Overview and assessment of risk factors for pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism is one of the most common undiagnosed conditions affecting hospitalized patients. There are a plethora of risk factors for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary emboli. These factors are grouped under the broad triad of hypercoagulability, stasis and injury to provide a framework for understanding. Important risk factors include inherited thrombophilia, age, malignancy and estrogens. These risk factors are reviewed in detail and several risk assessment models are reviewed. These risk assessment models help identify those at risk for disease and therefore candidates for thromboprophylaxis. Diagnosis can be difficult and is aided by clinical decision rules that incorporate clinical scores that define the likelihood of pulmonary embolism. These are important considerations, not only for diagnostic purposes, but also to minimize excessive use of imaging, which increases exposure to and risks associated with radiation. A healthy index of suspicion is often the key to diagnosis.

A review on state-of-the-art data regarding safe early discharge following admission for pulmonary embolism: what do we know?

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remain hospitalized during initial therapy, some may be suitable for partial or complete outpatient management, which may have a significant impact on healthcare costs.

HYPOTHESIS

This article reviews the state-of-the-art data regarding recognition of very-low-risk PE patients who are potentially eligible for outpatient treatment, along with the safety, management, and cost-effectiveness of this strategy. We propose an algorithm based on collected data that may be useful/practical for identifying patients truly eligible for early discharge.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of scientific data collected from the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases. Studies selected based on potential scientific interest. Qualitative information extracted regarding feasibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness of outpatient treatment, postdischarge management, and selection of truly low-risk patients.

RESULTS

Early discharge of low-risk patients seems feasible, safe, and particularly cost-effective. Several risk scores have been developed and/or tested as prediction tools for the recognition of low-risk individuals: the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI, Hestia criteria, Geneva score, the Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Decision rule, and the Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events, among others. PESI is the most well-validated model, offering the safest approach at the current time, especially when combined with additional parameters such as troponin I, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic markers of right-ventricular dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of truly low-risk patients entitled to early hospital discharge and outpatient treatment is possible with current risk-stratification schemes along with selected prognostic parameters, and it may have a colossal impact on healthcare costs.

Prognostic value of the Geneva prediction rule in patients with pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Assessment of pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and prognostic stratification are two widely recommended steps in the management of patients with suspected PE. Some items of the Geneva prediction rule may have a prognostic value. We analyzed whether the initial probability assessed by the Geneva rule was associated with the outcome of patients with PE.

METHODS

In a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter trial including 1,693 patients with suspected PE, the all-cause death or readmission rates during the 3-month follow-up of patients with confirmed PE were analyzed. PE probability group was prospectively assessed by the revised Geneva score (RGS). Similar analyses were made with the a posteriori-calculated simplified Geneva score (SGS).

RESULTS

PE was confirmed in 357 patients and 21 (5.9%) died during the 3-month follow-up. The mortality rate differed significantly with the initial RGS group, as with the SGS group. For the RGS, the mortality increased from 0% (95% Confidence Interval: [0-5.4%]) in the low-probability group to 14.3% (95% CI: [6.3-28.2%]) in the high-probability group, and for the SGS, from 0% (95% CI: [0-5.4%] to 17.9% (95% CI: [7.4-36%]). Readmission occurred in 58 out of the 352 patients with complete information on readmission (16.5%). No significant change of readmission rate was found among the RGS or SGS groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Returning to the initial PE probability evaluation may help clinicians predict 3-month mortality in patients with confirmed PE. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00117169).

How I diagnose acute pulmonary embolism

The clinical diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently considered in patients presenting to the emergency department or when hospitalized. Since symptoms are a-specific and the consequences of anticoagulant treatment are considerable, objective tests to either establish or refute the diagnosis have become a standard of care. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), which has replaced pulmonary angiography as first-line imaging test, is associated with radiation exposure, several complications resulting from contrast dye administration, and over diagnosis. Importantly, CTPA can be avoided in 20% to 30% of patients who present with a first or recurrent episode of clinically suspected acute PE by using a standardized algorithm. This algorithm should always include a clinical decision rule to assess the likelihood that PE is present, followed by a D-dimer blood test and/or CTPA. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians this practical diagnostic management approach using evidence from the literature.

Diagnostic management of acute deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

Acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) represent two expressions of a similar clinical pathological process, often referred to as venous thromboembolism (VTE). It has long been recognized that, as clinical signs and symptoms of PE and DVT are not specific for the diagnosis, objective diagnosis in both patients presenting with leg symptoms and those with chest symptoms is mandatory. Since the last review on this subject in this journal in 2009, several large trials have been performed that shed new light on all aspects of the diagnostic management of suspected VTE, especially in the field of simplified clinical decision rules, age-dependent D-dimer cut-offs and magnetic resonance imaging. A literature search covering the period 2007-2012 was performed using the Medline/PubMed database to identify all relevant papers regarding the diagnostic management of acute PE and DVT. Established concepts and the latest evidence on this subject will be the main focus of this review.

