Radiological Cardiothoracic Ratio as a Potential Predictor of Right Ventricular Enlargement in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Due to COVID-19

The aim of the study was to determine the usefulness of the radiological cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) as a predictor of right ventricular enlargement in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism during COVID-19. The study group consisted of 61 patients with confirmed COVID-19, suspected of pulmonary embolism based on physical examination and laboratory tests (age: 67.18 ± 12.47 years). Computed tomography angiography (CTA) of pulmonary arteries and chest radiograph in AP projection with cardiothoracic ratio assessment were performed in all patients. Right ventricular enlargement was diagnosed by the ratio of right ventricular to left ventricular (RV/LV) dimensions in pulmonary CTA with two cut-off points: ≥0.9 and ≥1.0. Heart silhouette enlargement was found when CTR on the chest radiograph in the projection AP > 0.55. The mean values of RV/LV and CTR in the studied group were 0.96 ± 0.23 and 0.57 ± 0.05, respectively. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 45.9%. Right ventricular enlargement was documented in 44.3% or 29.5% depending on the adopted criterion RV/LV ≥ 0.9 or RV/LV ≥ 1.0. Heart silhouette enlargement was found in 60.6%. Patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE+) had a significantly higher RV/LV ratio and CTR than patients with excluded pulmonary embolism (PE−) (RV/LV: PE+ 1.08 ± 0.24, PE− 0.82 ± 0.12; CTR: PE+ 0.60 ± 0.05, PE− 0.54 ± 0.04; p < 0.05). The correlation analysis showed a statistically significant positive correlation between the RV/LV ratio and CTR (r = 0.59, p < 0.05). Based on the ROC curves, CTR values were determined as the optimal cut-off points for the prediction of right ventricular enlargement (RV/LV ≥ 0.9 or RV/LV ≥ 1.0), being 0.54 and 0.55, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the CTR criterion >0.54 as a predictor of RV/LV ratio ≥0.9 were 0.412, 0.963, and 0.656, respectively, while those of the CTR criterion >0.55 as a predictor of RV/LV ratio ≥1.0 were 0.488, 0.833, and 0.590, respectively. In summary, in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism during COVID-19, the radiographic cardiothoracic ratio can be considered as a prognostic factor for right ventricular enlargement, especially as a negative predictor of right ventricular enlargement in the case of lower CTR values.

CT pulmonary angiography appropriateness in a single emergency department: does the use of revised Geneva score matter?

Purpose To assess the percentage of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) procedures that could have been avoided by methodical application of the Revised Geneva Score (RGS) coupled with age-adjusted D-dimer cut-offs rather than only clinical judgment in Emergency Department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). Material and methods Between November 2019 and May 2020, 437 patients with suspected PE based on symptoms and D-dimer test were included in this study. All patients underwent to CTPA. For each patient, we retrospectively calculated the age-adjusted D-dimer cut-offs and the RGS in the original version. Finally, CT images were retrospectively reviewed, and the presence of PE was recorded. Results In total, 43 (9.84%) CTPA could have been avoided by use of RGS coupled with age-adjusted D-dimer cut-offs. Prevalence of PE was 14.87%. From the analysis of 43 inappropriate CTPA, 24 (55.81%) of patients did not show any thoracic signs, two (4.65%) of patients had PE, and the remaining patients had alternative thoracic findings. Conclusion The study showed good prevalence of PE diagnoses in our department using only physician assessment, although 9.84% CTPA could have been avoided by methodical application of RGS coupled with age-adjusted D-dimer cut-offs.

Diagnostic accuracy of focused deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched on 2 July 2020 with no restrictions on the date of publication. Subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of pulmonary embolism, ultrasound and diagnosis were used.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies reported sensitivity and specificity of deep venous, lung, cardiac or multiorgan ultrasound in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, using an adequate reference-test. Prospective, cross-sectional and retrospective studies were considered for eligibility. No restrictions were made on language. Studies were excluded if a control group consisted of healthy volunteers or if transesophageal or endobronchial ultrasound was used. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed by construction of hierarchical summary receiver operator curves. I2 was used to assess the study heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity of reported ultrasound signs, stratified by organ approach (deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by pretest probability of pulmonary embolism.Results6378 references were identified, and 70 studies included. The study population comprised 9664 patients with a prevalence of pulmonary embolism of 39.9% (3852/9664). Risk of bias in at least one domain was found in 98.6% (69/70) of included studies. Most frequently, 72.8% (51/70) of studies reported >24 hours between ultrasound examination and reference test or did not disclose time interval at all. Level of heterogeneity ranged from 0% to 100%. Most notable ultrasound signs were bilateral compression of femoral and popliteal veins (22 studies; 4708 patients; sensitivity 43.7% (36.3% to 51.4%); specificity 96.7% (95.4% to 97.6%)), presence of at least one hypoechoic pleural-based lesion (19 studies; 2134 patients; sensitivity 81.4% (73.2% to 87.5%); specificity 87.4% (80.9% to 91.9%)), D-sign (13 studies; 1579 patients; sensitivity 29.7% (24.6% to 35.4%); specificity 96.2% (93.1% to 98.0%)), visible right ventricular thrombus (5 studies; 995 patients; sensitivity 4.7% (2.7% to 8.1%); specificity 100% (99.0% to 100%)) and McConnell’s sign (11 studies; 1480 patients; sensitivity 29.1% (20.0% to 40.1%); specificity 98.6% (96.7% to 99.4%)).ConclusionSeveral ultrasound signs exhibit a high specificity for pulmonary embolism, suggesting that implementation of ultrasound in the initial assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism may improve the selection of patients for radiation imaging.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184313.