Download PDF
Int J Angiol
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1779661
Review Article

Diagnostic Strategies in Pulmonary Embolism

Margaret Mary Glazier
1   University of Galway School of Medicine, Galway, Ireland
,
James J. Glazier 
2   Department of Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan
3   Department of Cardiology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

pulmonary embolism - diagnostic strategies - Wells criteria - Geneva score - PERC Rule - YEARS algorithm - gestalt


Publication History

Article published online:
12 February 2024

© 2024. International College of Angiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Freund Y, Cohen-Aubart F, Bloom B. Acute pulmonary embolism: a review. JAMA 2022; 328 (13) 1336-1345
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Duffett L, Castellucci LA, Forgie MA. Pulmonary embolism: update on management and controversies. BMJ 2020; 370: m2177
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Hampson NB, Culver BH. Clinical aspects of pulmonary embolism. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18 (05) 314-322
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Huisman MV, Barco S, Cannegieter SC. et al. Pulmonary embolism. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2018; 4: 18028
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Remillard TC, Kodra A, Kim M. Diagnosis, diagnostic tools, and risk stratification for contemporary treatment of pulmonary embolism. Int J Angiol 2022; 31 (03) 150-154
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Stüssi-Helbling M, Arrigo M, Huber LC. Pearls and myths in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2019; 132 (06) 685-691
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135 (02) 98-107
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM. et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (03) 165-171
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G. et al. Comparison of the unstructured clinician gestalt, the wells score, and the revised Geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 62 (02) 117-124.e2
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Thompson BT, Pena C. “Clinical Presentation, Evaluation, and Diagnosis of the Nonpregnant Adult with Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism.” UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer; 5 June 2023. Accessed on December 26, 2023 at: www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-presentation-evaluation-and-diagnosis-of-the-nonpregnant-adult-with-suspected-acute-pulmonary-embolism
  • 11 Stein PD, Beemath A, Matta F. et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with acute pulmonary embolism: data from PIOPED II. Am J Med 2007; 120 (10) 871-879
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Russell C, Keshavamurthy S, Saha S. Classification and stratification of pulmonary embolisms. Int J Angiol 2022; 31 (03) 162-165
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Rodger MA, Carrier M, Jones GN. et al. Diagnostic value of arterial blood gas measurement in suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162 (06) 2105-2108
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Elliott CG, Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, DeRosa M. Chest radiographs in acute pulmonary embolism. Results from the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry. Chest 2000; 118 (01) 33-38
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Worsley DF, Alavi A, Aronchick JM, Chen JT, Greenspan RH, Ravin CE. Chest radiographic findings in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: observations from the PIOPED Study. Radiology 1993; 189 (01) 133-136
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Thomson D, Kourounis G, Trenear R. et al. ECG in suspected pulmonary embolism. Postgrad Med J 2019; 95 (1119): 12-17
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Kucher N, Walpoth N, Wustmann K, Noveanu M, Gertsch M. QR in V1–an ECG sign associated with right ventricular strain and adverse clinical outcome in pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 2003; 24 (12) 1113-1119
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Penaloza A, Soulié C, Moumneh T. et al. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule in European patients with low implicit clinical probability (PERCEPIC): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Haematol 2017; 4 (12) e615-e621
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (04) 543-603
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Shah IK, Merfeld JM, Chun J, Tak T. Pathophysiology and management of pulmonary embolism. Int J Angiol 2022; 31 (03) 143-149
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Falster C, Hellfritzsch M, Gaist TA. et al. Comparison of international guideline recommendations for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Lancet Haematol 2023; 10 (11) e922-e935
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2 (08) 1247-1255
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A. et al; PROPER Investigator Group. Effect of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018; 319 (06) 559-566
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Kline JA. Utility of a clinical prediction rule to exclude pulmonary embolism among low-risk emergency department patients: reason to PERC Up. JAMA 2018; 319 (06) 551-553
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Righini M, Goehring C, Bounameaux H, Perrier A. Effects of age on the performance of common diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2000; 109 (05) 357-361
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL. et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA 2014; 311 (11) 1117-1124
    Google Scholar
  • 27 van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S. et al; YEARS study group. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet 2017; 390 (10091): 289-297
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Konstantinides SV. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: progress after many YEARS. Lancet 2017; 390 (10091): 210-211
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Kearon C, de Wit K, Parpia S. et al; PEGeD Study Investigators. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with D-dimer adjusted to clinical probability. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (22) 2125-2134
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Moore AJE, Wachsmann J, Chamarthy MR, Panjikaran L, Tanabe Y, Rajiah P. Imaging of acute pulmonary embolism: an update. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2018; 8 (03) 225-243
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR. et al; PIOPED II Investigators. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (22) 2317-2327
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Cohen D, Shaman D. Chapter 6. Imaging modalities in acute pulmonary embolism: computerized tomography. In: Herzog E. ed. Pulmonary Embolism. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2022: P59-P87
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Patel P, Patel P, Bhatt M. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. Blood Adv 2020; 4 (18) 4296-4311
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Glazier JJ, Patiño-Velasquez S, Oviedo C. The pulmonary embolism response team: rationale, operation, and outcomes. Int J Angiol 2022; 31 (03) 198-202
    Google Scholar