Home Browse Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
▬
✚
Review

Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Ella Ishaaya1, Victor F. Tapson2
Ella Ishaaya1, Victor F. Tapson2
PUBLISHED 24 Jan 2020
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism is a common disease which remains underdiagnosed because of nonspecific presentations which can range from asymptomatic incidental imaging findings to sudden death. Symptoms can overlap with comorbid cardiopulmonary disease, and risk factors that offer clues to the clinician are not always present. The diagnostic approach can vary depending on the specific clinical presentation, but ruling in the diagnosis nearly always depends on lung imaging. Overuse of diagnostic testing is another recognized problem; a cautious, evidence-based approach is required, although physician gestalt must be acknowledged. The following review offers an approach to the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism based on the assessment of symptoms, signs, risk factors, laboratory findings, and imaging studies.

Keywords

pulmonary embolism, thrombosis, computed tomographic angiography, diagnosis, symptoms, risk factors

Corresponding author: Victor F. Tapson
Competing interests: Victor Tapson has consulted or served on advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Cook, EKOS/BTG, Inari, Janssen, and Penumbra. He has received (institutional) research funding from Bayer, BMS, EKOS/BTG, Inari, and Janssen. Ella Ishaaya declares that she has no competing interests.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:  © 2020 Ishaaya E and Tapson VF. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Ishaaya E and Tapson VF. Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21347.1) First published: 24 Jan 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21347.1) Latest published: 24 Jan 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21347.1)

Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes the spectrum of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the third most common cardiovascular diagnosis following myocardial infarction and stroke. Acute PE causes approximately 100,000 deaths per year in the United States1. Unfortunately, the diagnosis is complicated by nonspecific clinical presentations, which can range from incidental imaging findings to sudden death. As such, timely diagnosis is critical but challenging, and PE remains one of the most commonly underdiagnosed conditions2,3. Although diagnosis rates have improved, PE is commonly not diagnosed or even suspected until after the patient dies4,5. While the diagnostic evaluation is intimately associated with risk stratification, which may impact on the level of therapeutic aggressiveness, we will focus on the diagnostic approach to acute PE.

Pathophysiology of acute pulmonary embolism

The vast majority (95%) of acute PE cases originate from thrombi in the leg or pelvic veins, although emboli may arise from other sources such as the axillary subclavian system or the renal veins6. These thrombi dislodge and embolize to the pulmonary arteries, causing obstruction to the pulmonary capillary bed and subsequent hemodynamic abnormalities. They also promote the release of vasoconstrictors, which increase pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular (RV) afterload. As the embolic burden increases, RV afterload increases and there is RV dilation and hypokinesis. When the clot burden reaches a critical threshold, the RV is unable to generate enough force to achieve an adequate cardiac output and fails, resulting in hypotension and cardiac arrest. RV pressure overload may also lead to ischemia due to compromised left ventricular filling, increased wall stress, and limited myocardial oxygen supply7. Furthermore, significant pulmonary vascular obstruction leads to increased dead space and hypoxemia7. These events translate into clinical findings that can offer clues to the diagnosis.

Risk factors

Confirming the diagnosis of acute PE or refuting it often depends on lung imaging but relies on the history or clinical suspicion, physical exam, lab testing, and sometimes scoring systems. Risk factors can offer helpful clues, but their absence does not rule out the diagnosis. Acute VTE is clearly provoked but very often unprovoked or in a gray zone in between. Some risk factors are more influential than others. Most cases of acute VTE develop because of a combination of risk factors arising from Virchow’s triad of stasis, venous injury, or hypercoagulability (thrombophilia)6–9. Inherited and acquired thrombophilias increase the relative VTE risk by two to threefold, and such patients are often younger and may have a history of recurrent spontaneous miscarriages and/or a family history of VTE7,10. Acquired risk factors are more prevalent and may be helpful in leading to a diagnostic evaluation for acute VTE (Table 1).

Table 1. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE)*.

