"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Pulmonary Embolism at CT Angiography: Implications for Appropriateness, Cost, and Radiation Exposure in 2003 Patients

    Published Online:Aug 1 2010https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091624

    Abstract

    Our study findings show that, in the setting of no thromboembolic risk factors, it is extraordinarily unlikely (0.95% chance) to have a CT angiogram positive for pulmonary embolism.

    Purpose

    To determine whether thromboembolic risk factor assessment could accurately indicate the pretest probability for pulmonary embolism (PE), and if so, computed tomographic (CT) angiography might be targeted more appropriately than in current usage, resulting in decreased costs and radiation exposure.

    Materials and Methods

    Institutional review board approval was obtained. Electronic medical records of 2003 patients who underwent CT angiography for possible PE during 1½ years (July 2004 to February 2006) were reviewed retrospectively for thromboembolic risk factors. Risk factors that were assessed included immobilization, malignancy, hypercoagulable state, excess estrogen state, a history of venous thromboembolism, age, and sex. Logistic regressions were conducted to test the significance of each risk factor.

    Results

    Overall, CT angiograms were negative for PE in 1806 (90.16%) of 2003 patients. CT angiograms were positive for PE in 197 (9.84%) of 2003 patients; 6.36% were Emergency Department patients, and 13.46% were inpatients. Of the 197 patients with CT angiograms positive for PE, 192 (97.46%) had one or more risk factors, of which age of 65 years or older (69.04%) was the most common. Of the 1806 patients with CT angiograms negative for PE, 520 (28.79%) had no risk factors. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of risk factor assessment in all patients were 97.46% and 99.05%, respectively. All risk factors, except sex, were significant in the multivariate logistic regression (P < .031).

    Conclusion

    In the setting of no risk factors, it is extraordinarily unlikely (0.95% chance) to have a CT angiogram positive for PE. This selectivity and triage step should help reduce current costs and radiation exposure to patients.

    © RSNA, 2010

    References

    • 1 Tuttle-Newhall JE, Rutledge R, Hultman CS, Fakhry SM. Statewide, population-based, time-series analysis of the frequency and outcome of pulmonary embolus in 318,554 trauma patients. J Trauma 1997;42(1):90–99. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 Patel S, Kazerooni EA. Helical CT for the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(1):135–149. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3 Kline JA, Webb WB, Jones AE, Hernandez-Nino J. Impact of a rapid rule-out protocol for pulmonary embolism on the rate of screening, missed cases, and pulmonary vascular imaging in an urban US emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2004;44(5):490–502. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Feied CF. Pulmonary embolism. In: Rosen PBarkin RM, eds. Emergency medicine principles and practice. 4th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book, 1998; chap 111. Google Scholar
    • 5 Giuntini C, Di Ricco G, Marini C, Melillo E, Palla A. Pulmonary embolism: epidemiology. Chest 1995;107(1 suppl):3S–9S. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6 Lee CH, Hankey GJ, Ho WK, Eikelboom JW. Venous thromboembolism: diagnosis and management of pulmonary embolism. Med J Aust 2005;182(11):569–574. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7 Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al.. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2006;354(22):2317–2327. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8 Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al.. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005;352(17):1760–1768. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, et al.. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295(2):172–179. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10 Stein PD, Woodard PK, Weg JG, et al.. Diagnostic pathways in acute pulmonary embolism: recommendations of the PIOPED II investigators. Am J Med 2006;119(12):1048–1055. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT, et al.. Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology 2007;245(3):742–750. Link, Google Scholar
    • 12 Singh J, Daftary A. Iodinated contrast media and their adverse reactions. J Nucl Med Technol 2008;36(2):69–74. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 Schoepf UJ, Holzknecht N, Helmberger TK, et al.. Subsegmental pulmonary emboli: improved detection with thin-collimation multi-detector row spiral CT. Radiology 2002;222(2):483–490. Link, Google Scholar
    • 14 Costantino MM, Randall G, Gosselin M, Brandt M, Spinning K, Vegas CD. CT angiography in the evaluation of acute pulmonary embolus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(2):471–474. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al.. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000;83(3):416–420. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al.. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006;144(3):165–171. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 17 Chagnon I, Bounameaux H, Aujesky D, et al.. Comparison of two clinical prediction rules and implicit assessment among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 2002;113(4):269–275. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18 Anderson DR, Wells PS, Stiell I, et al.. Management of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis in the emergency department: combining use of a clinical diagnosis model with D-dimer testing. J Emerg Med 2000;19(3):225–230. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19 Marlar RA. D-dimer: establishing a laboratory assay for ruling out venous thrombosis. MLO Med Lab Obs 2002;34(11):28–32. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 Corwin MT, Donohoo JH, Partridge R, Egglin TK, Mayo-Smith WW. Do emergency physicians use serum D-dimer effectively to determine the need for CT when evaluating patients for pulmonary embolism? review of 5,344 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(5):1319–1323. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 21 O’Neill J, Murchison JT, Wright L, Williams J. Effect of the introduction of helical CT on radiation dose in the investigation of pulmonary embolism. Br J Radiol 2005;78(925):46–50. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22 Gupta RT, Kakarla RK, Kirshenbaum KJ, Tapson VF. D-dimers and efficacy of clinical risk estimation algorithms: sensitivity in evaluation of acute pulmonary embolism. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):425–430. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23 Pleszewski B, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Qanadli SD, et al.. Gadolinium-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective study on 48 patients. Clin Imaging 2006;30(3):166–172. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 24 Freeman LM. Don’t bury the V/Q scan: it’s as good as multidetector CT angiograms with a lot less radiation exposure. J Nucl Med 2008;49(1):5–8. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25 Remy-Jardin M, Pistolesi M, Goodman LR, et al.. Management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism in the era of CT angiography: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2007;245(2):315–329. Link, Google Scholar
    • 26 Heyer CM, Mohr PS, Lemburg SP, Peters SA, Nicolas V. Image quality and radiation exposure at pulmonary CT angiography with 100- or 120-kVp protocol: prospective randomized study. Radiology 2007;245(2):577–583. Link, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received August 31, 2009; revision requested November 12; final revision received January 12, 2010; accepted January 29; final version accepted February 15.
    Published online: Aug 2010
    Published in print: Aug 2010