scholarly journals P142: Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the Canadian context: clinical review findings from a health technology assessment

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S107-S107
Author(s):  
A. Sinclair ◽  
K. Peprah ◽  
T. Quay ◽  
S. Mulla ◽  
L. Weeks

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a diagnostic challenge, since it shares symptoms with other conditions. Missed diagnosis puts patients at a risk of a potentially fatal outcome, while false positive results leave them at risk of side effects (bleeding) from unnecessary treatment. Diagnosis involves a multi-step pathway consisting of clinical prediction rules (CPRs), laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging, but the best strategy in the Canadian context is unclear. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility, and safety of diagnostic pathways, CPRs, and diagnostic imaging for the diagnosis of PE. Clinical prediction rules were studied by an overview of systematic reviews, and pathways and diagnostic imaging by a primary systematic review. Where feasible, a diagnostic test meta-analysis was conducted, with statistical adjustment for the use of variable and imperfect reference standards across studies. Results: The Wells CPR rule showed greater specificity than the Geneva, but the relative sensitivities were undetermined. Application of a CPR followed by with D-dimer laboratory testing can safely rule out PE. In diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis, computed tomography (CT) (sensitivity 0.973, 95% CrI 0.921 to 1.00) and ventilation/perfusion single-photon emission CT (VQ-SPECT) (sensitivity 0.974, 95% CrI 0.898 to 1.00) had the highest sensitivity) and CT the highest specificity (0.987, 95% CrI 0.958 to 1.00). VQ and VQ-SPECT had a higher proportion of indeterminate studies, while VQ and VQ-SPECT involved lower radiation exposure than CT. Conclusion: CPR and D-dimer testing can be used to avoid unnecessary imaging. CT is the most accurate single modality, but radiation risk must be assessed. These findings, in conjunction with a recent health technology assessment, may help to inform clinical practice and guidelines.

2012 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. S125
Author(s):  
Alessandro Squizzato ◽  
Marco P. Donadini ◽  
Luca Galli ◽  
Francesco Dentali ◽  
Drahomir Aujesky ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-285
Author(s):  
Dragan Panic ◽  
Andreja Todorovic ◽  
Milica Stanojevic ◽  
Violeta Iric Cupic

Abstract Current diagnostic workup of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) usually starts with the assessment of clinical pretest probability, using clinical prediction rules and plasma D-dimer measurement. Although an accurate diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients is thus of crucial importance, the diagnostic management of suspected PE is still challenging. A 60-year-old man with chest pain and expectoration of blood was admitted to the Department of Cardiology, General Hospital in Cuprija, Serbia. After physical examination and laboratory analyses, the diagnosis of Right side pleuropne monia and acute pulmonary embolism was established. Clinically, patient was hemodynamically stable, auscultative slightly weaker respiratory sound right basal, without pretibial edema. Laboratory: C-reactive protein (CRP) 132.9 mg/L, Leukocytes (Le) 18.9x109/L, Erythrocytes (Er) 3.23x1012/L, Haemoglobin (Hgb) 113 g/L, Platelets (Plt) 79x109/L, D-dimer 35.2. On the third day after admission, D-dimer was increased and platelet count was decreased (Plt up to 62x109/L). According to Wells’ rules, score was 2.5 (without symptoms on admission), a normal clinical finding with clinical manifestation of hemoptysis and chest pain, which represents the intermediate level of clinical probability of PE. After the recidive of PE, Wells’ score was 6.5. In summary, this study suggests that Wells’ score, based on a patient’s risk for pulmonary embolism, is a valuable guidance for decision-making in combination with knowledge and experience of clinicians. Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being consiered.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-153
Author(s):  
Asifa Karamat ◽  
Shazia Awan ◽  
Muhammad Ghazanfar Hussain ◽  
Fahad Al Hameed ◽  
Faheem Butt ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (18) ◽  
pp. 4296-4311
Author(s):  
Parth Patel ◽  
Payal Patel ◽  
Meha Bhatt ◽  
Cody Braun ◽  
Housne Begum ◽  
...  

Abstract Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common, potentially life-threatening yet treatable condition. Prompt diagnosis and expeditious therapeutic intervention is of paramount importance for optimal patient management. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of D-dimer assay, compression ultrasonography (CUS), computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), and ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning for the diagnosis of suspected first and recurrent PE. We searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for eligible studies, reference lists of relevant reviews, registered trials, and relevant conference proceedings. 2 investigators screened and abstracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. The review included 61 studies. The pooled estimates for D-dimer sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-0.98) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.36-0.46) respectively, whereas CTPA sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), respectively, and CUS sensitivity and specificity were 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31-0.66) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively. Three variations of pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity of V/Q scan were carried out, based on interpretation of test results. D-dimer had the highest sensitivity when compared with imaging. CTPA and V/Q scans (high probability scan as a positive and low/non-diagnostic/normal scan as negative) both had the highest specificity. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018084669.


ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2758-2761
Author(s):  
Piotr Pruszczyk

Clinical manifestations of venous thromboembolism (VTE) usually are non-specific. In order to facilitate proper diagnosis, clinical prediction rules were derived. The best studied models are the Wells criteria for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and the Geneva score for pulmonary embolism. They classify patients into different categories of clinical pretest VTE probability. Pulmonary embolism prevalence is approximately 10% in low-, 30% in moderate-, and up to 65% in high-probability categories. Plasma D-dimer levels are elevated in not only VTE but also in other conditions. A D-dimer assay should be used in combination with pretest VTE clinical probability. A normal high-sensitivity D-dimer level excludes pulmonary embolism in patients with low/intermediate or non-high VTE probability, while in the high probability category does not allow VTE to be safely excluded. Age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds (age × 10 μ‎g/L above 50 years) can limit the need for imaging methods without increasing the rate of missed diagnoses in non-high clinical probability patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document