Pulmonary EmbolismNCT04049370
Examination of the Standardized Use of the Pulmonary Embolism SOP in the Clinical Routine of the Emergency Department.
An observational study of Pulmonary Embolism, run by Heidelberg University.
Trial summary
Usage of a guideline-compliant SOP in each chest pain unit (CPU) is instrumental in establishing the diagnosis of a pulmonary embolism without time delay. With the integration of this SOP as a "clinical decision tool" (CDT) into the electronic database of the CPU, the standardized application of the pulmonary embolism… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pulmonary Embolism
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2019to 31 Jan 2020
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population comprises all patients presenting in the CPU with signs and symptoms of a pulmonary embolism (no preselection of patients).
Who may be able to join
- Patients over the age of 18 with suspected pulmonary embolism in the CPU (with or without D-dimer determination)
Who cannot join
- Patients in whom the determination of the D-dimer concentration was made for other reasons, such as venous thrombosis or aortic syndrome
- Patients who have been suspected to have a pulmonary embolism already before presenting in the CPU
- Patients with confirmed diagnosis or already measured D-dimers
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: Examination of the Standardized Use of the Pulmonary Embolism SOP in the Clinical Routine of the Emergency Department in Respect of the QEST Criteria (Quality, Efficacy, Safety and Transparency).
Usage of a guideline-compliant SOP in each chest pain unit (CPU) is instrumental in establishing the diagnosis of a pulmonary embolism without time delay. With the integration of this SOP as a "clinical decision tool" (CDT) into the electronic database of the CPU, the standardized application of the pulmonary embolism SOP in the clinical routine of the CPU will be tested using a retro- and prospective approach.
Read the detailed description
Summary:
The increasing number of patients in the emergency departments in recent years extends the time until diagnosis and treatment initiation and thus represents a serious problem in patient care and for the treating physician. This also includes patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), which is one of the most common differential diagnoses of patients presenting with unclear dyspnea, chest pain or other symptoms in the emergency department. Due to the potentially serious clinical outcome with a high overall mortality rate of > 10%, rapid diagnosis and initiation of therapy is essential.
The current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the diagnosis and treatment of acute PE recommend a stringent diagnostic algorithm that includes clinical parameters as well as risk scores for estimating the pretest probability. Depending of their results the further diagnostic pathway by D-Dimer testing and / or CT angiography is chosen.
The aim of the present study is to examine the standardized application of guideline recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The diagnostic procedures were defined for the CPU of the University Hospital Heidelberg in a standard operating procedure (SOP). In the planned retrospective study, the implementation of this SOP will be examined on the basis of the QEST criteria (quality, efficacy, safety and transparency). Data for the "actual condition" are collected retrospectively for 6 months prior to August 2019, thereafter for another 6 months after implementation of the quality assurance measure.
Introduction and fundamental principles:
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a prevalence of 1.22-1.83 persons per 100,000 population, is the third most common cardiovascular disease and represents a serious disease with a 30-day mortality from potential right ventricular dysfunction with cardiogenic shock estimated at 16%. Approximately 65% of all deaths occur within the first hours after admission. The prognosis of pulmonary embolism is highly variable and depends in particular on the severity of the hemodynamic impairment as well as on concomitant morbidities.
Due to multiple and sometimes non-specific symptoms, the diagnosis of PE poses a clinical challenge and requires much clinical experience in order not to overlook the diagnosis. Clinical scores (Well's Score, Geneva Score, modified Geneva Score) and the overall clinical impression (gestalt) are used to estimate the pretest probability. The current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism recommend a stringent diagnostic algorithm which includes clinical parameters and the above-mentioned risk scores for the assessment of the pretest probability and on the basis of them further diagnostic steps by D-dimer measurement and / or CT angiography. With a low pretest probability, a pulmonary embolism can be excluded with a probability of nearly 100%. On the other hand, if there is a high pretest probability, no D-dimer determination should be made, as even a negative result will not be able to exclude the diagnosis with certainty. The procedure for a mean pretest probability depends on the D-dimer test used. Determination of D-dimers should only be undertaken if an analytically sensitive D-dimer test is present, which is ideally authorized for the purpose of diagnostic exclusion. The central laboratory of the University Hospital of Heidelberg uses the Siemens Liason D-Dimer test, which is considered one of the most sensitive tests. From the diagnostic procedure, a sequential pathway is recommended in which first the pre-test probability and then - depending on the estimate - the D-dimer determination follows. If pulmonary embolism cannot be ruled out, further diagnostic imaging should be provided. CT angiography with a multi-slice device (> 16-slices) is considered the diagnostic gold standard.
