Evaluating the impact of a standardised intervention for announcing decisions of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments on the stress of relatives in emergency departments (DISCUSS): protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The decisions of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments are difficult to make in the context of emergency departments (EDs) because most patients are unable to communicate. Relatives are thus asked to participate in the decision-making process, although they are unprepared to face such situations. We therefore aimed to develop a standardised intervention for announcing decisions of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in EDs and assess the efficacy of the intervention on the stress of relatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DISCUSS trial is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised study and will be conducted at nine EDs in France. A standardised intervention based on human simulation will be codesigned with partner families and implemented at three levels: the relatives, the healthcare professionals (HCP) and the EDs. The intervention will be compared with a control based on treatment as usual. A total of 538 families are planned to be included: 269 in the intervention group and 269 in the control group. The primary endpoint will be the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days. The secondary endpoints will be symptoms of PTSD at 7 and 30 days, diagnosis of PTSD at 90 days and anxiety and depression scores at 7, 30 and 90 days. Satisfaction regarding the training, the assertiveness in communication and real-life stress of HCPs will be measured at 90 days. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the ethics committee Est III from Nancy and the French national data protection authority. All relatives and HCPs will be informed regarding the study objectives and data confidentiality. Written informed consent will be obtained from participants, as required by French law for this study type. The results from this study will be disseminated at conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06071078.

Oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: guidelines from the SRLF-SFMU consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: Although largely used, the place of oxygen therapy and its devices in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) deserves to be clarified. The French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, SRLF) and the French Emergency Medicine Society (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence, SFMU) organized a consensus conference on oxygen therapy in ARF (excluding acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive diseases) in December 2023. METHODS: A committee without any conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject defined 7 generic questions and drew up a list of sub questions according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) model. An independent work group reviewed the literature using predefined keywords. The quality of the data was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Fifteen experts in the field from both societies proposed their own answers in a public session and answered questions from the jury (a panel of 16 critical-care and emergency medicine physicians, nurses and physiotherapists without any CoI) and the public. The jury then met alone for 48 h to write its recommendations. RESULTS: The jury provided 22 statements answering 11 questions: in patients with ARF (1) What are the criteria for initiating oxygen therapy? (2) What are the targets of oxygen saturation? (3) What is the role of blood gas analysis? (4) When should an arterial catheter be inserted? (5) Should standard oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) be preferred? (6) What are the indications for non-invasive ventilation (NIV)? (7) What are the indications for invasive mechanical ventilation? (8) Should awake prone position be used? (9) What is the role of physiotherapy? (10) Which criteria necessarily lead to ICU admission? (11) Which oxygenation device should be preferred for patients for whom a do-not-intubate decision has been made? CONCLUSION: These recommendations should optimize the use of oxygen during ARF.

