Real-life impact of clinical prediction rules for venous thromboembolism in primary care: a cross-sectional cohort study

Publication date

2020-12-28

Authors

van Maanen, RORCID 0000-0002-4981-692X
Kingma, Anna E C
Oudega, RuudISNI 0000000392502536
Rutten, Frans HORCID 0000-0002-5052-7332ISNI 0000000389122794
Moons, Karel G MISNI 0000000390720943
Geersing, Geert-JanORCID 0000-0001-6976-9844

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article

Collections

Open Access logo

License

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) followed by D-dimer testing were shown to safely rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE) in about half of all suspected patients in controlled and experienced study settings. Yet, its real-life impact in primary care is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the real-life impact of CPRs for suspected VTE in primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis (n=993) and suspected pulmonary embolism (n=484). INTERVENTIONS: General practitioners received an educational instruction on how to use CPRs in suspected VTE. We did not rectify incorrect application of the CPR in order to mimic daily clinical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the diagnostic failure rate, defined as the 3-month incidence of VTE in the non-referred group, and the efficiency, defined as the proportion of non-referred patients in the total study population. Secondary outcomes were determinants for and consequences of incorrect application of the CPRs. RESULTS: In 267 of the included 1477 patients, VTE was confirmed. When CPRs were correctly applied, the failure rate was 1.51% (95% CI 0.77 to 2.86), and the efficiency was 58.1% (95% CI 55.2 to 61.0). However, the CPRs were incorrectly applied in 339 patients, which resulted in an increased failure rate of 3.31% (95% CI 1.07 to 8.76) and a decreased efficiency of 35.7% (95% CI 30.6 to 41.1). The presence of concurrent heart failure increased the likelihood of incorrect application (adjusted OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47 to 7.21). CONCLUSIONS: Correct application of CPRs for VTE in primary care is associated with an acceptable low failure rate at a high efficiency. Importantly, in nearly a quarter of patients, the CPRs were incorrectly applied that resulted in a higher failure rate and a considerably lower efficiency.

Keywords

general medicine (see internal medicine), primary care, thromboembolism, vascular medicine, General Medicine, Journal Article

Citation

van Maanen, R, Kingma, A E C, Oudega, R, Rutten, F H, Moons, K & Geersing, G-J 2020, 'Real-life impact of clinical prediction rules for venous thromboembolism in primary care : a cross-sectional cohort study', BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 12, e039913, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039913