Beyond the guidelines: Novelties, changes and unsolved issues from the 2019 ESC guidelines on pulmonary embolism

D-dimer to rule out venous thromboembolism during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of D-dimer measurement to rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy is debated.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety of D-dimer to rule out acute VTE in pregnant women with suspected pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently identified studies through PubMed and Embase until June 2021, week 1. We supplemented our search by manually reviewing reference lists of all retrieved articles, clinicalTrials.gov, and reference literature. Prospective or retrospective studies in which a formal diagnostic algorithm was used to evaluate the ability of D-dimer to rule out VTE during pregnancy were eligible.

RESULTS

We identified 665 references through systematic database and additional search strategies; 45 studies were retrieved in full, of which four were included, after applying exclusion criteria. Three studies were prospective, and one had a retrospective design. The 3-month thromboembolic rate in pregnant women left untreated after a negative D-dimer was 1/312 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.06-1.83). The pooled estimate values were 99.5% for sensitivity (95% CI, 95.0-100.0; I², 0%) and 100% for negative predictive value (95% CI, 99.19-100.0; I², 0%). The prevalence of VTE and the yield of D-dimer were 7.4% (95% CI, 3.8-12; I², 83%) and 34.2% (95% CI, 15.9-55.23; I², 89%) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that D-dimer allows to safely rule out VTE in pregnant women with suspected VTE and a disease prevalence consistent with a low/intermediate or unlikely pretest probability.

Acute pulmonary embolism in patients presenting pulmonary deterioration after hospitalisation for non-critical COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests an association between COVID-19 and acute pulmonary embolism (APE).

AIMS

To assess the prevalence of APE in patients hospitalised for non-critical COVID-19 who presented clinical deterioration, and to investigate the association of clinical and biochemical variables with a confirmed diagnosis of APE in these subjects.

METHODS

All consecutive patients admitted to the internal medicine department of a general hospital with a diagnosis of non-critical COVID-19, who performed a computer tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for respiratory deterioration in April 2020, were included in this retrospective cohort study.

RESULTS

Study populations: 41 subjects, median (interquartile range) age: 71.7 (63-76) years, CPTA confirmed APE = 8 (19.51%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.82-34.87%). Among patients with and without APE, no significant differences were found with regards symptoms, comorbidities, treatment, Wells score and outcomes. The optimal cut-off value of d-dimer for predicting APE was 2454 ng/mL, sensitivity (95% CI): 63 (24-91), specificity: 73 (54-87), positive predictive value: 36 (13-65), negative predictive value: 89 (71-98) and AUC: 0.62 (0.38-0.85). The standard and age-adjusted d-dimer cut-offs, and the Wells score ≥2 did not associate with confirmed APE, albeit a cut-off value of d-dimer = 2454 ng/mL showed an relative risk: 3.21; 95% CI: 0.92-13.97; P = 0.073. Heparin at anticoagulant doses was used in 70.73% of patients before performing CTPA.

CONCLUSION

Among patients presenting pulmonary deterioration after hospitalisation for non-critical COVID-19, the prevalence of APE is high. Traditional diagnostic tools to identify high APE pre-test probability patients do not seem to be clinically useful. These results support the use of a high index of suspicion for performing CTPA to exclude or confirm APE as the most appropriate diagnostic approach in this clinical setting.