Strategies for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Departments
|First Received Date ICMJE||September 12, 2005|
|Last Updated Date||February 4, 2009|
|Start Date ICMJE||June 2005|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||rate of agreement between the diagnostic criteria applied in daily practice and those validated in the scientific literature|
|Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE
||rate of agreement between the strategies applied in daily pratice and those validated in the scientific literature|
|Change History||Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00188032 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site|
|Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE
|Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE||Not Provided|
|Brief Title ICMJE||Strategies for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Departments|
|Official Title ICMJE||Strategies for Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Departments - SPEED Study|
Aims: 1) To evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions aimed at improving the management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: Written guidelines and Computer-Assisted Decision Support (CADS). 2) To evaluate the impact of electronic reminders on the appropriateness of the treatment of patients with suspected PE
Design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster randomised controlled study.
Setting: 20 French Emergency Departments
Patients: Out patients suspected of having pulmonary embolism
Methods: Emergency physicians will prospectively complete a standardized electronic form on Personal Data Assistant (PDA), including patients' characteristics, the clinical probability if assessed, the diagnostic tests performed, the treatments initiated and the final diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Patients will be interviewed at the end of a 3-month follow-up period using a standardized questionnaire.
The reference rate of appropriateness of the diagnostic management before intervention will be assessed in each centre. At the end of this preliminary period, the centres will be randomized in two fold two groups according to a factorial design with stratification on their reference level of appropriateness. Half of the centres will have written guidelines and half a Computer-Assisted Decision Support for the diagnosis of PE on the PDA. In each of these two main groups, half of the centres will have electronic reminders on their PDA concerning the treatment of PE.
Main : Rate of strategies considered as validated according to the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis.3
Secondary judgment criteria (diagnosis):
Secondary judgment criteria (treatment):
Number of patients: By estimating that the rate of appropriateness would be 55% in the "written guidelines" group, 1331 patients are necessary to highlight an absolute superiority of 15% in the "CADS" group (rate of conformity of 70%).
The number of patients will be adjusted at the end of the preliminary period according to the level of appropriateness before interventions considering that it will improve less than 5% in the "written guidelines" group.
Background: The management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) represents an important medical and economic issue. In French Emergency Departments, more than 100 000 suspicions of PE are dealt with per year. In a previous work, we found that the routine diagnostic practice differs to a large extent from international guidelines and that excluding PE on the basis of inappropriate criteria exposes patients to a six-fold increased risk of venous thromboembolism during 3-months follow-up.1 Passive interventions to improve quality are generally ineffective but Computer-Assisted Decision Support and reminders appear as promising.2
At the end of the preliminary period, we will perform for all the investigators, an interactive oral presentation of the strategies considered as validated on the basis of a systematic review and meta-analysis.3 A strategy end up to exclude PE is considered as validated if the probability of PE is below 5% and a strategy end up to confirm PE is considered as validated if the probability of PE is upper than 85%. The strategies that do not achieve these criteria but considered as acceptable by international advisors will be presented too as well as the recommendations for the treatment of PE.4 In the group "written guidelines", emergency physicians will be provided with cards presenting the list of the validated and acceptable strategies as well as the Geneva diagnostic algorithm.5 The algorithm will be mention as a way to follow appropriate diagnostic criteria.
In the "CADS" group, the recommendations will be integrated into the electronic form allowing calculation of the pre-test probability according to revised Geneva Score 6, calculation of the post-test probabilities according to the likelihood ratios of the tests 3 and contextualized reminders as which test perform or when stop investigations.
In the groups "treatment help", reminders concerning the treatment (indications and contraindications, dosage) will be integrated into the electronic form on the PDA.
|Study Type ICMJE||Interventional|
|Study Phase||Not Provided|
|Study Design ICMJE||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
|Study Arm (s)||Not Provided|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
|Recruitment Status ICMJE||Completed|
|Estimated Enrollment ICMJE||1331|
|Completion Date||September 2006|
|Primary Completion Date||Not Provided|
|Eligibility Criteria ICMJE||
|Ages||Child, Adult, Senior|
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers||No|
|Contacts ICMJE||Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects|
|Listed Location Countries ICMJE||France|
|Removed Location Countries|
|NCT Number ICMJE||NCT00188032|
|Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE||PHRC-04-01|
|Has Data Monitoring Committee||Not Provided|
|Plan to Share Data||Not Provided|
|IPD Description||Not Provided|
|Responsible Party||Not Provided|
|Study Sponsor ICMJE||University Hospital, Angers|
|Collaborators ICMJE||Ministry of Health, France|
|Information Provided By||University Hospital, Angers|
|Verification Date||February 2009|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP