Search

Aims To evaluate whether integrated care for atrial fibrillation (AF) can be safely orchestrated in primary care. Methods and results The ALL-IN trial was a cluster randomized, open-label, pragmatic non-inferiority trial performed in primary care practices in the Netherlands. We randomized 26 practices: 15 to the integrated care intervention and 11 to usual care. The integrated care intervention consisted of (i) quarterly AF check-ups by trained nurses in primary care, also focusing on possibly interfering comorbidities, (ii) monitoring of anticoagulation therapy in primary care, and finally (iii) easy-access availability of consultations from cardiologists and anticoagulation clinics. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during 2 years of follow-up. In the intervention arm, 527 out of 941 eligible AF patients aged ≥65 years provided informed consent to undergo the intervention. These 527 patients were compared with 713 AF patients in the control arm receiving usual care. Median age was 77 (interquartile range 72–83) years. The all-cause mortality rate was 3.5 per 100 patient-years in the intervention arm vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years in the control arm [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.82]. For non-cardiovascular mortality, the adjusted HR was 0.47 (95% CI 0.27–0.82). For other adverse events, no statistically significant differences were observed. Conclusion In this cluster randomized trial, integrated care for elderly AF patients in primary care showed a 45% reduction in all-cause mortality when compared with usual care.

Inleiding Op afdelingen Spoedeisende Hulp wordt de diagnose ‘longembolie’ regelmatig later dan gewenst vastgesteld of zelfs helemaal gemist. Hoe vaak deze diagnostische vertraging zich voordoet in de huisartsenpraktijk is slecht bekend. Wij onderzochten dit en keken ook welke determinanten met deze vertraging samenhangen. Methode In dit retrospectieve observationele onderzoek bekeken we in zes Nederlandse huisartsenpraktijken alle elektronische patiëntendossiers waarin een longembolie werd gerapporteerd (ICPC-code K93). Van elk dossier noteerden wij het aantal dagen tussen het eerste contact vanwege klachten die kunnen passen bij een longembolie en de uiteindelijke diagnose, de aanwezigheid van specifieke symptomen en eventuele comorbiditeit. Met behulp van logistische regressieanalyse gingen we na welke determinanten geassocieerd waren met een eventuele diagnostische vertraging. Resultaten We includeerden 128 patiënten met een bewezen longembolie. Bij 33 van hen (26%) lagen er meer dan zeven dagen tussen het eerste relevante contact en de diagnose. Factoren die samenhingen met deze diagnostische vertraging waren: leeftijd ouder dan 75 jaar (OR 5,1; 95%-BI 1,8 tot 14,1; p = 0,002) en thoracale klachten zoals pijn op de borst of pijn bij de ademhaling (OR 5,4; 95%-BI 1,9 tot 15,2; p = 0,002). Patiënten bij wie diagnostische vertraging optrad, hadden significant vaker een luchtweginfectie doorgemaakt in de voorafgaande drie maanden (13 vs. 33%; p = 0,008). Conclusie Diagnostische vertraging tussen de eerste klachtenpresentatie en de diagnose ‘longembolie’ komt frequent voor in de huisartsenpraktijk, vooral bij ouderen en wanneer thoracale klachten ontbreken.

Objective: Point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests have been developed to exclude deep venous thrombosis quickly and on the spot, but are known to have lower sensitivity compared with laboratory-based tests. Their cost-effectiveness is still unknown. Methods: We updated and extended a previously published Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of POC D-dimer tests (Simplify', Cardiac', Triage' and Nycocard') compared with a laboratory-based latex assay to diagnose deep venous thrombosis in primary care. Results: The Laboratory' strategy resulted in 6.986 quality-adjusted life years at the cost of Euro8354 per patient. All POC D-dimer tests resulted in health outcomes similar to the Laboratory' strategy. The Simplify' strategy maximized cost savings (-Euro155 [95% CI: -Euro246 to -Euro83]). Conclusions: POC D-dimer tests yield similar health outcomes as laboratory-based testing procedures but can be performed more easily and at lower costs. Therefore, these tests are an alternative to laboratory-based testing and might be considered for exclusion of deep venous thrombosis in primary care.