However, the guideline-compliant algorithm for the diagnosis of PE has so far only been investigated in a few prospective, randomized studies.
The aim of the present study is to test the standardized use of the pulmonary embolism SOP in the clinical routine of the CPU compared to the "actual state". Currently, the attending physician has unrestricted access to the determination of the D-dimer concentration, and the diagnostic process continues to be carried out at clinical discretion. These two approaches are to be tested and compared with regard to the QEST criteria (quality, efficacy, safety and transparency).
- Conditions
- Pulmonary Embolism
- Being tested
- No intervention
- Keywords
- pulmonary embolism, clinical decision tool, standard operating procedure
- Medical subject headings
- Pulmonary Embolism
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
No interventionOther
Assessment of the "actual state" prior to implementation of the SOP as clinical decision tool into the electronic database of the chest pain unit.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Retrospective data collection of the "actual state" | Retrospective data collection of the "actual state" 6 months prior to August 2019. Receives: Other: No intervention | |
| Prospective data collection | Prospective data collection after implementation of the quality assurance measure for another 6 months (SOP as clinical decision tool into the electronic database of the CPU). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Guideline adherence
- Percent guideline adherence or violation of guideline recommendations (quality)
Measured: 6 months
Appropriateness of CT imaging
- Ratio of diagnostic CT: total CT
Measured: 6 months
Missed pulmonary embolism
- Number of indicated but not performed CT examinations
- Number of unnecessary CT at low pretest probability
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
Appropriate biomarker utilization
- Ratio of effective D-dimers: total D-dimers at low pretest probability
Measured: 6 months
Inappropriate biomarker utilization
- Number of unnecessary D-dimers at high pretest probability
Measured: 6 months
efficacy of CT imaging
- Number of unnecessary CT at low pretest probability
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Aug 2019
- Study start1 Aug 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Jan 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Jan 2020 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Pulmonary EmbolismStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Heidelberg University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Evangelos Giannitsis, Heidelberg University
- Investigators
- Evangelos Giannitsis, Prof., Principal investigator, Principal Investigator
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04049370
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SOP_PE_Giannitsis
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 29 Jul 2019
- Last updated
- 8 Aug 2019
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Aug 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Examination of the Standardized Use of the Pulmonary Embolism SOP in the Clinical Routine of the Emergency Department in Respect of the QEST Criteria (Quality, Efficacy, Safety and Transparency).
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04049370
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SOP_PE_Giannitsis
- Conditions
- Pulmonary Embolism
- Keywords
- pulmonary embolism, clinical decision tool, standard operating procedure
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Heidelberg UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jan 2020 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2020 (estimated)
- First posted
- 8 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Usage of a guideline-compliant SOP in each chest pain unit (CPU) is instrumental in establishing the diagnosis of a pulmonary embolism without time delay. With the integration of this SOP as a "clinical decision tool" (CDT) into the electronic database of the CPU, the standardized application of the pulmonary embolism SOP in the clinical routine of the CPU will be tested using a retro- and prospective approach.
Detailed description
Summary:
The increasing number of patients in the emergency departments in recent years extends the time until diagnosis and treatment initiation and thus represents a serious problem in patient care and for the treating physician. This also includes patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), which is one of the most common differential diagnoses of patients presenting with unclear dyspnea, chest pain or other symptoms in the emergency department. Due to the potentially serious clinical outcome with a high overall mortality rate of > 10%, rapid diagnosis and initiation of therapy is essential.
The current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the diagnosis and treatment of acute PE recommend a stringent diagnostic algorithm that includes clinical parameters as well as risk scores for estimating the pretest probability. Depending of their results the further diagnostic pathway by D-Dimer testing and / or CT angiography is chosen.
The aim of the present study is to examine the standardized application of guideline recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The diagnostic procedures were defined for the CPU of the University Hospital Heidelberg in a standard operating procedure (SOP). In the planned retrospective study, the implementation of this SOP will be examined on the basis of the QEST criteria (quality, efficacy, safety and transparency). Data for the "actual condition" are collected retrospectively for 6 months prior to August 2019, thereafter for another 6 months after implementation of the quality assurance measure.
Introduction and fundamental principles:
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a prevalence of 1.22-1.83 persons per 100,000 population, is the third most common cardiovascular disease and represents a serious disease with a 30-day mortality from potential right ventricular dysfunction with cardiogenic shock estimated at 16%. Approximately 65% of all deaths occur within the first hours after admission. The prognosis of pulmonary embolism is highly variable and depends in particular on the severity of the hemodynamic impairment as well as on concomitant morbidities.
