Opinion and practice survey about the use of prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism

Thromb Res. 2020 Nov 1;198:40-48. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.10.027. Online ahead of print.


INTRODUCTION: Methods for prognosis assessment and patient management in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are much debated among physicians. We conducted an online survey to determine physician’s attitudes and barriers towards the use of prognostic models when treating patients with acute PE.

METHOD: Physicians members of the French and the European scientific societies for emergency medicine or of a French thrombosis research network were reached by their respective scientific societies and invited to participate via email. The questionnaire was a mixture of close-ended with yes-no or multiple-choice options and a small number of open-ended questions.

RESULTS: The survey included 461 respondents. The most commonly used prognostic tools were clinical judgment (36%) and prognostic models (29.5%). Prognostic models were used by 57% of respondents in more than half of all cases and prognostic indicators by 62% in addition to prognostic models. Affiliation group and type of hospital emerged as independent predictors for choosing prognostic models. Many (52%) reported lack of familiarity with the models and reported clinical judgment (60%) or hospital checklists (73%) as being as good as or better than prognostic models. The highest acceptable 30-day mortality rate limit for early discharge or outpatient management was deemed to be 1%, but few patients are discharged early or completely managed on an outpatient basis.

CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides new information for implementing knowledge translation strategies to improve prognostic risk assessment for acute PE patients, and highlights the need for considering the use of clinical judgment and hospital checklists in future clinical research.

PMID:33278785 | DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2020.10.027