Comparison of the unstructured clinician gestalt, the wells score, and the revised Geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The assessment of clinical probability (as low, moderate, or high) with clinical decision rules has become a cornerstone of diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, but little is known about the use of physician gestalt assessment of clinical probability. We evaluate the performance of gestalt assessment for diagnosing pulmonary embolism.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of consecutive suspected pulmonary embolism patients in emergency departments. Accuracy of gestalt assessment was compared with the Wells score and the revised Geneva score by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves. Agreement between the 3 methods was determined by κ test.

RESULTS

The study population was 1,038 patients, with a pulmonary embolism prevalence of 31.3%. AUC differed significantly between the 3 methods and was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 0.84) for gestalt assessment, 0.71 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.75) for Wells, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.70) for the revised Geneva score. The proportion of patients categorized as having low clinical probability was statistically higher with gestalt than with revised Geneva score (43% versus 26%; 95% CI for the difference of 17%=13% to 21%). Proportion of patients categorized as having high clinical probability was higher with gestalt than with Wells (24% versus 7%; 95% CI for the difference of 17%=14% to 20%) or revised Geneva score (24% versus 10%; 95% CI for the difference of 15%=13% to 21%). Pulmonary embolism prevalence was significantly lower with gestalt versus clinical decision rules in low clinical probability (7.6% for gestalt versus 13.0% for revised Geneva score and 12.6% for Wells score) and non-high clinical probability groups (18.3% for gestalt versus 29.3% for Wells and 27.4% for revised Geneva score) and was significantly higher with gestalt versus Wells score in high clinical probability groups (72.1% versus 58.1%). Agreement between the 3 methods was poor, with all κ values below 0.3.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective study, gestalt assessment seems to perform better than clinical decision rules because of better selection of patients with low and high clinical probability.

Acute cardiac disorder or pneumonia and concomitant presence of pulmonary embolism

Purpose

To determine the frequency of apparent acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and of concomitant disease in computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); to compare the frequency of PE in patients with pneumonia or acute cardiac disorder (acute coronary syndrome, tachyarrhythmia, acute left ventricular heart failure or cardiogenic shock), with the frequency of PE in patients with none of these alternative chest pathologies (comparison group).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of all patients who received a CTPA at the emergency department (ED) within a period of four years and 5 months.

Results

Of 1275 patients with CTPA, 28 (2.2%) had PE and concomitant radiologic evidence of another chest disease; 3 more (0.2%) had PE and an acute cardiac disorder without radiological evidence of heart failure. PE was found in 11 of 113 patients (10%) with pneumonia, in 5 of 154 patients (3.3%) with an acute cardiac disorder and in 186 of 1008 patients (18%) in the comparison group. After adjustment for risk factors for thromboembolism and for other relevant patient’s characteristics, the proportion of CTPAs with evidence of PE in patients with an acute cardiac disorder or pneumonia was significantly lower than in the comparison group (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05–0.33, p<0.001 for patients with an acute cardiac disorder, and OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.89, p = 0.021 for patients with pneumonia).

Conclusion

The frequency of PE and a concomitant disease that can mimic PE was low. The presence of an acute cardiac disorder or pneumonia was associated with decreased odds of PE.

Care of patients with acute pulmonary emboli: a clinical review with cardiovascular focus

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common, multidisciplinary disease with substantial associated morbidity, mortality and healthcare expense. In this article we present a succinct review of diagnostic tools, risk stratification and medical therapies for cardiovascular care of patients with acute PE. While pulmonary angiography remains the 'gold standard' for diagnosis, a host of diagnostic modalities, interpreted in the setting of clinical probability, are available for patient assessment, including ECG, chest radiography, D-dimer, lower-extremity venous ultrasound, ventilation-perfusion scans, computed tomography and magnetic resonance angiography, and echocardiography, each with associated value. Diagnostic algorithms incorporate multiple tools in order to obtain a more comprehensive evaluation. Therapeutic anticoagulation remains the mainstay of therapy in PE. In massive PE, utilization of thrombolysis is reasonable in the absence of contraindications. Submassive PE, characterized by right ventricular dysfunction as assessed by echocardiography and ECG, is associated with higher mortality. Use of thrombolysis in submassive PE remains controversial. Catheter-directed therapies are emerging as an added approach to acute PE and have the potential to improve outcomes in PE. Use of inferior vena cava filters should be pursued in a select patient population as they serve to reduce recurrent acute PE; however, they are associated with more frequent deep venous thrombosis and provide no mortality benefit. In risk-stratified hemodynamically stable patients, an outpatient management strategy inclusive of therapeutic anticoagulation and careful clinical follow-up may be appropriate.

Pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging medical diseases in the emergency department. PE is a potentially life threatening diagnosis that is seen in patients with chest pain and/or dyspnea but can span the clinical spectrum of medical presentations. In addition, it does not have any particular clinical feature, laboratory test, or diagnostic modality that can independently and confidently exclude its possibility. This article offers a review of PE in the emergency department. It emphasizes the appropriate determination of pretest probability, the approach to diagnosis and management, and special considerations related to pregnancy and radiation exposure.

Ordering CT pulmonary angiography to exclude pulmonary embolism: defense versus evidence in the emergency room

PURPOSE

To identify reasons for ordering computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), to identify the frequency of reasons for CTPA reflecting defensive behavior and evidence-based behavior, and to identify the impact of defensive medicine and of training about diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) on positive results of CTPA.

METHODS

Physicians in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital completed a questionnaire before CTPA after being trained about diagnosing PE and completing questionnaires.

RESULTS

Nine hundred patients received a CTPA during 3 years. For 328 CTPAs performed during the 1-year study period, 140 (43 %) questionnaires were completed. The most frequent reasons for ordering a CTPA were to confirm/rule out PE (93 %), elevated D-dimers (66 %), fear of missing PE (55 %), and Wells/simplified revised Geneva score (53 %). A positive answer for "fear of missing PE" was inversely associated with positive CTPA (OR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.14-0.92, p = 0.033), and "Wells/simplified revised Geneva score" was associated with positive CTPA (OR 3.28, 95 % CI 1.24-8.68, p = 0.017). The proportion of positive CTPA was higher if a questionnaire was completed, compared to the 2-year comparison period (26.4 vs. 14.5 %, OR 2.12, 95 % CI 1.36-3.29, p < 0.001). The proportion of positive CTPA was non-significantly higher during the study period than during the comparison period (19.2 vs. 14.5 %, OR 1.40, 95 % CI 0.98-2.0, p = 0.067).

CONCLUSION

Reasons for CTPA reflecting defensive behavior-such as "fear of missing PE"-were frequent, and were associated with a decreased odds of positive CTPA. Defensive behavior might be modifiable by training in using guidelines.

Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute pulmonary embolism

Over the past two decades, considerable progress in technology and clinical research methods have led to advances in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of acute venous thromboembolism. Despite this, however, the diagnosis is still often missed and preventive methods are often ignored. Published guidelines are useful, but are limited by the existing evidence base so that controversies remain with regard to topics such as duration of anticoagulation, indications for placement and removal of inferior vena caval filters, and when and how to administer thrombolytic therapy. The morbidity and mortality of this disease remain high, particularly when undiagnosed. While preventive approaches remain crucial, the focus of this review is on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to acute venous thromboembolism, with an emphasis on acute pulmonary embolism.

Delay in diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism in emergency department: is it still a problem?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and serious disease that can result in death unless emergent diagnosis is made and treatment is initiated. In this study, we aimed to identify whether there is still a delay in the diagnosis of PE and to identify the time to delay in diagnosis and factors leading to this delay.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study performed in an emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care university hospital between September 2008 and September 2010. The rate and cause of delay in diagnosis were analyzed among patients with PE. The "delay" was defined as diagnosing after first 24 hours of symptom onset.

RESULTS

Among the 53 patients who were diagnosed with PE, a delay in diagnosis was present in 49 (93%) of them. Total delay time was 6.8 ± 7.7 days. In 33 (62%) patients, there was a delay of 4.6 ± 6.5 days due to patient-related factors. Delay in diagnosis after admission to hospital was 2.2 ± 2.9 days in 40 (75%) patients. In multivariate regression analysis, being female and having chest pain and cough were identified as significant factors causing patient-related delay. Unilateral leg edema, recent operation, and previous venous thromboembolism (VTE) history were the significant factors causing PE diagnosis without a delay. On the other hand, systemic hypertension as comorbidity was the only factor leading to physician-related delay.

CONCLUSION

The delay in diagnosis of PE in EDs still remains as an important problem. While being female and having chest pain and cough are significantly and independently associated with patient delay in diagnosis, the unilateral leg edema, recent operation, and previous VTE history cause physicians to diagnose on time. On the other hand, having hypertension as comorbidity may lead to physician delay. In order to prevent the delay in diagnosis, hospital-associated factors must be elucidated totally and more interventions must be made to increase public and professional awareness of the disease.

Massive pulmonary embolism: surgical embolectomy versus thrombolytic therapy--should surgical indications be revisited?

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of massive pulmonary embolism (PE) is a matter of debate. We present our institutional experience of patients suffering from massive PE with the aim of comparing the early results, the outcome and quality of life (QoL) between patients primarily assigned to either pulmonary surgical embolectomy (SE) or thrombolytic therapy (TL). A subgroup of patients (TS) with failed responses to TL requiring SE was separately analysed.

METHODS

All consecutive patients (January 2001-December 2007) with computed tomography (CT)-scan-confirmed massive bilateral central or paracentral PE were reviewed. All clinical data were retrieved from our patients' registry and completed by the evaluation of the CT-scan-derived right ventricle/left ventricle ratio (RV/LV ratio). Follow-up focused on clinical outcome and QoL was obtained.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were analysed including 28 SE (35%) and 52 TL (65%), of whom 11 (21%) required TS. Demographics and preoperative characteristics were similar between SE and TL. Analysis of the RV/LV ratio revealed a ratio of 1.66 for SE and 1.44 for TL. The early mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups (SE: 3.6% versus TL: 13.5%), whereas early mortality was 27% in those patients treated initially with thrombolysis and subsequently requiring SE (TS-group). Severe bleeding complications were lower in the SE-group (3.6% versus 26.5% P = 0.013). Intracerebral bleeding rates and neurological events were not statistically different. After a mean follow-up of 63 ± 21 months, the mortality rate was 17.9% in the SE-group and 23.1% in the TL-group.

CONCLUSIONS

SE is an excellent treatment option in massive PE with comparable early mortality rates and significantly less bleeding complications than TL. Patients having surgery after inefficient thrombolysis have the worst early outcome. The RV/LV CT-scan ratio might serve as a predictor to differentiate patients, who could profit from direct surgical intervention than thrombolytic treatment attempts. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

The combination of four different clinical decision rules and an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off increases the number of patients in whom acute pulmonary embolism can safely be excluded

Four clinical decision rules (CDRs) (Wells score, Revised Geneva Score (RGS), simplified Wells score and simplified RGS) safely exclude pulmonary embolism (PE), when combined with a normal D-dimer test. Recently, an age-adjusted cut-off of the D-dimer (patient's age x 10 μg/l) safely increased the number of patients above 50 years in whom PE could safely be excluded. We validated the age-adjusted D-dimer test and assessed its performance in combination with the four CDRs in patients with suspected PE. A total of 414 consecutive patients with suspected PE who were older than 50 years were included. The proportion of patients in whom PE could be excluded with an 'unlikely' clinical probability combined with a normal age-adjusted D-dimer test was calculated and compared with the proportion using the conventional D-dimer cut-off. We assessed venous thromboembolism (VTE) failure rates during three months follow-up. In patients above 50 years, a normal age-adjusted D-dimer level in combination with an 'unlikely' CDR substantially increased the number of patients in whom PE could be safely excluded: from 13-14% to 19-22% in all CDRs similarly. In patients over 70 years, the number of exclusions was nearly four-fold higher, and the original Wells score excluded most patients, with an increase from 6% to 21% combined with the conventional and age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off, respectively. The number of VTE failures was also comparable in all CDRs. In conclusion, irrespective of which CDR is used, the age-adjusted D-dimer substantially increases the number of patients above 50 years in whom PE can be safely excluded.

Venous thromboembolism: classification, risk factors, diagnosis, and management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is categorised as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). VTE is associated with high morbidity and causes a huge financial burden on patients, hospitals, and governments. Both acquired and hereditary risks factors contribute to VTE. To diagnose VTE, noninvasive cost-effective diagnostic algorithms including clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement may be employed followup by compression ultrasonography for suspected DVT patients and multidetector computed tomography angiography for suspected PE patients. There are pharmacological and mechanical interventions to manage and prevent VTE. The pharmacological approaches mainly target pathways in coagulation cascade nonspecifically: conventional anticoagulants or specifically: new generation of anticoagulants. Excess bleeding is one of the major risk factors for pharmacological interventions. Hence, nonpharmacological or mechanical approaches such as inferior vena cava filters, graduated compression stockings, and intermittent pneumatic compression devices in combination with pharmacological interventions or alone may be a good approach to manage VTE.

Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected pulmonary embolism

This clinical policy from the American College of Emergency Physicians is the revision of a 2003 clinical policy on the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).(1) A writing subcommittee reviewed the literature to derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following critical questions: (1) Do objective criteria provide improved risk stratification over gestalt clinical assessment in the evaluation of patients with possible PE? (2) What is the utility of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) in the evaluation of patients with suspected PE? (3)What is the role of quantitative D-dimer testing in the exclusion of PE? (4) What is the role of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram of the chest as the sole diagnostic test in the exclusion of PE? (5) What is the role of venous imaging in the evaluation of patients with suspected PE? (6) What are the indications for thrombolytic therapy in patients with PE? Evidence was graded and recommendations were given based on the strength of the available data in the medical literature.

[Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism]

Nowadays the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is based on a "diagnostic strategy" rather than a single test. The first step, after identifying patients with suspicion of PE, is to establish the pre-test clinical probability. Several scores are available to make a standardised and reproducible assessment of the clinical probability and these, therefore, represent valuable diagnostic tools. Indeed, it is the clinical probability that guides further investigation. In patients with low or intermediate clinical probability, PE can be safely ruled out by a negative D-dimer in approximately one-third of patients without additional imaging. In the case of a positive D-dimer or high clinical probability, CT pulmonary angiography is now the recommended imaging technique. However, lower limb venous compression ultrasound and ventilation/perfusion scans remain useful in patients with contraindications to CT; mainly those with renal insufficiency. In the presence of readily available and strongly validated diagnostic strategies, the challenge for the future will probably be better identification of patients in whom PE should be suspected.

Prognostic value of the Geneva prediction rule in patients in whom pulmonary embolism is ruled out

OBJECTIVES

The prognosis of patients in whom pulmonary embolism (PE) is suspected but ruled out is poorly understood. We evaluated whether the initial assessment of clinical probability of PE could help to predict the prognosis for these patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of data obtained during a prospective multicentre management study.

SETTING

Six general and teaching hospitals in Belgium, France and Switzerland.

SUBJECTS

In 1334 patients in whom PE was ruled out, 3-month mortality data were available (hospital readmission status was unknown for three patients) and clinical probability was evaluated with the revised Geneva score (RGS).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three-month mortality and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Three-month mortality and readmissions rates were 3% and 19%, respectively and differed significantly depending on the RGS-determined PE probability group (P<0.001). When compared with patients presenting with a low probability, the risk of death after 3 months was higher in cases of intermediate or high RGS-based probability {odds ratio: 8.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-28.5] and 22.6 (95%CI: 2.1-241.2), respectively}. The readmission risk increased with PE probability group (P<0.001). The main causes of death were cancer, respiratory failure and cardiovascular failure. In total, 86% of patients with low RGS-based probability were alive and had not been readmitted to hospital, whereas other patients had a twofold increased risk of death or readmission during the 3-month follow-up. The simplified Geneva score, calculated a posteriori, gave similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial assessment of clinical probability may help to stratify prognosis of patients in whom PE has been ruled out. Patients with a low probability of PE have a good prognosis. Whether patients with higher probability might benefit from more vigilant care should be evaluated.

Optimized retrieval of primary care clinical prediction rules from MEDLINE to establish a Web-based register

OBJECTIVES

Identifying clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for primary care from electronic databases is difficult. This study aims to identify a search filter to optimize retrieval of these to establish a register of CPRs for the Cochrane Primary Health Care field.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Thirty primary care journals were manually searched for CPRs. This was compared with electronic search filters using alternative methodologies: (1) textword searching; (2) proximity searching; (3) inclusion terms using specific phrases and truncation; (4) exclusion terms; and (5) combinations of methodologies.

RESULTS

We manually searched 6,344 articles, revealing 41 CPRs. Across the 45 search filters, sensitivities ranged from 12% to 98%, whereas specificities ranged from 43% to 100%. There was generally a trade-off between the sensitivity and specificity of each filter (i.e., the number of CPRs and total number of articles retrieved). Combining textword searching with the inclusion terms (using specific phrases) resulted in the highest sensitivity (98%) but lower specificity (59%) than other methods. The associated precision (2%) and accuracy (60%) were also low.

CONCLUSION

The novel use of combining textword searching with inclusion terms was considered the most appropriate for updating a register of primary care CPRs where sensitivity has to be optimized.

Update on techniques for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

The clinical suspicion of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently raised. However, the diagnosis of PE is confirmed in only 20 - 30% of these patients. The high incidence in addition to the potential harm from false-positive or false-negative diagnostic decisions underline the importance of a standardised diagnostic algorithm with high sensitivity as well as specificity.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This article reviews the diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of PE.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

This review provides an overview of the different clinical decision rules (CDRs), D-dimer tests and imaging techniques in patients suspected of PE. Furthermore, the diagnostic process in patients with clinically suspected recurrent PE, suspicion during pregnancy and new research areas are discussed.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Various diagnostic tests are available to detect or exclude PE with good accuracy. CDRs and D-dimer tests play an important role in the exclusion of PE. Neither is sufficient as a single test, but the combination of an 'unlikely' clinical prediction and a normal D-dimer test result safely excludes PE. In case of a high CDR score and/or an elevated D-dimer concentration, extra imaging is necessary with multi-slice computed tomography pulmonary angiography as first choice modality.

Comparison of the Wells score with the simplified revised Geneva score for assessing pretest probability of pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

The Wells score is widely used in the assessment of pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE). The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule that was recently validated and further simplified. We compared the predictive accuracy of these two scores.

METHODS

Data from 339 patients clinically suspected of PE from two prospective management studies were used and combined. Pretest probability of PE was assessed prospectively by the Wells score. The simplified revised (SR) Geneva score was calculated retrospectively. The predictive accuracy of both scores was compared by area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of PE was 19%. Prevalence of PE in the low, moderate and high pretest probability groups assessed by the Wells score and by the simplified revised Geneva score was respectively 2%(95% CI (CI) 1-6) and 4% (CI 2-10), 28% (CI 22-35) and 25% (CI 20-32), 93% (CI 70-99) and 56% (CI 27-81). The Wells score performed better than the simplified revised Geneva score in patients with a high suspicion of PE (p<0.05). The AUC for the Wells score and the simplified revised Geneva score was 0.85 (CI: 0.81 to 0.89) and 0.76 (CI: 0.71 to 0.80) respectively. The difference between the AUCs was statistically significant (p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In our population the Wells score appeared to be more accurate than the simplified revised Geneva score. The impact of this finding in terms of patient outcomes should be investigated in a prospective study.

Imaging evaluation of the pregnant patient with suspected pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism is the leading cause of maternal death in the developed world. The clinical diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is particularly challenging in pregnant patients as physiologic changes of pregnancy can mimic symptoms of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis. Clinical decision and imaging algorithms for venous thromboembolic disease have been proposed in the literature for the general population, but have not undergone wide-scale validation in pregnant patients. Laboratory evaluation of D-dimer levels has likewise been established as a viable screening method in the general population but remains controversial in pregnant patients. Regardless of whether D-dimer levels are used in this population, the clinician must often rely on imaging tests to confirm or exclude a clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism. Additional factors beyond test performance must be weighed during pregnancy: radiation exposure to the fetus and maternal breast tissue, the safety of intravenous contrast administration and the diagnostic accuracy of the various testing options so that diagnosis and proper management are not delayed. The epidemiology of pregnancy-related venous thromboembolic disease and the different diagnostic methods are reviewed, with emphasis on the pregnant patient. Finally, a diagnostic imaging algorithm is proposed for the evaluation of the pregnant patient when a clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism exists.

Pulmonary thromboembolic disease. Clinical management of acute and chronic disease

Pulmonary thromboembolism falls between the areas of pulmonology and cardiology, internal medicine and intensive care, radiology and nuclear medicine, and hematology and cardiothoracic surgery. Depending on their clinical background, physicians faced with a patient with a pulmonary thromboembolism may speak different languages and adopt different treatment approaches. Now, however, there is an opportunity to end the Tower of Babel surrounding pulmonary thromboembolism. There is a growing acknowledgement that the key clinical problems in both acute pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension are linked to right ventricular pressure overload and right ventricular failure. As a result, cardiologists and cardiac intensive care specialists are taking an increasing interest in understanding and combating these conditions. The European Society of Cardiology was the first to elaborate comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for pulmonary thromboembolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The task forces involved in producing these guidelines included radiologists, pulmonologists, hematologists, intensive care physicians and surgeons, which ensured that the final document was universally acceptable. The aim of this article was to provide an overview of the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and prevention of acute pulmonary thromboembolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, while taking into account European Society of Cardiology guidelines and incorporating new evidence where necessary.

Contemporary management of pulmonary embolism: the answers to ten questions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) cannot be diagnosed solely on a clinical basis, because of the lack of sensitivity and specificity of clinical signs and symptoms. Pulmonary angiography is invasive and resource demanding. Because the prevalence of PE is relatively low (20% or less) amongst individuals who are clinically suspected of having the disease, submitting all of them to imaging (multi-detector CT angiography or ventilation/perfusion lung scintigraphy) would not be cost-effective. Therefore, diagnostic algorithms have been developed that include clinical probability assessment and D-dimer measurement to select the patients who require noninvasive imaging. Once the diagnosis is suspected or confirmed, therapy must be started to avoid potentially fatal recurrence. Treatment starts for an initial 3-month period with a 5-day course of parenteral unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux overlapping with and followed by oral vitamin K antagonists monitored to maintain an international normalized ratio of 2-3. This initial period of 3 months may then be followed by a long-term secondary prevention period in patients who experience an idiopathic thromboembolic event and are at low risk of bleeding. New oral anticoagulants that do require patient monitoring and might exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk balance are currently under extensive clinical testing and might change the situation in the near future. A critical appraisal of the contemporary management of suspected PE is given in this overview with the discussion of 10 practical questions.

[Diagnostic strategy and comparison of clinical scores for pulmonary embolism]

The diagnostic approach to pulmonary embolism can be divided in several consecutive steps. First of all, the clinician must identify the patients with potential pulmonary embolism based on clinical presentation and the presence or absence of personal risk factors. Further investigations can then be guided by the use of a clinical probability score. The revised Geneva score and the Wells score are the most validated tools. They are reliable in stratifying patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk categories. When clinical probability is low or intermediate, the dosage of d-dimers is helpful. A negative result excludes pulmonary embolism with a very high negative predictive value, close to 100%. When positive, a multidetector thoracic CT will confirm or exclude the diagnosis. The utility of a lower-limb venous ultrasound is very low, and its use is therefore no longer recommended.

Acute pulmonary embolism. Part 1: epidemiology and diagnosis

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequently occurring, acute, and potentially fatal condition. Numerous risk factors for PE, both inherited and acquired, have been identified. Adequate diagnosis is mandatory to prevent PE-related morbidity and mortality on the one hand, and unnecessary treatment on the other. Only around 1 in 5 individuals with suspected PE will have the diagnosis confirmed, therefore, the diagnostic work-up for PE should comprise safe, efficient, and noninvasive methods. The first step in the approach to diagnosis of patients with suspected PE is to determine the clinical probability and to perform a D-dimer test. PE can be excluded in patients with a 'low', 'intermediate' or 'unlikely' clinical probability and a normal D-dimer test. Additional imaging is required for those with a 'high' or 'likely' clinical probability or a positive D-dimer test. CT pulmonary angiography or ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy, followed by additional testing is the next step when test results are nondiagnostic. Although various diagnostic strategies have been introduced and validated, selected patients may require a tailored approach.

Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

Pretest probability assessment is necessary to identify patients in whom pulmonary embolism (PE) can be safely ruled out by a negative D-dimer without further investigations.

OBJECTIVE

Review and compare the performance of available clinical prediction rules (CPRs) for PE probability assessment.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We identified studies that evaluated a CPR in patients with suspected PE from Embase, Medline and the Cochrane database. We determined the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of prevalence of PE in the various clinical probability categories of each CPR. Statistical heterogeneity was tested.

RESULTS

We identified 9 CPR and included 29 studies representing 31215 patients. Pooled prevalence of PE for three-level scores (low, intermediate or high clinical probability) was: low, 6% (95% CI, 4-8), intermediate, 23% (95% CI, 18-28) and high, 49% (95% CI, 43-56) for the Wells score; low, 13% (95% CI, 8-19), intermediate, 35% (95% CI, 31-38) and high, 71% (95% CI, 50-89) for the Geneva score; low, 9% (95% CI, 8-11), intermediate, 26% (95% CI, 24-28) and high, 76% (95% CI, 69-82) for the revised Geneva score. Pooled prevalence for two-level scores (PE likely or PE unlikely) was 8% (95% CI,6-11) and 34% (95% CI,29-40) for the Wells score, and 6% (95% CI, 3-9) and 23% (95% CI, 11-36) for the Charlotte rule.

CONCLUSION

Available CPR for assessing clinical probability of PE show similar accuracy. Existing scores are, however, not equivalent and the choice among various prediction rules and classification schemes (three- versus two-level) must be guided by local prevalence of PE, type of patients considered (outpatients or inpatients) and type of D-dimer assay applied.

A simple score to predict the outcome of severe malaria in adults

BACKGROUND

World Health Organization treatment guidelines recommend that adults with severe malaria be admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). However, ICU facilities are limited in the resource-poor settings where most malaria occurs. Identification of patients at greater risk of complications may facilitate their triage and resource allocation.

METHODS

With use of data from a trial conducted in Southeast Asia (n=868), a logistic regression model was built to identify independent predictors of mortality among adults with severe malaria. A scoring system based on this model was tested in the original dataset and then validated in 2 series from Bangladesh (n=188) and Vietnam (n=292).

RESULTS

Acidosis (base deficit) and cerebral malaria (measured as Glasgow Coma Score) were the main independent predictors of outcome. The 5-point Coma Acidosis Malaria (CAM) score was simply derived from these 2 variables. Mortality increased steadily with increasing score. A CAM score <2 predicted survival with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%- 97.7%). Of the 14 of 331 patients who died with a CAM score <2, 11 (79%) had renal failure and death occurred late after hospital admission (median, 108 h; range, 40-360 h). Substitution of plasma bicarbonate as the measure of acidosis only slightly reduced the prognostic value of the model. Use of respiratory rate was inferior, but a score <2 still predicted survival with a PPV of 92.2% (95% CI, 89.1%-94.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a CAM score <2 at hospital admission may be safely treated in a general ward, provided that renal function can be monitored.

D-dimers and efficacy of clinical risk estimation algorithms: sensitivity in evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to test the efficacy of clinical risk algorithms and a quantitative immunoturbidimetric D-dimer assay in the evaluation of patients undergoing pulmonary CT angiography for suspected acute pulmonary embolism.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

From April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008, emergency department evaluations for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were performed with the revised Geneva score, a quantitative D-dimer assay, and pulmonary CT angiography.

RESULTS

Evaluations for pulmonary embolism were performed for 745 consecutively registered patients, 627 of whom were included in the study. The other 118 patients were excluded because a d-dimer assay was not performed. According to the revised Geneva score, 281 patients had low clinical probability of having pulmonary embolism; 330, intermediate probability; and 16, high probability. CT angiography showed that 28 patients had pulmonary embolism (six in the low-probability group, 17 in the intermediate-probability group, and five in the high-probability group). The sensitivity, negative predictive value, and specificity of the D-dimer assay were 100%, 100%, and 25% (low-clinical-probability group); 100%, 100%, and 33% (intermediate-probability group); and 80%, 80%, and 37% (high-probability group).

CONCLUSION

The data appear to support the use of a quantitative D-dimer assay as a first-line test in evaluation for pulmonary embolism when the clinical probability of the presence of pulmonary embolism is low or intermediate. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were 100% for these cases. More than 26% of CT angiographic examinations might have been avoided if the D-dimer assay had been used as a first-line test in the care of patients at low or intermediate risk. Because of the small sample size, the D-dimer assay is not recommended as a first-line test in the evaluation of patients at high risk.

Safety of ruling out acute pulmonary embolism by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with an indication for computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Several outcome studies have ruled out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). We performed a meta-analysis in order to determine the safety of this strategy in a specific group of patients with a strict indication for CTPA, that is, 'likely' or 'high' clinical probability for PE, an elevated D-dimer concentration, or both.

METHODS

Studies that ruled out PE by normal CTPA, with or without subsequent normal bilateral compression ultrasonography (CUS), in patients with a strict indication for CTPA, were searched for in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane dataset. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of (fatal) venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a 3-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

Three studies were identified that excluded PE by CTPA alone (2020 patients), and three studies that performed additional CUS of the legs after normal CTPA (1069 patients). The pooled incidence of VTE at 3 months was 1.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-1.8] based on a normal CTPA result as a sole test, and 1.1% (95% CI 0.6-2.0) based on normal CTPA and negative CUS findings, resulting in negative predictive values of 98.8% (95% CI 98.2-99.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.0-99.4), respectively. This compares favorably with the VTE failure rate after normal pulmonary angiography (1.7%, 95% CI 1.0-2.7). The risk of fatal PE did not differ between the diagnostic strategies (0.6% vs. 0.5%).

CONCLUSION

A normal CTPA result alone can safely exclude PE in all patients in whom CTPA is required to rule out this disease. There is no need for additional ultrasonography to rule out VTE in these patients.

Diagnostic management of clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism

Current diagnostic management of hemodynamically stable patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) consists of the accurate and rapid distinction between the approximate 20-25% of patients who have acute PE and require anticoagulant treatment, and the overall majority of patients who do not have the disease in question. Clinical outcome studies have demonstrated that, using algorithms with sequential diagnostic tests, PE can be safely ruled out in patients with a clinical probability indicating PE to be unlikely and a normal D-dimer test result. This obviates the need for additional radiological imaging tests in 20-40% of patients. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has become the first line tool to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of PE in patients with a likely probability of PE or an elevated D-dimer blood concentration. While single-row-detector technology CTPA has a low sensitivity for PE and bilateral compression ultrasound (CUS) of the lower limbs is considered necessary to rule out PE, multi-row-detector CTPA is safe to exclude PE without the confirmatory use of CUS.