Geersing G-J, Zuithoff P, Kearon C, Anderson D, Ten Cate-Hoek A, Elf J, et al. Uitsluiten van DVT met een klinische beslisregel. Huisarts Wet 2014;57(12):626-8. Huisartsen zien geregeld patienten die mogelijk een trombosebeen hebben. De symptomen van een trombosebeen zijn vaak weinig specifiek. Een groot deel van de patienten bij wie de huisarts aan trombose denkt heeft geen trombosebeen. Om die reden zijn er beslisregels ontwikkeld, die in combinatie met een D-dimeertest, bij een groot deel van de patienten een trombose kunnen uitsluiten. De veiligheid van deze strategie is bewezen voor de meeste patienten, maar er blijft onduidelijkheid bestaan over de veiligheid ervan in bijzondere patientengroepen. Daarom hebben we individuele patientengegevens uit 13 onderzoeken (n = 10.002) gecombineerd en de veiligheid van een beslisregel (in dit geval de Wells-beslisregel) en een D-dimeertest onderzocht om een trombosebeen uit te sluiten bij bijzondere patientengroepen. Ons onderzoek laat zien dat de huisarts bij de meeste patienten veilig en efficient een trombosebeen kan uitsluiten: in 29% van de gevallen (95%-BI 20 tot 40) scoort de patient laag op de beslisregel en is de D-dimeertest ook negatief; de kans op trombose is dan nog slechts 1,2% (95%-BI 0,7 tot 1,8). Bij patienten bij wie tijdens een oncologische behandeling het vermoeden bestaat dat ze een trombosebeen hebben komt deze combinatie van een lage score op de beslisregel en een negatieve D-dimeertest slechts voor in 9% van de gevallen. Ook is de kans op trombose in die groep bijna twee keer zo groot (2,2%). Voor patienten die eerder een trombose hebben doorgemaakt en bij wie sprake kan zijn van een recidief moet een punt worden opgeteld op de Wells-beslisregel om veilig een trombosebeen te kunnen uitsluiten. De huisarts kan met een beslisregel en een D-dimeertest veilig een trombosebeen uitsluiten. Alleen is extra aandacht nodig bij oncologische patienten met een verdenking op een trombosebeen en bij patienten die eerder een trombosebeen hebben doorgemaakt. De Wells-beslisregel is in die gevallen respectievelijk minder efficient en minder veilig.

Background Clinical decision rules can aid in referral decisions for ultrasonography in patients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but physicians are not always convinced of their usefulness and rely on their own judgement. Aim To compare the performance of a clinical decision rule with the probability of DVT presence as estimated by GPs. Design of study Cross-sectional survey. Setting Primary care practices in The Netherlands. Method GPs ( n = 300) estimated the probability of the presence of DVT (range 0–100%) and calculated the score for the clinical decision rule in 1028 consecutive patients with suspected DVT. The clinical decision rule uses a threshold of three points and so, for the GP estimates, thresholds were introduced at 10% and 20%. If scores were below these estimates, it was not considered necessary to refer patients for further examination. Differences between the clinical decision rule and the GP estimates were calculated; this is discrimination ( c -statistic) and classification of patients. Results Data of 1002 patients were eligible for analysis. DVT was observed in 136 (14%) patients. Both the clinical decision rule and GP estimates had good discriminative power ( c -statistic of 0.80 and 0.82 respectively). Fewer patients were referred when using the clinical decision rule compared with a referral decision based on GP estimates: 51% versus 79% and 65% (thresholds at 10% and 20% respectively). Both strategies missed a similar and low proportion of patients who did have DVT (range 1.4–2.0%). Conclusion In patients suspected of DVT both GP estimates and a clinical decision rule can safely discriminate in patients with and without DVT. However, fewer patients are referred for ultrasonography when GPs rely on a clinical decision rule to guide their decision making.