Safety of treating acute pulmonary embolism at home: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Home treatment is considered safe in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients selected by a validated triage tool (e.g. simplified PE severity index score or Hestia rule), but there is uncertainty regarding the applicability in underrepresented subgroups. The aim was to evaluate the safety of home treatment by performing an individual patient-level data meta-analysis. METHODS: Ten prospective cohort studies or randomized controlled trials were identified in a systematic search, totalling 2694 PE patients treated at home (discharged within 24 h) and identified by a predefined triage tool. The 14- and 30-day incidences of all-cause mortality and adverse events (combined endpoint of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and/or all-cause mortality) were evaluated. The relative risk (RR) for 14- and 30-day mortalities and adverse events is calculated in subgroups using a random effects model. RESULTS: The 14- and 30-day mortalities were 0.11% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0-0.24, I2 = 0) and 0.30% (95% CI 0.09-0.51, I2 = 0). The 14- and 30-day incidences of adverse events were 0.56% (95% CI 0.28-0.84, I2 = 0) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.79-1.6, I2 = 0). Cancer was associated with increased 30-day mortality [RR 4.9; 95% prediction interval (PI) 2.7-9.1; I2 = 0]. Pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (N-terminal pro-)B-type natriuretic peptide [(NT-pro)BNP] at presentation were associated with an increased incidence of 14-day adverse events [RR 3.5 (95% PI 1.5-7.9, I2 = 0), 2.5 (95% PI 1.3-4.9, I2 = 0), and 3.9 (95% PI 1.6-9.8, I2 = 0), respectively], but not mortality. At 30 days, cancer, abnormal troponin, and abnormal (NT-pro)BNP were associated with an increased incidence of adverse events [RR 2.7 (95% PI 1.4-5.2, I2 = 0), 2.9 (95% PI 1.5-5.7, I2 = 0), and 3.3 (95% PI 1.6-7.1, I2 = 0), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of adverse events in home-treated PE patients, selected by a validated triage tool, was very low. Patients with cancer had a three- to five-fold higher incidence of adverse events and death. Patients with increased troponin or (NT-pro)BNP had a three-fold higher risk of adverse events, driven by recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Effect of the 1-h bundle on mortality in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency department: a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of the 1-h bundle for emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis, which includes lactate measurement, blood culture, broad-spectrum antibiotics administration, administration of 30 mL/kg crystalloid fluid for hypotension or lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, remains controversial. METHODS: We carried out a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in 23 EDs in France and Spain. Adult patients with Sepsis-3 criteria or a quick sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 or a lactate > 2 mmol/L were eligible. The intervention was the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality truncated at 28 days. Secondary outcomes included volume of fluid resuscitation at 24 h, acute heart failure at 24 h, SOFA score at 72 h, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, number of days on mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, vasopressor free days, unnecessary antibiotic administration, and mortality at 28 days. 1148 patients were planned to be analysed; the study period ended after 873 patients were included. RESULTS: 872 patients (mean age 66, 42% female) were analyzed: 387 (44.4%) in the intervention group and 485 (55.6%) in the control group. Median SOFA score was 3 [1-5]. Median time to antibiotic administration was 40 min in the intervention group vs 113 min in the control group (difference - 73 [95% confidence interval (CI) - 93 to - 53]). There was a significantly higher rate, volume, and shorter time to fluid resuscitation within 3 h in the intervention group. There were 47 (12.1%) in-hospital deaths in the intervention group compared to 61 (12.6%) in the control group (difference in percentage - 0.4 [95% CI - 5.1 to 4.2], adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.81 [95% CI 0.48 to 1.39]). There were no differences between groups for other secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suspected sepsis in the ED, the implementation of the 1-h sepsis bundle was not associated with significant difference in in-hospital mortality. However, this study may be underpowered to report a statistically significant difference between groups.

Nurses' moral judgements during emergency department triage - A prospective mixed multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: In EDs, triage ensures that patients whose condition requires immediate care are prioritized while reducing overcrowding. Previous studies have described the manifestation of caregivers' moral judgements of patients in EDs. The equal treatment of patients in clinical practice presents a major issue. Studying the impact of prejudice on clinical practice in the ED setting provides an opportunity to rethink clinical tools, organizations and future training needs. Our study sought to describe the moral judgements expressed by triage nurses during admission interviews in emergency departments and to assess their impact on patient management. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-method study was performed. The study was conducted between January 1, 2018, and February 18, 2018, in the EDs of three French hospitals. Five hundred and three patients and 79 triage nurses participated in the study. Audio recordings, observations and written handover reports made by nurses during admission triage interviews were analyzed with a view to discerning whether moral judgements were expressed in them. We studied the impact of moral judgements on patient management in the emergency department. RESULTS: Abstract Moral judgements were made in 70% of the triage situations studied (n=351/503). They could be classified in seven categories. Patients were more likely to be subjected to moral judgements if they were over 75 years old, visibly disabled or if they had visible signs of alcohol intoxication. Being subjected to moral judgement was associated with differential treatment, including assignment of a triage score that differed from the theoretical triage score. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients admitted to EDs were triaged using moral criteria. Patients who were morally judged at the admission interview were more likely to be treated differently.

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacteria in nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled studies have compared numerous antibiotic regimens, including new, recently commercialized antibiotics in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and the safety of different antibiotic treatments for NP. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases from 2000 through 2021. The study selection included studies comparing antibiotics targeting Gram-negative bacilli in the setting of NP. The primary endpoint was 28 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen studies encompassing 4993 patients were included in this analysis comparing 13 antibiotic regimens. The level of evidence for mortality comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference in 28 day mortality was found among all beta-lactam regimens. Only the combination of meropenem plus aerosolized colistin was associated with a significant decrease of mortality compared to using intravenous colistin alone (OR = 0.43; 95% credible interval [0.17-0.94]), based on the results of the smallest trial included. The clinical failure rate of ceftazidime was higher than meropenem with (OR = 1.97; 95% CrI [1.19-3.45]) or without aerosolized colistin (OR = 1.40; 95% CrI [1.00-2.01]), imipemen/cilastatin/relebactam (OR = 1.74; 95% CrI [1.03-2.90]) and ceftazidime/avibactam (OR = 1.48; 95% CrI [1.02-2.20]). For microbiological cure, no substantial difference between regimens was found, but ceftolozane/tazobactam had the highest probability of being superior to comparators. In safety analyses, there was no significant difference between treatments for the occurrence of adverse events, but acute kidney failure was more common in patients receiving intravenous colistin. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis suggests that most antibiotic regimens, including new combinations and cefiderocol, have similar efficacy and safety in treating susceptible Gram-negative bacilli in NP. Further studies are necessary for NP caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. Registration PROSPERO CRD42021226603.

Overcrowding in the Dispatching Centre During the COVID-19 Crisis: Are Medical Students a Resource?

INTRODUCTION: In February, the emergence of COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID - 19) in France made it necessary to rapidly adapt emergency and SAMU services in order to take care of many infected patients. To respond to the increase in the number of calls in the dispatch centers, reinforcements were necessary on the fronts of the Medical Regulation Assistants (ARM). The aim of this study was to assess the relevance of medical students' responses to first calls exclusively concerning COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, observational cohort study was carried out at the University Hospital Centre (CHU) in Angers. Twenty medical students mostly in the 5th year were voluntarily enrolled in the first line COVID-19 call taker team. Calls on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th starting day for each medical student, and randomly selected calls from the experienced first-line call taker were listened to by a medical expert to assess the adequate level of prioritization and orientation (emergency physician or general practitioner). The percentage of agreement between the expert, students, and experienced first-line call handlers were assessed. All participants gave their free consent to participate. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Angers (N° 2020-48). RESULTS: From March 18 to April 23, 2020, 302 calls from medical students (n = 20 students) and 40 calls from experienced first-line call handlers were analyzed. The average prioritization agreement rate between the expert and students was 76.16% (95% Confidence Interval: 71.04 to 80.62%) (n = 230/302) compared to 87.50% (95% CI: 73.9 to 94.5%) (n = 45/50) for the experienced first-line call handlers (P = 0.15). Medical students took more time per call with an absolute difference of 2 minutes 16 seconds (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The lessons to be observed from this COVID-19 crisis are that in the early days of increasing calls heralding a strain on the healthcare system, support by medical students must be considered.