Hereditary factors†
Antithrombin deficiency
Protein C deficiency
Protein S deficiency
Factor V Leiden
Activated protein C resistance without factor V Leiden
Prothrombin gene mutation
Plasminogen deficiency
Dysfibrinogenemia
Acquired factors*
Reduced mobility
Advanced age
Cancer
Acute medical illness
Major surgery
Trauma
Spinal cord injury
Pregnancy and the postpartum period
Oral contraceptives
Hormone replacement therapy
Polycythemia vera
Antiphospholipid antibody syndrome
Heparins (heparin-induced thrombocytopenia)
Chemotherapy
Obesity
Central venous catheterization
Immobilizer or cast
Probable factors
Elevated homocysteine
Elevated factors VIII, IX, and XI
Elevated fibrinogen
Elevated thrombin-activated fibrinolysis inhibitor
Low levels of tissue factor pathway inhibitor

*In a compatible clinical setting, acute deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism should be considered even in the absence of known risk factors.

†It remains unclear whether some of the disorders listed above are hereditary, acquired, or both.

Recent major surgery (defined as surgery that required endotracheal intubation or epidural anesthesia) is associated with an up to fivefold increase in VTE risk owing to prolonged immobilization and activation of pro-inflammatory substances and the coagulation cascade11. A large prospective study on middle-aged women found a greater than 100-fold increase in VTE incidence in the first six weeks following surgery12.

Immobilization, which includes prolonged travel, increases risk for VTE due to venous stasis. A retrospective study on critically ill patients found that central venous catheter use, mechanical ventilation, and reduced mobility increased in-hospital VTE occurrence by 1.7% in patients on anticoagulant prophylaxis13. Changes in our society appear to be affecting the risk of acute VTE. For example, over the past two decades, there has been a documented increase in pediatric VTE, potentially attributable to prolonged immobilization, i.e. video game use14.

Previous VTE increases the risk of recurrence two to threefold and often occurs within the first six months off anticoagulation. Oral contraceptives increase the risk for VTE15. Oral contraceptive users, especially third and fourth generation, are at greater risk for VTE compared to non-users15.

Active cancer increases the risk of developing VTE by five to sevenfold and is associated with a worse prognosis16. Tissue factor, a tumor-derived protein, initiates the extrinsic pathway of the coagulation cascade and has been associated with increased VTE in pancreatic and ovarian cancer due to direct induction of a hypercoagulable state16,17. Additionally, tumor cells secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and growth factors like tumor necrosis factor alpha and vascular endothelial growth factor, which are known to promote coagulation18. Cancer patients also typically undergo surgery and chemotherapy and experience prolonged periods of immobilization, all of which increase their risk for VTE development.

Additional cardiopulmonary conditions, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure, are associated with increased risk for VTE and may complicate the diagnostic picture19–21. PE can be mistaken for exacerbations of these disorders because of similar clinical presentations (dyspnea, chest pain, and elevated neck veins)22. An emergency department study found that PE diagnosis was delayed in one-third of 436 cases; the delay was significantly more common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29.7% versus 7.25%)3. In summary, underlying risk factors should lead to consideration of acute PE, in compatible clinical circumstances, and caution should be undertaken to be certain that PE is not overlooked simply because of a concomitant cardiopulmonary comorbidity.

Symptoms and signs

Common symptoms of acute PE, including dyspnea and chest pain, are nonspecific and occur in many other cardiopulmonary diseases (Table 2).

Table 2. Symptoms and signs in patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism (PE)*.

Common symptoms (>50%)
Dyspnea
Sudden-onset dyspnea
Pleuritic chest pain
Less-common symptoms (16–49%)
Cough†
Lightheadedness/presyncope
Syncope
Leg swelling/pain
Rare symptoms (<15%)
Gradual onset of dyspnea
Orthopnea
Hemoptysis
Angina-like chest pain
Palpitations
Wheezing
Signs
Visible anxiety
Fever
Tachycardia
Tachypnea
Hypotension
Chest wall tenderness
Leg swelling/tenderness
Wheezing
Signs of overt right ventricular failure (e.g. neck
vein distension, right ventricular S3)

*Symptoms vary based upon the embolic burden and physiologic response to the embolism as well as upon the presence or absence of underlying cardiopulmonary disease.

†Both cough and fever in the setting of acute PE are often due to non-PE related comorbidities.

This table was created based upon data from 21,25.

Sudden-onset dyspnea is the most common presentation21. In the setting of pulmonary infarction, pleuritic chest pain is common, and rarely hemoptysis may occur. Cough may be present but is often related to other underlying conditions. PE may be asymptomatic, present atypically, or develop gradually over the course of weeks23. Of note, roughly one-third of patients presenting with DVT have concomitant PE, even when asymptomatic24. With high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) acute PE affecting RV function, lightheadedness and/or syncope may occur. A study of elderly patients found that this cohort more frequently presented with syncope than more classic symptoms like chest pain (33% versus 7%)26. VTE incidence increases exponentially with age, thus increasing the importance of recognizing atypical PE presentations. A study examining differences between males and females with PE found that women are more likely to present atypically with symptoms like syncope27. Acute PE is often overlooked in critically ill patients, since common symptoms are often overlooked or blamed on other underlying conditions. Signs of acute PE include nonspecific features such as visible anxiety, tachycardia, tachypnea, or hypotension. Contrary to popular teaching, chest wall tenderness can occur in acute PE because of pulmonary infarction28. Clinicians should consider other evidence, such as increased oxygen demand, for the diagnosis of PE in this cohort29.

Diagnostic approach

Clinical probability models

The combination of symptoms and clinical findings with the presence of predisposing factors for VTE allows the classification of patients with suspected PE into different categories of pre-test probability, which correspond to an increasing prevalence of confirmed PE. This pre-test assessment can be done either by clinical judgment/gestalt or via the use of prediction rules. Several prediction models exist for the evaluation and risk stratification of PE. The most widely studied include the Wells score30 and the series of Geneva scores31–33, both of which aim to minimize invasive diagnostic testing. The simplified Geneva score, attributing one point per variable (except heart rate >95 beats/minute = 2 points) was prospectively validated in outpatients in the ADJUST-PE management outcome study, facilitating its effective use in the management of suspected PE33.

The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) rule was developed to exclude PE and to minimize unnecessary diagnostic testing34,35. When a patient is deemed to have low gestalt clinical suspicion for PE and the eight criteria are absent (age <50 years, pulse <100 beats/minute, SaO2 >94%, no unilateral leg swelling, no hemoptysis, no recent trauma or surgery, no history of VTE, no estrogen use), it is suggested that the diagnosis of PE should not be pursued34,35. Inclusion criteria for a prospective validation of the PERC rule in the United States were new-onset or worsening of shortness of breath or chest pain and a low clinical probability of PE. It was found that of the 24% of patients excluded by the PERC rule, 1.3% were found to have PE35. Naturally, “low gestalt clinical probability” is subjective. The PERC rule was validated in the European PROPER trial35; however, the low overall prevalence of PE in these studies warrants caution regarding the generalizability of the results and lessens its utility35,36. The YEARS clinical decision rule (diagnosed DVT, hemoptysis, clinician feels PE is the most likely diagnosis) also appears to be a promising, relatively easy to implement algorithm; van der Hulle and colleagues reported a 14% decrease in computed tomographic angiography (CTA) exams required to rule out suspected PE when YEARS was paired with D-dimer level testing37. Furthermore, in the ADJUST-PE study, the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer (rather than a fixed D-dimer cutoff of 500 μg/L) combined with a pre-test clinical probability assessment was associated with a larger number of patients in whom PE could be considered ruled out with a low likelihood of subsequent clinical VTE38. It should be noted that recent data suggest the utility of a low clinical pre-test probability combined with D-dimer <1,000, as well as moderate clinical pre-test probability combined with D-dimer <500, in excluding PE and avoiding the need for chest imaging39.

Finally, clinical gestalt is crucial and would be expected to increase with clinical experience. It has been suggested that gestalt can outperform clinical probability scoring models in suspected acute PE40. Clinical probability tables are shown in Table 3.

Table 3a. The Wells score*.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is most likely diagnosisYes = 3 points
Symptoms and signs of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) presentYes = 3 points
Heart rate >100 beats/minuteYes = 1.5 points
Immobilization for at least 3 days or surgery in previous 4 weeksYes = 1.5 points
Previous, objectively diagnosed DVT or PEYes = 1 point
HemoptysisYes = 1 point
Malignancy with treatment within 6 monthsYes = 1 point

*In the validation cohort, a score of <4.0 (PE unlikely) combined with a negative Simpli-Red D-dimer assay (not an ELISA-based assay) accurately excluded a diagnosis of acute PE in 98% of patients. As per the first three-point item in the score, gestalt is part of the method; it is not entirely objective. Furthermore, it has been suggested that commonly, this subjective three-point “PE most likely” is what tips the score in favor of PE30.

