Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism that combined clinical assessment, plasma D-dimer measurement, lower limb venous ultrasonography, and helical computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A cohort of 965 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency departments of three general and teaching hospitals with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism underwent sequential noninvasive testing. Clinical probability was assessed by a prediction rule combined with implicit judgment. All patients were followed for 3 months. RESULTS: A normal D-dimer level (<500 microg/L by a rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) ruled out venous thromboembolism in 280 patients (29%), and finding a deep vein thrombosis by ultrasonography established the diagnosis in 92 patients (9.5%). Helical CT was required in only 593 patients (61%) and showed pulmonary embolism in 124 patients (12.8%). Pulmonary embolism was considered ruled out in the 450 patients (46.6%) with a negative ultrasound and CT scan and a low-to-intermediate clinical probability. The 8 patients with a negative ultrasound and CT scan despite a high clinical probability proceeded to pulmonary angiography (positive: 2; negative: 6). Helical CT was inconclusive in 11 patients (pulmonary embolism: 4; no pulmonary embolism: 7). The overall prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 23%. Patients classified as not having pulmonary embolism were not anticoagulated during follow-up and had a 3-month thromboembolic risk of 1.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.5% to 2.1%). CONCLUSION: A noninvasive diagnostic strategy combining clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, ultrasonography, and helical CT yielded a diagnosis in 99% of outpatients suspected of pulmonary embolism, and appeared to be safe, provided that CT was combined with ultrasonography to rule out the disease.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Device-specific weighted T-score for two quantitative ultrasounds: operational propositions for the management of osteoporosis for 65 years and older women in Switzerland.

The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of osteoporosis are mainly applicable for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at the spine and hip levels. There is a growing demand for cheaper devices, free of ionizing radiation such as promising quantitative ultrasound (QUS). In common with many other countries, QUS measurements are increasingly used in Switzerland without adequate clinical guidelines. The T-score approach developed for DXA cannot be applied to QUS, although well-conducted prospective studies have shown that ultrasound could be a valuable predictor of fracture risk. As a consequence, an expert committee named the Swiss Quality Assurance Project (SQAP, for which the main mission is the establishment of quality assurance procedures for DXA and QUS in Switzerland) was mandated by the Swiss Association Against Osteoporosis (ASCO) in 2000 to propose operational clinical recommendations for the use of QUS in the management of osteoporosis for two QUS devices sold in Switzerland. Device-specific weighted "T-score" based on the risk of osteoporotic hip fractures as well as on the prediction of DXA osteoporosis at the hip, according to the WHO definition of osteoporosis, were calculated for the Achilles (Lunar, General Electric, Madison, Wis.) and Sahara (Hologic, Waltham, Mass.) ultrasound devices. Several studies (totaling a few thousand subjects) were used to calculate age-adjusted odd ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for the prediction of osteoporotic fracture (taking into account a weighting score depending on the design of the study involved in the calculation). The ORs were 2.4 (1.9-3.2) and AUC 0.72 (0.66-0.77), respectively, for the Achilles, and 2.3 (1.7-3.1) and 0.75 (0.68-0.82), respectively, for the Sahara device. To translate risk estimates into thresholds for clinical application, 90% sensitivity was used to define low fracture and low osteoporosis risk, and a specificity of 80% was used to define subjects as being at high risk of fracture or having osteoporosis at the hip. From the combination of the fracture model with the hip DXA osteoporotic model, we found a T-score threshold of -1.2 and -2.5 for the stiffness (Achilles) determining, respectively, the low- and high-risk subjects. Similarly, we found a T-score at -1.0 and -2.2 for the QUI index (Sahara). Then a screening strategy combining QUS, DXA, and clinical factors for the identification of women needing treatment was proposed. The application of this approach will help to minimize the inappropriate use of QUS from which the whole field currently suffers.

Guidelines for the clinical management of atrial fibrillation: a practical perspective.

Since the management of atrial fibrillation may be difficult in the individual patient, our purpose was to develop simple clinical recommendations to help the general internist manage this common clinical problem. Systematic review of the literature with evaluation of data-related evidence and framing of graded recommendations. Atrial fibrillation affects some 1% of the population in Western countries and is linked to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. The management of atrial fibrillation requires individualised evaluation of the risks and benefits of therapeutic modalities, relying whenever possible on simple and validated tools. The two main points requiring a decision in clinical management are 1) whether or not to implement thromboembolic prevention therapy, and 2) whether preference should be given to a "rate control" or "rhythm control" strategy. Thromboembolic prophylaxis should be prescribed after individualised risk assessment: for patients at risk, oral anticoagulation with warfarin decreases the rate of embolic complications by 60% and aspirin by 20%, at the expense of an increased incidence of haemorrhagic complications. "Rate control" and "rhythm control" strategies are probably equivalent, and the choice should also be made on an individualised basis. To assist the physician in making his choices for the care of an atrial fibrillation patient we propose specific tables and algorithms, with graded recommendations. On the evidence of data from the literature we propose simple algorithms and tables for the clinical management of atrial fibrillation in the individual patient.