Targeted prophylactic anticoagulation based on the TRiP(cast) score in patients with lower limb immobilisation: a multicentre, stepped wedge, randomised implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic anticoagulation in emergency department patients with lower limb trauma requiring immobilisation is controversial. The Thrombosis Risk Prediction for Patients with Cast Immobilisation-TRiP(cast)-score could identify a large subgroup of patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism for whom prophylactic anticoagulation can be safely withheld. We aimed to prospectively assess the safety of withholding anticoagulation for patients with lower limb trauma at low risk of venous thromboembolism, defined by a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7. METHODS: CASTING was a stepped-wedge, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial with blinded outcome assessment. 15 emergency departments in France and Belgium were selected and randomly assigned staggered start dates for switching from the control phase (ie, anticoagulation prescription according to the physician's usual practice) to the intervention phase (ie, targeted anticoagulation according to TRiP(cast) score: no prescription if score <7 and anticoagulation if score was ≥7). Patients were included if they presented to a participating emergency department with lower limb trauma requiring immobilisation for at least 7 days and were aged 18 years or older. The primary outcome was the 3-month cumulative rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism during the intervention phase in patients with a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7. The targeted strategy was considered safe if this rate was less than 1% with an upper 95% CI of less than 2%. The primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04064489). FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2020, and Sept 15, 2021, 15 clusters and 2120 patients were included. Of the 1505 patients analysed in the intervention phase, 1159 (77·0%) had a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7 and did not receive anticoagulant treatment. The symptomatic venous thromboembolism rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·3-1·4, n=8/1159). There was no difference between the control and the intervention phases in the cumulative rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism or in bleeding rates. INTERPRETATION: Patients with a TRiP(cast) score of less than 7 who are not receiving anticoagulation have a very low risk of venous thromboembolism. A large proportion of patients with lower limb trauma and immobilisation could safely avoid thromboprophylaxis. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Derivation and validation of a risk-stratification model for patients with probable or proven COVID-19 in EDs: the revised HOME-CoV score.

BACKGROUND: The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission. METHODS: A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.

A clinical decision rule to rule out bloodstream infection in the emergency department: retrospective multicentric observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify patients at low risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in the ED. METHODS: We derived and validated a prediction model to rule out BSI in the ED without the need for laboratory testing by determining variables associated with a positive blood culture (BC) and assigned points according to regression coefficients. This retrospective study included adult patients suspected of having BSI (defined by at least one BC collection) from two European ED between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019. The primary end point was the BSI rate in the validation cohort for patients with a negative Bacteremia Rule Out Criteria (BAROC) score. The effect of adding laboratory variables to the model was evaluated as a second step in a two-step diagnostic strategy. RESULTS: We analysed 2580 patients with a mean age of 64 years±21, of whom 46.1% were women. The derived BAROC score comprises 12 categorical clinical variables. In the validation cohort, it safely ruled out BSI without BCs in 9% (58/648) of patients with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 95% to 100%), a specificity of 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%) and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 94% to 100%). Adding laboratory variables (creatinine ≥177 µmol/L (2.0 mg/dL), platelet count ≤150 000/mm3 and neutrophil count ≥12 000/mm3) to the model, ruled out BSI in 10.2% (58/570) of remaining patients who had been positive on the BAROC score. The BAROC score with laboratory results had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 94% to 100%), specificity of 11% (95% CI 9% to 14%) and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 94 to 100%). In the validation cohort, there was no evidence of a difference in discrimination between the area under the receiver operating characteristic for BAROC score with versus without laboratory testing (p=0.6). CONCLUSION: The BAROC score safely identified patients at low risk of BSI and may reduce BC collection in the ED without the need for laboratory testing.

