The value of 64-detector row computed tomography for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Recently, a diagnostic strategy using a clinical decision rule, D-dimer testing and spiral computed tomography (CT) was found to be effective in the evaluation of patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the rate of venous thromboembolic complications in the three-month follow-up of patients with negative CT was still substantial and included fatal events. It was the objective to evaluate the safety of withholding anticoagulants after a normal 64-detector row CT (64-DCT) scan from a cohort of patients with suspected PE. A total of 545 consecutive patients with clinically suspected first episode of PE and either likely pre-test probability of PE (using the simplified Wells score) or unlikely pre-test probability in combination with a positive D-dimer underwent a 64-DCT. 64-DCT scanning was inconclusive in nine patients (1.6%), confirmed the presence of PE in 169 (31%), and ruled out the diagnosis in the remaining 367. During the three-month follow-up of the 367 patients one developed symptomatic distal deep-vein thrombosis (0.27%; 95%CI, 0.0 to 1.51%) and none developed PE (0 %; 95%CI, 0 to 1.0%). We conclude that 64-DCT scanning has the potential to safely exclude the presence of PE virtually in all patients presenting with clinical suspicion of this clinical disorder.

• References

• 1 Torbicki A, Perrier A, Konstantinides S. et al. Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2008; 29: 2276-2315.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV. et al. Christopher Study Investigators. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 172-179.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Qanadli SD, Hajjam ME, Mesurolle B. et al. Pulmonary embolism detection: prospective evaluation of dual-section helical CT versus selective pulmonary arteriography in 157 patients. Radiology 2000; 217: 447-455.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Goodman LR, Lipchik RJ, Kuzo RS. et al. Subsequent pulmonary embolism: risk after a negative helical CT pulmonary angiogram—prospective comparison with scintigraphy. Radiology 2000; 215: 535-542.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Rathbun SW, Raskob GE, Whitsett TL. Sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematical review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 227-232.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Mullins MD, Becker DM, Hagspiel KD. et al. The role of spiral volumetric computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 293-298.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Gottsater A, Berg A, Centergard J. et al. Clinically suspected pulmonary embolism: is it safe to withhold anticoagulation after a negative spiral CT?. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 65-72.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Musset D, Parent F, Meyer G. et al. Evaluation du Scanner Spiralé dans l‘Embolie Pulmonaire study group. Diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicentre outcome study. Lancet 2002; 360: 1914-1920.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 van Strijen MJ, de Monyé W, Schiereck J. et al. Advances in New Technologies Evaluating the Localisation of Pulmonary Embolism Study Group. Single-detector helical computed tomography as the primary diagnostic test in suspected pulmonary embolism: a multicenter clinical management study of 510 patients. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 307-314.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Perrier A, Roy PM, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in out-patients with clinical assessment, d-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study. Am J Med 2004; 116: 291-299.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Winer-Muram HT, Rydberg J, Johnson MS. et al. Suspected acute pulmonary embolism: evaluation with multidetector row CT versus digital subtraction pulmonary arteriography. Radiology 2004; 233: 806-815.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR. et al. PIOPED II Investigators. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2317-2327.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008; 371: 1343-1352.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Mos IC, Klok FA, Kroft LJ. et al. 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. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 1491-1498.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Patel S, Kazerooni EA, Cascade PN. Pulmonary embolism: optimization of small pulmonary artery visualization at multi–detector row CT. Radiology 2003; 227: 455-460.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Brunot S, Corneloup O, Latrabe V. et al. Reproducibility of multidetector spiral computed tomography in detection of subsegmental acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 2057-2063.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ. et al. ECG-gated 64-MDCT angiography in the differential diagnosis of acute chest pain. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 76-82.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Gallagher MJ, Raff GL. Use of multislice CT for the evaluation of emergency room patients with chest pain: the so-called “triple rule-out”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 71: 92-99.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Douma RA, Hofstee HM, Schaefer-Prokop C. et al. Comparison of 4– and 64-slice CT scanning in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost. 2010; 103: 242-246.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Le Gal G, Righini M, Parent F. et al. Diagnosis and management of subsegmental pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2006; 4: 724-731.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Eyer BA, Goodman LR, Washington L. Clinicians’ response to radiologists’ reports of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism or inconclusive interpretation of pulmonary embolism using MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 623-628.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Bell WR, Simon TL. Current status of pulmonary thromboembolic disease: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Am Heart J 1982; 103: 239-262.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodgers M. et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients’ probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the model’s utility with simpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 416-420.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Gibson NS, Sohne M, Kruip MJ. et al. Christopher study investigators.. Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 229-234.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Gardiner C, Pennaneach C, Walford C. et al. An evaluation of rapid D-dimer as-says for the exclusion of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Haematol 2005; 128: 842-848.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Statistic with confidence. London: BMJ Books; 1989
  Google Scholar
• 27 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: 98-107.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O. et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1760-1768.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM. et al. Value of D-dimer testing for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism in patients with previous venous thromboembolism. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 176-180.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Kruip MJ, Leclercq MG, van der Heul C. et al. Diagnostic strategies for excluding pulmonary embolism in clinical outcome studies: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 941-951.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Wolf SJ, McCubbin TR, Feldhaus KM. et al. Prospective validation of Wells criteria in the evaluation of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2004; 44: 503-510.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Pasha SM, Klok FA, Snoep JD. et al. Safety of excluding acute pulmonary embolism based on an unlikely clinical probability by the Wells rule and normal D-dimer concentration: A meta-analysis. Chest 2008; 134: 789-793.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Douma RA, Kamphuisen PW, Huisman MV. et al. Christopher Study Investigators. False normal results on multidetector-row spiral computed tomography in patients with high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2008; 6: 1978-1979.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Stein PD, Sostman HD, Bounameaux H. et al. Challenges in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2008; 121: 565-571.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Hohl C, Wildberger JE, Suss C. et al. Radiation dose reduction to breast and thyroid during MDCT: effectiveness of an in-plane bismuth shield. Acta Radiol 2006; 47: 562-567.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Yilmaz MH, Albayram S, Yasar D. et al. Female breast radiation exposure during thorax multidetector computed tomography and the effectiveness of bismuth breast shield to reduce breast radiation dose. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31: 138-142.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Douma RA, Kok MG, Verberne LM. et al. Incidental venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: prevalence and consequence. Thromb Res 2010; 125: e306-e309.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Carrier M, Righini M, Wells PS. et al. Subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the management outcome studies. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 1716-1722.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Donato AA, Khoche S, Santora J, Wagner B. Clinical outcomes in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary emboli diagnosed by multidetector CT pulmonary angiography. Thromb Res 2010; 126: e266-270.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar