi, Marine Cachanado, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Tabassome Simon, Yonathan Freund, Anne-Laure Philippon, Margaux Dumont, Sonia Jimenez, Sarah Salhi, Marine Cachanado, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, Tabassome Simon, Yonathan Freund

Abstract

Introduction: In the work-up strategy for pulmonary embolism (PE) in the ED, the recently introduced YEARS rule allows the raising of the D-dimer threshold to 1000 ng/ml in patients with no signs of deep venous thrombosis and no hemoptysis and in whom PE is not the most likely diagnosis. However, this decision rule has never been prospectively compared to the usual strategy. Furthermore, it is unclear if the YEARS rule can be used on top of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC). We aim to assess the non-inferiority of YEARS compared to current guidelines to rule out PE among PERC-positive ED patients with suspicion of PE.

Methods/design: The MODIGLIANI study is a multicenter, European, non-inferiority, cluster-randomized, two periods cross-over, controlled trial. Each center will be randomized for the sequence of two 4-month periods: intervention (MOdified Diagnostic Strategy: MODS) followed by control (usual care), or control followed by intervention with 1 month of "wash-out" between the two periods. In the control period, the threshold will be as usual (500 ng/ml for patients aged 50 years or younger and age × 10 for older patients). In the MODS period, the threshold of D-dimers to rule out PE will be raised to 1000 ng/ml if no item of the YEARS score is present or will remain unchanged otherwise. Patients will be included if they have a suspicion of PE, defined as chest pain, dyspnea, or syncope. Non-inclusion criteria comprise a high clinical probability of PE or PERC-negative patients with low clinical probability.

Ethics and dissemination: The study has received the following approvals: Comité de protection des personnes Ile de France XI (France) and Comité de Ética de la Investigación con medicamentos del Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (Spain). Results will be made available to all included participants and other researchers.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04032769. Registered on 24 July 2019.

Keywords: D-dimers; Emergency department; Pulmonary embolism.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram. Number of subjects needed in each period and strategy
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
SPIRIT figure. ED emergency department, PE pulmonary embolism, CTPA computed tomographic pulmonary angiogram

References

    1. American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Policies Committee, Clinical Policies Committee Subcommittee on Suspected Pulmonary Embolism, Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:257–70. 10.1067/mem.2003.40.
    1. Dronkers CEA, Ende-Verhaar YM, Kyrle PA, et al. Disease prevalence dependent failure rate in diagnostic management studies on suspected deep vein thrombosis: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost JTH. 2017;15:2270–2273. doi: 10.1111/jth.13805.
    1. Dronkers CEA, van der Hulle T, Le Gal G, et al. Towards a tailored diagnostic standard for future diagnostic studies in pulmonary embolism: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2017;15:1040–1043. doi: 10.1111/jth.13654.
    1. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298:317–323. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.3.317.
    1. Mitchell AM, Kline JA. Contrast nephropathy following computed tomography angiography of the chest for pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. J Thromb Haemost JTH. 2007;5:50–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.02251.x.
    1. Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW. Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1385–1388. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.6.1761385.
    1. van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S, et al. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2017;390:289–297. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30885-1.
    1. Kearon C, de Wit K, Parpia S, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with d-dimer adjusted to clinical probability. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2125–2134. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909159.
    1. Gorlicki J, Penaloza A, Germeau B, et al. Safety of the combination of PERC and YEARS rules in patients with low clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: a retrospective analysis of two large European cohorts. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26:23–30. doi: 10.1111/acem.13508.
    1. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, et al. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5661.
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346. 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
    1. Raynal P-A, Cachanado M, Truchot J, et al. Prevalence of pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients with isolated syncope: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26:458–461. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000625.
    1. Hendriksen JMT, Lucassen WAM, Erkens PMG, et al. Ruling out pulmonary embolism in primary care: comparison of the diagnostic performance of “gestalt” and the Wells rule. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:227–234. doi: 10.1370/afm.1930.
    1. Kline JA, Stubblefield WB. Clinician gestalt estimate of pretest probability for acute coronary syndrome and pulmonary embolism in patients with chest pain and dyspnea. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;63:275–280. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.08.023.
    1. Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G, et al. Comparison of the unstructured clinician gestalt, the wells score, and the revised Geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;62:117–124. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.002.
    1. Penaloza A, Soulié C, Moumneh T, et al. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule in European patients with low implicit clinical probability (PERCEPIC): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e615–e621. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30210-7.
    1. Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A, et al. Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: The PROPER randomized clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319:559–566. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.21904.
    1. Roy P-M, Friou E, Germeau B, et al. Derivation and validation of a new probability score in pulmonary embolism suspicion allowing safely reduction of imaging testing: PEPS (Pulmonary Embolism Probability Score). Eur Heart J. 2019;40. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0197.
    1. Tritschler T, Kraaijpoel N, Langlois N, et al. Development of a standardized definition of pulmonary embolism-related death: a cross-sectional survey of international thrombosis experts. J Thromb Haemost. 10.1111/jth.14775.
    1. Freund Y, Goulet H, Leblanc J, et al. Effect of systematic physician cross-checking on reducing adverse events in the emergency department: the CHARMED cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:812–819. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0607.
    1. Haute Autorité de Santé. Choix méthodologiques pour l’évaluation économique à la HAS. 2011..
    1. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001;10:179–184. doi: 10.1002/hec.584.
    1. pubmeddev, BJ BA and O. The death of cost-minimization analysis? - PubMed - NCBI. (accessed 9 Dec 2019).
    1. Jac S, Pn B, Pa B, et al. Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21. 10.3310/hta21090.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다