Table 3b. The simplified revised Geneva score*.

VariableScore
Age ≥65 years1
Previous deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)1
Surgery or fracture within 1 month1
Active malignancy1
Hemoptysis1
Heart rate 75 to 94 beats/minute1
Heart rate >95 beats/minute2
Unilateral lower limb pain1
Pain on deep palpation of lower limb and unilateral edema1

*The Geneva score was originally designed as a somewhat complex clinical prediction rule which required arterial blood gas analysis. It was revised and ultimately simplified. The simplified Geneva score includes the same parameters as the revised score, but the score for each parameter is uniformly 1 point, and if heart rate is >95 beats/minute an additional point is added. It is suggested that the likelihood of patients having PE with a simplified Geneva score of <2 and a normal D-dimer is 3%31–33. The simplified Geneva score was validated in the ADJUST-PE study33.

Table 3c. The PERC score*.

Age <50 years
Pulse <100 beats/minute
Oxygen saturation >94%
Absence of unilateral leg swelling, hemoptysis, recent surgery/trauma, prior deep
vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE), and oral contraceptive use

*The PERC rule was designed to rule out acute PE in patients presenting to the emergency room without further testing. The eight variables are listed above. As a diagnostic test, low gestalt clinical suspicion for PE and PERC negative status has been shown to have a sensitivity of 97.4% (confidence interval [CI] 95.8% to 98.5%) and specificity of 21.9% (CI 21.0% to 22.9%)34–36.

Table 3d. The YEARS score*.

Clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
Hemoptysis
Pulmonary embolism (PE) most likely diagnosis
D-dimer ≥500 ng/mL or ≥1,000 ng/mL†

*In patients without YEARS items and D-dimer <1,000 ng/mL, or in patients with ≥1 YEARS items and D-dimer <500 ng/mL, PE was excluded. All others had chest computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

†The primary outcome was number of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events during 3-month follow up. Of 3,465 patients, PE was excluded and CTA withheld in 1,651 patients with either no YEARS items and D-dimer level of <1,000 ng/mL or ≥1 YEARS items and D-dimer level of <500 ng/mL. VTE occurred in 0.43% of patients with PE excluded based on YEARS algorithm alone and 0.84% of patients with PE excluded based on CTA37.

Biomarkers

Biomarkers for PE are nonspecific. Elevated D-dimer levels are often paired with probability models to aid in the detection of PE and have been correlated with increased mortality30,41,42. While the negative predictive value of D-dimer testing is very high and a normal D-dimer makes acute PE or DVT unlikely, the positive predictive value of an elevated D-dimer is low; thus, D-dimer testing is not useful for confirming acute PE43,44. Therefore, the D-dimer assay is best utilized in patients with low or moderate clinical probability, and clinical probability models have been designed and validated. In such settings, a negative test is highly sensitive for ruling out acute PE30. Elevated serum troponin occurs in at least 20% of patients with acute PE, but high-sensitivity assays will likely increase this value45–47. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels are elevated in roughly 45% of PE patients, indicating RV dysfunction47. Elevated D-dimer, troponin, and BNP levels have all been associated with greater mortality but are nonspecific45–47. Elevated lactate levels are clearly associated with increased mortality in acute PE patients25,48. These biomarkers are valuable in identifying suspected PE patients but are not diagnostic on their own.

Ancillary studies

Arterial blood gas analysis may be normal, particularly in younger patients without cardiopulmonary disease49. In the setting of a normal or near-normal chest radiograph and significant unexplained hypoxemia, chest CTA or ventilation–perfusion (VQ) scan should be considered to rule out PE. The electrocardiogram is nonspecific in acute PE50. It may be normal or may demonstrate sinus tachycardia or an atrial arrhythmia. In particular, new-onset atrial fibrillation/flutter should raise suspicion for acute PE51. The S1Q3T3 pattern is nonspecific but suggests the possibility of acute PE.

