Pearls and Myths in the Evaluation of Patients with Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Diagnostic Strategies in Pulmonary Embolism

Key to the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is a careful bedside evaluation. After this, there are three further diagnostic steps. In all patients, estimation of the clinical probability of PE is performed. The other two steps are measurement of D-dimer when indicated and chest imaging when indicated. The clinical probability of PE is estimated at low, moderate, or high. The prevalence of PE is less than 15% among patients with low clinical probability, 15 to 40% with moderate clinical probability, and >40% in patients with high clinical probability. Clinical gestalt has been found to be very useful in estimating probability of PE. However, clinical prediction rules, such as Wells criteria, the modified Geneva score, and the PE rule out criteria have been advocated as adjuncts. In patients with high clinical probability, the high prevalence of PE can lower the D-dimer negative predictive value, which could increase the risk of diagnostic failure. Consequently, patients with high probability for PE need to proceed directly to chest imaging, without prior measurement of D-dimer level. Key studies in determining which low to moderate probability patients require chest imaging are the Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism (ADJUST-PE), the Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (YEARS), and the Pulmonary Embolism Graduated D-Dimer trials. In patients with low clinical probability, PE can be excluded without imaging studies if D-dimer is less than 1,000 ng/mL. In patients in whom there is not a low likelihood for PE, this can be excluded without imaging studies if the D-dimer is below the age-adjusted threshold.

Diagnosis and treatment of right ventricular failure secondary to acutely increased right ventricular afterload (acute cor pulmonale): a clinical consensus statement of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care of the European Society of Cardiology

Acute right ventricular failure secondary to acutely increased right ventricular afterload (acute cor pulmonale) is a life-threatening condition that may arise in different clinical settings. Patients at risk of developing or with manifest acute cor pulmonale usually present with an acute pulmonary disease (e.g. pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome) and are managed initially in emergency departments and later in intensive care units. According to the clinical setting, other specialties are involved (cardiology, pneumology, internal medicine). As such, coordinated delivery of care is particularly challenging but, as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, has a major impact on prognosis. A common framework for the management of acute cor pulmonale with inclusion of the perspectives of all involved disciplines is urgently needed.

Pulmonary Embolism and Heart Failure: A Reappraisal

Acute heart failure and acute pulmonary embolism share many features, including epidemiological aspects, clinical presentation, risk factors and pathobiological mechanisms. As such, it is not surprising that diagnosis and management of these common conditions might be challenging for the treating physician, in particular when both are concomitantly present. While helpful guidelines have been elaborated for both acute heart failure and pulmonary embolism, not many studies have been published on the coexistence of these diseases. With a special focus on diagnostic tools and therapeutic options, the authors review the available literature and, when evidence is lacking, present their own approach to the management of dyspnoeic patients with acute heart failure and pulmonary embolism.

Acute pulmonary embolism: appropriateness of emergency department management according to clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the frequency of acute pulmonary embolism, the use of clinical probability scores, and the appropriateness of the management of patients for whom computed tomography angiography (CTA) was requested from the emergency department for suspected acute pulmonary embolism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of CTA studies requested from the emergency department to rule out acute pulmonary embolism. We analyzed clinical variables and the explicit use of clinical probability scores. We determined the appropriateness of management according to the Wells Score and Geneva Score and the simplified versions of these two scores, calculated retrospectively.

RESULTS

We included 534 patients (52.8% women; mean age, 73 years). The frequency of acute pulmonary embolism was 23.0% and the Wells Score was explicitly used in 15.2%. The appropriateness of the management varied depending on the clinical probability score used to assess it (54.5%-75.8%) and on whether the standard D-dimer or age-adjusted D-dimer was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The failure to use the Wells Scores in all cases does not necessarily imply inappropriate management, and the performance of global clinical judgment can be similar to that of clinical probability scores; however, specific studies are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.