Comparison of chest compression quality between the overlapping hands and interlocking hands techniques: A randomised cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: Performing quality chest compressions is fundamental to the management of cardiopulmonary arrest. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two hand positions: overlapping versus interlocking for performing chest compressions during cardiopulmonary arrest. METHODS: The HP2C (for Hands Position and Chest Compression) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, cross-over, single-centre study. Participants were recruited from the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) teams and the prehospital firefighter teams. They were randomised to start chest compressions either with overlapping or interlocking hands and then performed the other technique after a washout period. The judgement criteria were the overall chest compressions success score generated by software in accordance with ILCOR recommendations, the quality of compression, release, rate and subjective intensity measured with the Borg scale. RESULTS: A total of 100 participants were included in the study. The mean age of the caregivers was 38 ± 9.3 years. The median CPR score was 79.5% IQR [48.5-94.0] in the overlapping hands group and 71% IQR [38.0-92.8] in the interlocking hands group (p-value = 0.37). There was no significant difference for the other criteria, especially no difference in term of intensity of effort. However, there was a trend towards better results with overlapping hands. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a difference in effectiveness between overlapping and interlocking hand chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Temporal Trends in the Use of Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department : A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, validated clinical decision rules have been developed that avoid unnecessary use of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: To measure any resulting change in CTPA use for suspected PE. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: 26 European EDs in 6 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with CTPA performed for suspected PE in the ED during the first 7 days of each odd month between January 2015 and December 2019. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end points were the CTPAs done for suspected PE in the ED and the number of PEs diagnosed in the ED each year adjusted to an annual census of 100 000 ED visits. Temporal trends were estimated using generalized linear mixed regression models. RESULTS: 8970 CTPAs were included (median age, 63 years; 56% female). Statistically significant temporal trends for more frequent use of CTPA (836 per 100 000 ED visits in 2015 vs. 1112 in 2019; P < 0.001), more diagnosed PEs (138 per 100 000 in 2015 vs. 164 in 2019; P = 0.028), a higher proportion of low-risk PEs (annual percent change [APC], 13.8% [95% CI, 2.6% to 30.1%]) with more ambulatory management (APC, 19.3% [CI, 4.1% to 45.1%]), and a lower proportion of intensive care unit admissions (APC, -8.9% [CI, -17.1% to -0.3%]) were observed. LIMITATION: Data were limited to 7 days every 2 months. CONCLUSION: Despite the recent validation of clinical decision rules to limit the use of CTPA, an increase in the CTPA rate along with more diagnosed PEs and especially low-risk PEs were instead observed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None specific for this study.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for risk stratification of non-critical suspected COVID-19 patients on admission (POCUSCO): A prospective binational study.

BACKGROUND: Lung point-of-care ultrasonography (L-POCUS) is highly effective in detecting pulmonary peripheral patterns and may allow early identification of patients who are likely to develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours of non-critical patients with suspected COVID-19 would identify those with a high-risk of worsening. METHODS: POCUSCO was a prospective, multicenter study. Non-critical adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included and had L-POCUS performed within 48 hours following ED presentation. The lung damage severity was assessed using a previously developed score reflecting both the extension and the intensity of lung damage. The primary outcome was the rate of patients requiring intubation or who died within 14 days following inclusion. RESULTS: Among 296 patients, 8 (2.7%) met the primary outcome. The area under the curve (AUC) of L-POCUS was 0.80 [95%CI:0.60-0.94]. The score values which achieved a sensibility >95% in defining low-risk patients and a specificity >95% in defining high-risk patients were <1 and ≥16, respectively. The rate of patients with an unfavorable outcome was 0/95 (0%[95%CI:0-3.9]) for low-risk patients (score = 0), 4/184 (2.17%[95%CI:0.8-5.5]) for intermediate-risk patients (score 1-15) and 4/17 (23.5%[95%CI:11.4-42.4]) for high-risk patients (score ≥16). In confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 58), the AUC of L-POCUS was 0.97 [95%CI:0.92-1.00]. CONCLUSION: L-POCUS performed within the first 48 hours following ED presentation allows risk-stratification of patients with non-severe COVID-19.

How to Combat Over-Testing for Patients Suspected of Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review.

The diagnosis of PE remains difficult in 2023 because the signs and symptoms are not sensible nor specific. The consequences of potential diagnostic errors can be dramatic, whether by default or by excess. Furthermore, the achievement of a simple diagnostic strategy, based on clinical probability assessment, D-dimer measurement and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) leads to a new challenge for PE diagnosis: over-testing. Indeed, since the 2000s, the wide availability of CTPA resulted in a major increase in investigations with a mod I confirm erate increase in PE diagnosis, without any notable improvement in patient outcomes. Quite the contrary, the complications of anticoagulation for PE increased significantly, and the long-term consequences of imaging diagnostic radiation is an important concern, especially the risk of breast cancer for young women. As a result, several strategies have been proposed to fight over-testing. They are mostly based on defining a subgroup of patients for whom no specific exam should be required to rule-out PE and adjusting the D-dimer cutoff to allow the exclusion of PE without performing CTPA. This narrative review presents the advantages and limitations of these different strategies as well as the perspective in PE diagnosis.