Buller HR, Ten Cate-Hoek AJ, Hoes AW, Joore MA, Moons KGM, Oudega R, Prins MH, Stoffers HEJH, Toll DB, Van der Velde E-F, Van Weert HCPM. De huisarts kan zelf diepe veneuze trombose veilig uitsluiten. Huisarts Wet 2009;52(10):497-502. Achtergrond Tot 90% van de patienten die de huisarts instuurt voor compressie-echografie onder verdenking van diepe veneuze trombose (DVT) blijkt die aandoening niet te hebben. In het AMUSE-1-onderzoek (Amsterdam-Maastricht-Utrecht Study on thrombo-Embolism) is onderzocht of een eenvoudige klinische beslisregel in combinatie met een D-dimeertest in staat is om een trombosebeen al in de eerste lijn op veilige en efficiente wijze uit te sluiten. Methode Driehonderd huisartsen deden mee aan het onderzoek. Patienten bij wie de beslisregel op een lage klinische verdenking wees, stuurden zij niet in voor echografie en behandelden zij niet met antistolling. Patienten die positief scoorden op de beslisregel verwezen zij voor compressie-echografie. Alle patienten volgden wij drie maanden lang om eventuele trombo-embolische complicaties te kunnen vaststellen. Resultaten Uiteindelijk leverde de beslisregel bij 1002 patienten een geldige score op. Bij 500 patienten wees de beslisregel op een lage klinische verdenking (score ≤ 3). Zeven van hen (1,4%, 95%-BI 0,6-2,9%) kregen een trombo-embolische complicatie tijdens de drie maanden follow-up. De overige 502 patienten hadden een score ≥ 4 en werden verwezen voor echografie. Het echogram wees bij 125 (25%) patienten op een DVT. Van de 374 patienten met een normale echo kregen er 4 (1,1%, 95% BI 0,3-2,7%) een trombo-embolische complicatie tijdens de follow-upperiode. Bij 3 patienten werd geen echo verricht. Discussie Ons onderzoek bevestigt dat de diagnostische strategie die de NHG-Standaard Diepe veneuze trombose aanbeveelt, in de dagelijkse praktijk verantwoord is. Een werkwijze waarbij de huisarts een eenvoudige beslisregel combineert met een D-dimeertest is veilig om DVT uit te sluiten in de eigen praktijk of bij de patient thuis. Met deze strategie kan de helft van de verwijzingen voor compressie-echografie worden voorkomen.

In primary care, the physician has to decide which patients with a suspicion of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have to be referred for further diagnostic work-up. Accurate referral is of utmost importance because unrecognized and therefore untreated DVT may cause pulmonary embolism. The classic clinical findings are not sufficiently accurate for the diagnosis of DVT. The majority of the referred patients, 70 to 80%, do not have DVT and this puts a burden on both patients and health care budgets. Diagnosis in primary care is different from that in secondary care caused by the referral mechanism or spectrum difference. Diagnostic tests derived in secondary care, therefore, cannot simply be generalized to primary-care patients. The well-known diagnostic rule for DVT, the Wells rule, does not adequately rule out DVT in primary-care patients. A proper diagnostic rule for use in primary care is lacking; therefore, we investigated the data of 1,295 patients in primary care suspected of having DVT. We developed and validated a simple diagnostic decision rule to exclude the presence of DVT safely in primary care. Independent diagnostic indicators of the presence of DVT were male gender, oral contraceptive use, presence of malignancy, recent surgery, absence of leg trauma, vein distension, calf circumference difference, and D-dimer test result. Application of this rule could reduce the number of referrals by at least 23%, whereas only 0.7% of the patients with a DVT would not be referred. A diagnosis strategy is given, together with a practical flow diagram.

