Duplex ultrasound in the emergency department for the diagnostic management of clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy and safety of an emergency duplex ultrasound (EDUS) evaluation performed by emergency physicians in the emergency department. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients suspected of having their first episode of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) presenting to the emergency department were included in the study. All examinations were performed by emergency physicians trained with a 30-hour ultrasound course. Based on EDUS findings, patients were classified into one of three groups: normal, abnormal, and uncertain. Patients with abnormal and uncertain findings were initially treated as having a DVT. Patients with normal EDUS findings were discharged from the emergency department without anticoagulant therapy. A formal duplex ultrasound evaluation was repeated by a radiologist in all patients within 24-48 hours. Patients with normal findings on duplex ultrasound evaluation were followed up for symptomatic venous thromboembolism for up to one month. RESULTS: A total of 399 patients were studied. The EDUS findings were normal in 301 (75%), abnormal in 90 (23%), and uncertain in eight (2%). All abnormal test results were confirmed by the formal duplex ultrasound evaluation, and three patients (0.8%) with uncertain findings on EDUS examination were subsequently diagnosed as having a distal DVT (positive predictive value, 95% [95% confidence interval, 92% to 95%]; negative predictive value, 100% [95% confidence interval = 99% to 100%]). No patients with normal findings on EDUS examination died or experienced venous thromboembolism at the one-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EDUS examination yielded a high negative predictive value and good positive predictive value, allowing rapid discharge and avoiding improper anticoagulant treatment.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary chest pain unit for the assessment of coronary syndromes and risk stratification in the Florence area.

BACKGROUND: In patients seen at the emergency department (ED) with chest pain (CP), noninvasive diagnostic strategies may differentiate patients at high or intermediate risk from those at low-risk for cardiovascular events and optimize the use of high-cost resources. However, in welfare healthcare systems, the feasibility, accuracy, and potential benefits of such management strategy need further investigation. METHODS: A total of 13,762 consecutive patients with CP were screened, and their conditions were defined as high, intermediate, and low risk for short-term cardiovascular events. Patients at high and intermediate risk were admitted. Patients at low risk were discharged from the ED if first line (<6 hours, including electrocardiogram, troponins, and serum cardiac markers) or second line short-term evaluation (<24 hours, including echocardiogram, rest or stress 99m-Tc myocardial scintigraphy, exercise tolerance test, or stress-echocardiography) had negative results. Patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) were admitted. Patients without evidence of cardiovascular disease underwent screening for psychiatric and gastroesophageal disorders. Inhospital mortality rate was assessed in all patients. RESULTS: Among patients at high and intermediate risk (n = 9335), 2420 patients had acute myocardial infarction (26%, 10.6% mortality rate), 3764 had unstable angina (40%, 1.1% mortality rate), 129 had aortic dissection (1.4%, 23.3% mortality rate), and 408 had pulmonary embolism (4%, 27.6% mortality rate). The remaining 2614 had chronic coronary heart disease in the context of multiple pathology (n = 2256) or pleural or pericardial diseases (n = 358). Among patients at low risk (n = 4427), 2672 were discharged at <6 hours (60%, 0.2% incidence rate of nonfatal CAD at 6 months) and 870 patients were discharged at <24 hours (20%, no CAD at follow-up). The remaining 885 patients were recognized as having CAD (20%, 1.1% inhospital mortality rate). Finally, half of the patients without CAD had active gastroesophageal or anxiety disorders. CONCLUSION: An effective screening program with an observation area inside the ED (1) could be implemented in a public healthcare environment and contribute significantly to the reduction of admissions, (2) could optimize the management of patients at high and intermediate risk and succeed in recognizing CAD in 20% of patients at low risk, and (3) could allow screening for alternative causes of CP in patients without evidence of CAD.