Pulmonary Embolism
Numbers (% or LR) | |
---|---|
Incidence | |
General Population | 0.27% |
ER population with concern for PE/DVT (Wells) | 1.3% |
Risk Factor | |
1. Cancer | LR 2.5 |
2. Recent surgery / immobility | LR 3.0 | Symptoms/Syndrome |
1. PE #1 clinical diagnosis | LR 5.0 |
2. Tachycardia (>100) | LR 3.0 |
3. Signs/Sx of DVT (unilateral edema, leg pain) | LR 5.0 |
4. Hemoptysis | LR 2.5 |
5. Previous PE | LR 3.0 |
6. No clinical symptoms or syndrome | LR 0.8 |
Test | Clinical sensitivity | Clinical specificity |
1. CT PE | 90% | 92% |
2. D-dimer | 97% | 40% |
Other |
Explanation for + test without disease: Subsegmental PEs would not have been identified by angiogram in PIOPED. Anticoagulation of uncertain benefit in these patients. CT scan artifact/contrast issue. |
Explanation for - test with disease: Small PE or one that cannot be detected because of location in vasculature. |
Example of high value use: Testing patients with appropriate syndromes who can receive anticoagulation. |
Example of low value use: Testing all ER patients with respiratory problems. Reflex CTPE on any patients with + D-dimer testing. |
Discussion
Incidence and risk factors:
Pretest probability for PE was derived from the Wells’ and Geneva scores. These group risk into low, medium and high with a score translating to 3 specific probabilities (e.g. 1.3%, 16%, 41% for Wells’). The implied LR generally match with the risk levels but provide risk along a continuum instead of ordinal outcomes. Differences between scores were resolved with expert adjudication.
Incidence in the general population was derived as follows, the American Lung Association estimates 900,000 Americans/year have PE. The US population is 331 million in 2021, equaling an incidence of 0.27%/year. This is likely an overestimate given hospital-based PE incidence ~200,000/year in America.
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of CT PE, we used the most recent comprehensive meta-analysis which reported a pooled sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 94%.[1] However, this was performed prior to the major study, PIOPED II, which if poor image quality CT results were included, found sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 90%.[2]
Given technological advancement since these studies, experts expected CT PE would be more sensitive than 15 years ago, but perhaps no more specific.
A recent review of D-dimer for thromboembolism (DVT/PE) identified age specific specificities while sensitivity remained at or above 97% at all ages. The average specificity of 40% was chosen to reflect a mix between age and absolute cut-off D-dimer value (>500) or those that use age specific cutoffs, which are more specific in older age.[3]
References
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=hayashino+tomography+2005
2. PIOPED II https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16738268
3. https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2492
Authors: Debbie Korenstein, Daniel Morgan