Pulmonary Embolism in the Mechanically-Ventilated Critically Ill Patient: Is it Different?

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasileios A Zochios ◽  
Alex Keeshan

Pulmonary embolism (PE) confers significant in-hospital morbidity and mortality, and critically ill patients remain at risk for venous thromboembolism despite thromboprophylaxis. Recognition of the clinical manifestations and immediate management of PE are of paramount importance. Despite diagnostic advances, PE is often undiagnosed and untreated in patients receiving mechanical ventilation, as these patients do not exhibit the common clinical features of the condition, making the diagnosis very challenging. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography is probably the reference standard for the diagnosis of acute PE in the haemodynamically stable, ventilated patient. In the setting of circulatory collapse, bedside echocardiography may be used to risk stratify these patients, based on the presence or absence of right ventricular dysfunction, and guide further management. Treatment options include anticoagulation alone, anticoagulation plus thrombolysis, surgical or catheter embolectomy. Inotropes, vasopressors and pulmonary artery vasodilators may be considered after initial resuscitation of the right ventricle. Few studies have focused on estimating the prevalence of PE among mechanically-ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients and there is notable lack of data assessing predictive factors, prevention, diagnostic strategy and management of PE in the ICU setting.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanan Guo ◽  
Wenwu Sun ◽  
Yanli Liu ◽  
Yanling Lv ◽  
Su Zhao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Pulmonary embolism is a severe condition prone to misdiagnosis given its nonspecific signs and symptoms. Previous studies on the pneumonia outbreak caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed a number of patients with elevated d-dimer, whether those patients combined with pulmonary embolism got our attention. Methods Data on clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiological findings, treatment, and disease progression of 19 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia,who completed computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) during hospitalization in the Central Hospital of Wuhan from January 2 to March 26, 2020, were reviewed. Results Of the 19 suspected pulmonary embolism and subjected to CTPA patients, six were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism. The Wells’ score of the six patients with pulmonary embolism was 0–1, which suggested a low risk of pulmonary embolism. The median level of d-dimers collected at the day before or on the day of CTPA completion in the patients with pulmonary embolism was 18.36 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.69–61.46) µg/mL, which was much higher than that in the patients without pulmonary embolism (median 9.47 [IQR: 4.22–28.02] µg/mL). Of the 6 patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism, all patients received anticoagulant therapy, 5 of which survived and were discharged and 1 died. Conclusion A potential causal relationship exists between COVID-19 infection and pulmonary embolism, but whether this phenomenon is common remains uncertain. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients who developed pulmonary embolism are similar to those of patients with increased d-dimer alone, prompting a significant challenge on differential diagnoses.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Morawiec ◽  
O Brycht ◽  
M Nadel ◽  
J Drozdz

Abstract Background According to 2019 ESC guidelines for management in patients with the pulmonary embolism (PE), the computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the diagnostic method of choice in suspected high-risk PE defined as patients with hemodynamic instability. In stable cases, it is recommended to assess the pre-test probability of the PE. However, CTPA with its great accuracy and wide availability in most medical centers is used as often to confirm as to exclude the diagnosis in PE suspected patients, despite the fact that it is linked with the risk of radiation and iodine-containing contrast exposure. Purpose The aim of the study was to assess the validity of CTPA use in patients with suspected PE form the perspective of multidisciplinary clinical center. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the data of from 52,474 hospitalized patients between 01.2018 and 12.2019. A total of 261 (0.5%) consecutive patients with suspected PE (in the emergency department or during hospitalization) were included into the study. Due to suspicion of PE all patients underwent the CTPA. In this group, we analyzed all available clinical data, results of laboratory and diagnostic tests (before and after CTPA) including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine level, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and planar ventilation/perfusion (lung scintigraphy) scan (V/Q SPECT) if performed. Results The CTPA confirmed PE in 28.9% of patients. The most common final diagnoses, established in the group with negative CTPA result, include heart failure (33.9%), pneumonia (14.4%) exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (9.3%) and acute coronary syndrome (5.9%). Acute PE was the cause of in-hospital death in 2.4% of patients and the rate of all cause in-hospital death was 11.4%. In 54.2% of patients we observed the eGFR decline and creatinine level increase, meeting the criteria of the acute contrast-induced nephropathy in 33 of them of them (19.8%). In the group with excluded PE, mean eGFR before CTPA was 70.9ml/min/1.73m2 with the decline to mean 60.4ml/min/1.73m2 during the hospitalization (p<0.01). In patients with negative CTPA result and the worsening of the renal function mean eGFR decline was 17.8ml/min/1.73m2 (p<0.01) and mean creatinine level increase was 38.6μmol/l (p<0.01). CONSLUSIONS The initial data collected show the overuse of CTPA in suspected PE, as the diagnosis was confirmed in less than one-third of them. Although CTPA allows to exclude or confirm PE unambiguously, its use is associated with risk of acute contrast-induced nephropathy. Additionally, in patients with exacerbation of heart failure established as final diagnosis after excluding PE, intensive diuretic treatment is crucial and may cause further accompanying renal function worsening. Therefore, optimizing the diagnostic pathway in patients with suspected PE into less aggravating procedures such as TTE or V/Q SPECT is justifiable. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2761-2766
Author(s):  
Helia Robert-Ebadi ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
Marc Righini

Modern non-invasive diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism rely on the sequential use of clinical probability assessment, D-dimer measurement, and thoracic imaging tests. Planar ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy was the cornerstone test for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism for more than two decades and has now been replaced by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Diagnostic strategies using CTPA are very safe to rule out pulmonary embolism and have been well validated in large prospective management outcome studies. Venous compression ultrasonography is the cornerstone test to diagnose deep vein thrombosis but is not mandatory for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism when using multidetector CTPA.


CASE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 474-476
Author(s):  
Chakradhar Venkata ◽  
Senthil Aruchamy ◽  
Jan Kasal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document