Lung imaging

Chest radiography is generally nonspecific, but signs of pulmonary infarction appear in the form of a “Hampton’s hump” (peripheral pleural-based density) or “Westermark sign” (prominent proximal pulmonary artery with peripheral hypoperfusion49,52). As is the case with a normal electrocardiogram, a normal chest radiograph should increase the suspicion for acute PE in a patient without a clear explanation for symptoms such as dyspnea. CTA is a highly specific imaging technique that has become the gold standard for the diagnosis of acute PE. A high-quality CTA negative for acute PE essentially rules out the diagnosis53. CTA is very useful in demonstrating other potential causes of dyspnea and chest pain. CTA may be nondiagnostic because of motion artifacts or obesity54–56. If a study is suboptimal or if there is doubt, additional lung or leg imaging should be considered57,58. CTA scans ordered for non-PE-related indications have increased, and incidental PE has become a more frequent finding53. Finally, dual-energy CTA offers the opportunity to examine not only pulmonary arterial filling defects but also the actual extent of lung perfusion, which may be useful in risk stratification in proven PE; however, this technique is not yet commonly used59. The radiology startup Aidoc has recently received FDA clearance for an artificial intelligence (AI) technology meant to detect and triage high-risk PE patients based on radiological images, a promising development for the rapid diagnosis of such a time-sensitive condition60.

The VQ scan may be used when CTA is contraindicated due to contrast allergy, renal failure, or pregnancy61. Portable VQ scans can be performed when a patient is too unstable to move and may even be useful even when the chest radiograph is abnormal62. Furthermore, when a critically ill patient has a VQ scan that is nondiagnostic but with mild abnormalities, it still may be adequate to rule out PE as the cause of severe pressor-dependent hypotension. VQ with single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) allows for three-dimensional imaging and thus better characterizes mismatched defects. The literature reports superior diagnostic value and reproducibility of SPECT relative to two-dimensional VQ; however, SPECT has not been widely accepted in clinical practice63,64.

Magnetic resonance angiography takes more time to complete than CTA, and the diagnostic yield for PE has been shown to be institution dependent65. With nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy in the setting of renal insufficiency, enthusiasm has waned. This technique is very sensitive for acute DVT. However, ultrasound is simpler, faster, and adequate in the majority of cases of suspected acute DVT.

Standard pulmonary angiography has long been considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of acute PE but nowadays is generally used only in the setting of catheter-directed acute PE therapy or, for example, when assessing a patient with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension for endarterectomy or balloon angioplasty. In acute PE, chest CTA offers the advantages of being less invasive, allowing evaluation of the lung parenchyma for other disease, and enabling assessment of RV size.

Echocardiography

Echocardiography is useful in detecting RV dysfunction which could suggest (but not prove) the presence of PE, as well as aiding in risk stratification66,67. Echocardiography may also identify emboli in-transit in the right atrium or ventricle, which makes the diagnosis of acute PE very likely in a compatible setting, but lung imaging is still indicated whenever possible68.

Compression ultrasonography

Ultrasonography of the legs, in roughly half of cases, shows DVT in the setting of acute PE and thus serves as a powerful clue in the diagnosis of PE in compatible cases. Again, it may offer support for initiating treatment of PE when lung imaging is pending or delayed57,58.

Pregnancy

The diagnostic approach to acute PE in pregnancy should be carefully considered. Recent data emphasize that in this high-risk setting, a diagnostic strategy based on the assessment of clinical probability, D-dimer measurement, compression ultrasound, and CTA can safely rule out PE in pregnant women. As in other settings, if PE cannot be ruled out without a CTA or VQ scan, one of these should be performed69.

Clinical guidelines

Recently published 2019 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society70 and the American Society of Hematology71 offer more details and an update on both the diagnostic and the therapeutic approaches to acute PE.

Conclusions

Acute PE is commonly missed and can be fatal. The diagnostic approach depends on a careful and expeditious history with review of risk factors, physical examination, lab test review, and proof via imaging. Certain clinical scenarios may strongly suggest the diagnosis of PE, such as sudden-onset dyspnea with clear lungs and pleuritic chest pain. However, these scenarios are nonspecific and imaging confirmation is essential. Carefully used scoring systems may help limit the overuse of diagnostic testing and appear to be underused despite their validation in the outpatient setting. Once clinical suspicion has been raised, we have excellent tools to proceed with refuting or confirming the diagnosis. Importantly, most patients who die from acute PE die before the diagnosis is made but often before it is even suspected72,73. Anticoagulation clearly reduces mortality in acute PE; thus, the earliest possible suspicion is crucial74,75.

Abbreviations

BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; CTA, computed tomographic angiography; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism; PERC, Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria; RV, right ventricular; SPECT, single photon emission computed tomography; VQ, ventilation perfusion; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

F1000 recommended

References

  • 1.  Beckman MG, Hooper WC, Critchley SE, et al.: Venous thromboembolism: a public health concern. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38(4 Suppl): S495–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 2.  Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, et al.: Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(20): 1881–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Weinberg AW, Jaff MR, Tapson VF: Pulmonary embolism: an international crisis. Endovascular Today. 2019; 3–4. Reference Source
  • 4.  Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Anderson FA, et al.: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe. The number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality. Thromb Haemost. 2007; 98(4): 756–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 5.  Sweet PH 3rd, Armstrong T, Chen J, et al.: Fatal pulmonary embolism update: 10 years of autopsy experience at an academic medical center. JRSM Short Rep. 2013; 4(9): 2042533313489824. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 6.  Tapson VF: Acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(10): 1037–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 7.  Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ: Acute pulmonary embolism: part I: epidemiology and diagnosis. Circulation. 2006; 114(2): e28–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 8.  Stoeva N, Kirova G, Staneva M, et al.: Recognition of unprovoked (idiopathic) pulmonary embolism-Prospective observational study. Respir Med. 2018; 135: 57–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 9.  Anderson FA Jr: Risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003; 107(23 Suppl 1): 19–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 10.  Di Minno MN, Ambrosino P, Ageno W, et al.: Natural anticoagulants deficiency and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Thromb Res. 2015; 135(5): 923–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Desciak MC, Martin DE: Perioperative pulmonary embolism: diagnosis and anesthetic management J Clin Anesth. 2011; 23(2): 153–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Sweetland S, Green J, Liu B, et al.: Duration and magnitude of the postoperative risk of venous thromboembolism in middle aged women: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009; 339: b4583. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 13.  Panyavachiraporn N, Viarasilpa T, Jordan J, et al.: Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients. In: American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference, May 17-22, 2019 - Dallas, TX: American Thoracic Society. Am J Resp Crit Care. 2019; 199: A3427. Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Kohorst MA, Warad DM, Nageswara Rao AA, et al.: Obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and video games: The new thrombophilia cocktail in adolescents. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018; 65(7): e27041. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 15.  Dragoman MV, Tepper NK, Fu R, et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of venous thrombosis risk among users of combined oral contraception. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 141(3): 287–294. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 16.  Khorana AA, Ahrendt SA, Ryan CK, et al.: Tissue factor expression, angiogenesis, and thrombosis in pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13(10): 2870–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 17.  Uno K, Homma S, Satoh T, et al.: Tissue factor expression as a possible determinant of thromboembolism in ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007; 96(2): 290–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 18.  Falanga A, Panova-Noeva M, Russo L: Procoagulant mechanisms in tumour cells. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2009; 22(1): 49–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 19.  Nadig N, Callahan S, Higuero JP: Fluid Protocol for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Catheter Thrombolysis for Intermediate Risk Pulmonary Embolism, and Steroids for Community-acquired Pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015; 191(11): 1331–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 20.  Bertoletti L, Quenet S, Mismetti P, et al.: Clinical presentation and outcome of venous thromboembolism in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2012; 39(4): 862–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 21.  Miniati M, Cenci C, Monti S, et al.: Clinical presentation of acute pulmonary embolism: survey of 800 cases. PLoS One. 2012; 7(2): e30891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 22.  Torres-Macho J, Mancebo-Plaza AB, Crespo-Giménez A, et al.: Clinical features of patients inappropriately undiagnosed of pulmonary embolism. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31(12): 1646–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 23.  Susec O Jr, Boudrow D, Kline JA: The clinical features of acute pulmonary embolism in ambulatory patients. Acad Emerg Med. 1997; 4(9): 891–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 24.  Tzoran I, Saharov G, Brenner B, et al.: Silent pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis in the lower limbs. J Thromb Haemost. 2012; 10(4): 564–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 25.  Vanni S, Jimenez D, Nazerian P, et al.: Short-term clinical outcome of normotensive patients with acute PE and high plasma lactate. Thorax. 2015; 70(4): 333–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 26.  Tisserand G, Gil H, Méaux-Ruault N, et al.: [Clinical features of pulmonary embolism in elderly: a comparative study of 64 patients]. Rev Med Interne. 2014; 35(6): 353–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 27.  Barrios D, Morillo R, Guerassimova I, et al.: Sex differences in the characteristics and short-term prognosis of patients presenting with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. PLoS One. 2017; 12(11): e0187648. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 28.  Le Gal G, Testuz A, Righini M, et al.: Reproduction of chest pain by palpation: diagnostic accuracy in suspected pulmonary embolism. BMJ. 2005; 330(7489): 452–3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 29.  Swan D, Hitchen S, Klok FA, et al.: The problem of under-diagnosis and over-diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res. 2019; 177: 122–129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 30.  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(2): 98–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 31.  Wicki J, Perneger TV, Junod AF, et al.: Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161(1): 92–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 32.  Klok FA, Mos IC, Nijkeuter M, et al.: Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(19): 2131–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 33.  Robert-Ebadi H, Mostaguir K, Hovens MM, et al.: Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: Prospective validation of the simplified Geneva score. J Thromb Haemost. 2017; 15(9): 1764–1769. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 34.  Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, et al.: Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004; 2(8): 1247–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 35.  Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A, et al.: 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(6): 559–566. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 36.  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. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 37.  van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S, et al.: Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): A prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2017; 390(10091): 289–297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 38.  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): 1117–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 39.  de Wit K, Parpia S, Schulman S, et al.: Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism using D-dimer thresholds selected according to clinical pre-test probability. J Thromb Haemost. ISTH Melbourne, Australia. 2019. Reference Source
  • 40.  Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Dambrine S, et al.: Performance of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (the PERC rule) combined with low clinical probability in high prevalence population. Thromb Res. 2012; 129(5): e189–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 41.  Qasim A, Duggan M, O'Connell N, et al.: Clinical conditions and patient factors significantly influence diagnostic utility of D-dimer in venous thromboembolism. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2009; 20(4): 244–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 42.  Kabrhel C, Mark Courtney D, Camargo CA, et al.: Factors associated with positive D-dimer results in patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism. Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17(6): 589–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 43.  Aujesky D, Roy PM, Guy M, et al.: Prognostic value of D-dimer in patients with pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost. 2006; 96(04): 478–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 44.  Hargett CW, Tapson VF: Clinical probability and D-dimer testing: How should we use them in clinical practice? Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2008; 29(1): 15–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 45.  Becattini C, Vedovati MC, Agnelli G: Prognostic value of troponins in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2007; 116(4): 427–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 46.  Kline JA, Hernandez-Nino J, Rose GA, et al.: Surrogate markers for adverse outcomes in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34(11): 2773–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 47.  Jiménez D, Kopecna D, Tapson V, et al.: Derivation and validation of multimarker prognostication for normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014; 189(6): 718–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 48.  Vanni S, Socci F, Pepe G, et al.: High Plasma Lactate Levels Are Associated With Increased Risk of In-hospital Mortality in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism. Acad Emerg Med. 2011; 18(8): 830–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 49.  Stein PD, Terrin ML, Hales CA, et al.: Clinical, laboratory, roentgenographic, and electrocardiographic findings in patients with acute pulmonary embolism and no pre-existing cardiac or pulmonary disease. Chest. 1991; 100(3): 598–603. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 50.  Rodger M, Makropoulos D, Turek M, et al.: Diagnostic value of the electrocardiogram in suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 86(7): 807–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 51.  Johson JC, Flowers NC, Horan LG: Unexplained atrial flutter: A frequent herald of pulmonary embolism. Chest. 1971; 60(1): 29–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 52.  Konstantinides S: Acute Pulmonary Embolism. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(26): 2804–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 53.  Dogan H, de Roos A, Geleijins J, et al.: The role of computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute and chronic pulmonary embolism. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015; 21(4): 307–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 54.  Kay FU, Macedo ACS, Chate RC, et al.: Reduction of Poor Contrast Enhancement of the Pulmonary Artery in Computed Tomography Angiography Using an Alternative Respiratory Maneuver. J Thorac Imaging. 2014; 29(2): 107–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 55.  Bae KT, Tao C, Gürel S, et al.: Effect of Patient Weight and Scanning Duration on Contrast Enhancement during Pulmonary Multidetector CT Angiography. Radiology. 2007; 242(2): 582–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 56.  Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al.: Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(22): 2317–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 57.  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(9621): 1343–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 58.  Jiménez D, Aujesky D, Díaz G, et al.: Prognostic significance of deep vein thrombosis in patients presenting with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 181(9): 983–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 59.  Elster AD: Introduction to Dual-Energy Computed Tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018; 42(6): 823. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 60.  Weikert TJ, Winkel DJ, Bremerich J, et al.: AI-powered detection of pulmonary embolism on CT pulmonary angiograms: a validation study of the diagnostic performance of prototype algorithms. ECR Online. 2019.