Due to multiple and sometimes non-specific symptoms, the diagnosis of PE poses a clinical challenge and requires much clinical experience in order not to overlook the diagnosis. Clinical scores (Well's Score, Geneva Score, modified Geneva Score) and the overall clinical impression (gestalt) are used to estimate the pretest probability. The current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism recommend a stringent diagnostic algorithm which includes clinical parameters and the above-mentioned risk scores for the assessment of the pretest probability and on the basis of them further diagnostic steps by D-dimer measurement and / or CT angiography. With a low pretest probability, a pulmonary embolism can be excluded with a probability of nearly 100%. On the other hand, if there is a high pretest probability, no D-dimer determination should be made, as even a negative result will not be able to exclude the diagnosis with certainty. The procedure for a mean pretest probability depends on the D-dimer test used. Determination of D-dimers should only be undertaken if an analytically sensitive D-dimer test is present, which is ideally authorized for the purpose of diagnostic exclusion. The central laboratory of the University Hospital of Heidelberg uses the Siemens Liason D-Dimer test, which is considered one of the most sensitive tests. From the diagnostic procedure, a sequential pathway is recommended in which first the pre-test probability and then - depending on the estimate - the D-dimer determination follows. If pulmonary embolism cannot be ruled out, further diagnostic imaging should be provided. CT angiography with a multi-slice device (> 16-slices) is considered the diagnostic gold standard.
However, the guideline-compliant algorithm for the diagnosis of PE has so far only been investigated in a few prospective, randomized studies.
The aim of the present study is to test the standardized use of the pulmonary embolism SOP in the clinical routine of the CPU compared to the "actual state". Currently, the attending physician has unrestricted access to the determination of the D-dimer concentration, and the diagnostic process continues to be carried out at clinical discretion. These two approaches are to be tested and compared with regard to the QEST criteria (quality, efficacy, safety and transparency).
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Other
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Retrospective data collection of the "actual state" | – | Other: No interventionRetrospective data collection of the "actual state" 6 months prior to August 2019. |
| Prospective data collection | – | –Prospective data collection after implementation of the quality assurance measure for another 6 months (SOP as clinical decision tool into the electronic database of the CPU). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population comprises all patients presenting in the CPU with signs and symptoms of a pulmonary embolism (no preselection of patients).
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients over the age of 18 with suspected pulmonary embolism in the CPU (with or without D-dimer determination)
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients in whom the determination of the D-dimer concentration was made for other reasons, such as venous thrombosis or aortic syndrome
- Patients who have been suspected to have a pulmonary embolism already before presenting in the CPU
- Patients with confirmed diagnosis or already measured D-dimers
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| No interventionAssessment of the "actual state" prior to implementation of the SOP as clinical decision tool into the electronic database of the chest pain unit. | Other | Retrospective data collection of the "actual state" |
Primary outcome
Guideline adherence
Time frame: 6 months
• Percent guideline adherence or violation of guideline recommendations (quality)
Appropriateness of CT imaging
Time frame: 6 months
• Ratio of diagnostic CT: total CT
Missed pulmonary embolism
Time frame: 6 months
* Number of indicated but not performed CT examinations * Number of unnecessary CT at low pretest probability
3 secondary outcomes
Appropriate biomarker utilization
Time frame: 6 months
Inappropriate biomarker utilization
Time frame: 6 months
efficacy of CT imaging
Time frame: 6 months
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Aug 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Pulmonary Embolism
RecruitingObservational study
Study of the Long-Term Safety and Outcomes of Treating Pulmonary Embolism With the Indigo Aspiration System
Pulmonary Embolism
Not yet recruiting
Pilot Study Evaluating Catheter Directed Thrombolysis Device in Acute Intermediate Risk Pulmonary Embolism
Pulmonary Embolism (PE), Pulmonary Embolism With Right Ventricle Enlargement
RecruitingObservational study
Inari VISION Registry
Pulmonary Embolism
RecruitingPhase 3
Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Adult Participants With Solid and Hematologic Cancers
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)
RecruitingPhase 3
REGN7508 in Adult Participants for Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis
Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (CAT)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Evangelos Giannitsis, Prof. principal investigator
Principal Investigator
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Pulmonary Embolism, run by Heidelberg University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Aug 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Vitali Koch, Dr. (0049 6221-56 8676, Vitali.Koch@med.uni-heidelberg.de), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Guideline adherence (time frame: 6 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Aug 2019.