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

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 1491-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. C. M. MOS ◽  
F. A. KLOK ◽  
L. J. M. KROFT ◽  
A. DE ROOS ◽  
O. M. DEKKERS ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (08) ◽  
pp. 1622-1629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom van der Hulle ◽  
Nick van Es ◽  
Paul den Exter ◽  
Josien van Es ◽  
Inge Mos ◽  
...  

SummaryA normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) remains a controversial criterion for ruling out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with a likely clinical probability. We set out to determine the risk of VTE and fatal PE after a normal CTPA in this patient category and compare these risk to those after a normal pulmonary angiogram of 1.7% (95%CI 1.0–2.7%) and 0.3% (95%CI 0.02–0.7%). A patient-level meta-analysis from 4 prospective diagnostic management studies that sequentially applied the Wells rule, D-dimer tests and CTPA to consecutive patients with clinically suspected acute PE. The primary outcome was the 3-month VTE incidence after a normal CTPA. A total of 6,148 patients were included with an overall PE prevalence of 24%. The 3-month VTE incidence in all 4,421 patients in whom PE was excluded at baseline was 1.2% (95%CI 0.48–2.6) and the risk of fatal PE was 0.11% (95%CI 0.02–0.70). In patients with a likely clinical probability the 3-month incidences of VTE and fatal PE were 2.0% (95%CI 1.0–4.1%) and 0.48% (95%CI 0.20–1.1%) after a normal CTPA. The 3-month incidence of VTE was 6.3% (95%CI 3.0–12) in patients with a Wells rule >6 points. In conclusion, this study suggests that a normal CTPA may be considered as a valid diagnostic criterion to rule out PE in the majority of patients with a likely clinical probability, although the risk of VTE is higher in subgroups such as patients with a Wells rule >6 points for which a closer follow-up should be considered.Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.


2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712090206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Abdellatif ◽  
Mahmoud Ahmed Ebada ◽  
Souad Alkanj ◽  
Ahmed Negida ◽  
Nicolas Murray ◽  
...  

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: We searched Medline (via PubMed), EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant published studies. We selected studies assessing the accuracy of DECT in the detection of PE. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seven studies were included in our systematic review. Of the 182 patients included, 108 patients had PEs. The pooled analysis showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.4%-94.1%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-98.5%), respectively. The pooled PLR was 8.186 (95% CI: 3.726-17.986), while the pooled NLR was 0.159 (95% CI: 0.093-0.270). Cochran-Q was 0.8712, and AUC was 0.935 in the sROC curve. Conclusion: Dual-energy computed tomography shows high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the detection of acute PE. The high PLR highlights the high clinical importance of DECT as a prevalence-independent, rule-in test. Studies with a larger sample size with standardized reference tests are still needed to increase the statistical power of the study and support these findings.


2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 728-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Golpe ◽  
Luis A Pérez de Llano ◽  
Olalla Castro-Añón ◽  
Manuel Vázquez-Caruncho ◽  
Carlos González-Juanatey ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 128 (7) ◽  
pp. 747-759.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix G. Meinel ◽  
John W. Nance ◽  
U. Joseph Schoepf ◽  
Verena S. Hoffmann ◽  
Kolja M. Thierfelder ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document