1. Vanwege de kans op een longembolie is snelle diagnostiek naar diepe veneuze trombose noodzakelijk.

Up to 90% of patients referred for ultrasonography with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the leg do not have the disease.To evaluate the safety and efficiency of using a clinical decision rule that includes a point-of-care d-dimer assay at initial presentation in primary care to exclude DVT.A prospective management study.Approximately 300 primary care practices in 3 regions of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht).1028 consecutive patients with clinically suspected DVT.Patients were managed on the basis of the result of the clinical decision rule, which included a d-dimer result. Patients with a score of 3 or less were not referred for ultrasonography and received no anticoagulant treatment; patients with a score of 4 or more were referred for ultrasonography.The primary outcome was symptomatic, objectively confirmed, venous thromboembolism during 3-month follow-up.The mean age of the 1028 study patients was 58 years, and 37% of patients were men. A valid score was obtained in 1002 patients (98%). In 500 patients (49%), with a score of 3 or less, 7 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (incidence, 1.4% [95% CI, 0.6% to 2.9%]). A total of 502 patients (49%) had a score of 4 or more; 3 did not have ultrasonography. Ultrasonography showed DVT in 125 patients (25%), for an overall prevalence in evaluable patients of 13% (125 of 1002). Of the 374 patients who had normal ultrasonography results, 4 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (1.1% [CI, 0.3% to 2.7%]).The study lacked a randomized design and relied on clinical follow-up to detect missed thrombotic disease.A diagnostic management strategy in primary care by using a simple clinical decision rule and a point-of-care d-dimer assay reduces the need for referral to secondary care of patients with clinically suspected DVT by almost 50% and is associated with a low risk for subsequent venous thromboembolic events.The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

Properly ruling in or out deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is important because of the risk of developing pulmonary embolism if untreated and the risk of bleeding when treated with anticoagulants. In primary care, the diagnosis in suspected DVT is non-specific and the physician has to decide which patients to refer for further diagnostic work-up on the basis of patient history and physical examination alone.To quantify which (combination of) items from patient history and physical examination contribute to the diagnosis of DVT in primary care.A cross-sectional study design was chosen and the setting was all primary care physicians adherent to three local hospitals. 1325 consecutive patients consulting their primary care physician with symptoms suggestive of DVT were included.We studied 1325 patients with suspected DVT. The prevalence of thrombosis (assessed by means of compression ultrasonography) in these patients was 29%. Multivariate regression analysis of 17 candidate predictors resulted in nine independent predictors of DVT: male gender, duration of symptoms, malignancy, immobilization, leg trauma, pain when walking, oedema, calf circumference and dilated veins. The predictive value of the combination of the nine independent variables was low, reflected in the ROC area (as a combination of the sensitivity and specificity) of this model of 0.68. The low discriminative value was also exhibited in the numbers of DVT in the different risk categories. For example, in the low-risk group, the probability of DVT was still 15%. The diagnostic performance of patient history and physical examination was similar (and thus poor) in all clinically relevant subgroups.Patient history and physical examination in patients suspected of DVT are of limited value for the primary care setting to identify patients with a low or high probability of DVT and thus in the decision to refer for further diagnostic work-up.

Using data from secondary care outpatients, Wells and colleagues developed a diagnostic rule to estimate the probability of the presence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The accuracy of the Wells rule has not been properly validated for use in primary care patients in whom DVT is suspected.To validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Wells rule, with and without D-dimer testing, in a primary care setting.Cross-sectional study with prospective data collection from 1 January 2002 to 1 March 2003.110 primary care practices in a circumscribed geographic region in The Netherlands.1295 consecutive patients who consulted their primary care physician about symptoms suggestive of DVT.All patients underwent history-taking and physical examination to calculate the Wells rule score, and D-dimer testing. Repeated leg ultrasonography was the reference standard to determine the true presence or absence of DVT.In the primary care setting, 12.0% of patients in the low-risk group had DVT; the original study by Wells and colleagues reported a rate of 3% among such patients. When combined with negative results on a D-dimer test, the Wells rule yielded a prevalence of DVT of 2.9% in the lowest-risk group, whereas the prevalence was 0.9% in the original study.Patients with previous DVT were included, and the diagnostic reference standard was different from that used in Wells and colleagues' original study.The Wells rule, alone or in combination with D-dimer testing, does not guarantee accurate estimation of risk in primary care patients in whom DVT is suspected.