  • 61.  PIOPED Investigators: Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990; 263(20): 2753–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 62.  Weinberg AS, Chang W, Ih G, et al.: Portable Ventilation/Perfusion Scanning is Useful for Evaluating Clinically Significant Pulmonary Embolism in the ICU Despite Abnormal Chest Radiography. J Intensive Care Med. 2018; 22: 885066618807859. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 63.  Le Duc-Pennec A, Le Roux PY, Cornily JC, et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission tomography ventilation/perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2012; 141(2): 381–387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 64.  Le Roux PY, Robin P, Delluc A, et al.: V/Q SPECT interpretation for pulmonary embolism diagnosis: which criteria to use? J Nucl Med. 2013; 54(7): 1077–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 65.  Stein PD, Chenevert TL, Fowler SE, et al.: Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for pulmonary embolism: a multicenter prospective study (PIOPED III). Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152(7): 434–43, W142-3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 66.  Coutance G, Cauderlier E, Ehtisham J, et al.: The prognostic value of markers of right ventricular dysfunction in pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011; 15(2): R103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 67.  Barrios D, Morillo R, Lobo JL, et al.: Assessment of right ventricular function in acute pulmonary embolism. Am Heart J. 2017; 185: 123–129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 68.  Charif F, Mansour M, Hamdan R, et al.: Free-Floating Right Heart Thrombus with Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2018; 28(2): 146–149. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 69.  Righini M, Robert-Ebadi H, Elias A, et al.: Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy: A Multicenter Prospective Management Outcome Study. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(11): 766–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 70.  Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al.: 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2019; pii: ehz405. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 71.  Witt DM, Nieuwlaat R, Clark NP, et al.: American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy. Blood Adv. 2018; 2(22): 3257–3291. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
  • 72.  Pulido T, Aranda A, Zevallos MA, et al.: Pulmonary embolism as a cause of death in patients with heart disease: an autopsy study. Chest. 2006; 129(5): 1282–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 73.  Rubinstein I: Fatal pulmonary emboli in hospitalized patients. An autopsy study. Arch Intern Med. 1988; 148(6): 1425–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 74.  Barritt DW, Jordan SC: Anticoagulant drugs in the treatment of pulmonary embolism. A controlled trial. Lancet. 1960; 1(7138): 1309–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 75.  Smith SB, Geske JB, Maguire JM, et al.: Early anticoagulation is associated with reduced mortality for acute pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2010; 137(6): 1382–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Jan 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Article Versions (1)
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
 - -
Citations
SEE MORE DETAILS
CITE
how to cite this article
Ishaaya E and Tapson VF. Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21347.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 24 Jan 2020
Views
1
Cite
Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2020
Marc Righini, Division of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland 
Approved
VIEWS 1
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.23508.r58621
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Righini M. Reviewer Report For: Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.23508.r58621)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/9-44/v1#referee-response-58621
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2020
Grégoire Le Gal, Ottawa University Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
Approved
VIEWS 0
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.23508.r58620
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Le Gal G. Reviewer Report For: Advances in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):44 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.23508.r58620)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/9-44/v1#referee-response-58620
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Jan 2020
Comment

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved
The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved
Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Reviewer Reports

Invited Reviewers
1 2
Version 1
24 Jan 20 		read read
  1. Grégoire Le Gal, Ottawa University Hospital, Ottawa, Canada
  2. Marc Righini, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment
Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
    Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
    Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
    Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
    Sign In
    If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

    The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
    Email address not valid, please try again

    You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

    You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

    Code not correct, please try again
    Email us for further assistance.
    Server error, please try again.