Clinical validity of a negative computed tomography scan in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism - A systematic review

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 05/2005; 293(16):2012-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.16.2012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The clinical validity of using computed tomography (CT) to diagnose peripheral pulmonary embolism is uncertain. Insufficient sensitivity for peripheral pulmonary embolism is considered the principal limitation of CT.
To review studies that used a CT-based approach to rule out a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
The medical literature databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CRISP, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1990 to May 2004.
We included studies that used contrast-enhanced chest CT to rule out the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism, had a minimum follow-up of 3 months, and had study populations of more than 30 patients.
Two reviewers independently abstracted patient demographics, frequency of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), CT modality (single-slice CT, multidetector-row CT, or electron-beam CT), false-negative results, and deaths attributable to pulmonary embolism. To calculate the overall negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of a VTE after a negative or inconclusive chest CT scan for pulmonary embolism, we included VTEs that were objectively confirmed by an additional imaging test despite a negative or inconclusive CT scan and objectively confirmed VTEs that occurred during clinical follow-up of at least 3 months.
Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and contained a total of 3500 patients who were evaluated from October 1994 through April 2002. The overall NLR of a VTE after a negative chest CT scan for pulmonary embolism was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.11); and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1% (95% CI, 98.7%-99.5%). The NLR of a VTE after a negative single-slice spiral CT scan for pulmonary embolism was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.13); and after a negative multidetector-row CT scan, 0.15 (95% CI, 0.05-0.43). There was no difference in risk of VTEs based on CT modality used (relative risk, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.47-5.94; P = .50). The overall NLR of mortality attributable to pulmonary embolism was 0.01 (95% CI, 0.01-0.02) and the overall NPV was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.7%-99.9%).
The clinical validity of using a CT scan to rule out pulmonary embolism is similar to that reported for conventional pulmonary angiography.

Download full-text


Available from: Uwe Joseph Schoepf, Jul 04, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. We conducted a study to answer 3 questions: (1) is CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) overutilized in suspected pulmonary embolism (PE)? (2) What alternative diagnoses are provided by CTPA? (3) Can CTPA be used to evaluate right ventricular dilatation (RVD)? Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical information of 231 consecutive emergency department patients who underwent CTPA for suspected PE over a one-year period. Results. The mean age of our patients was 53 years, and 58.4% were women. The prevalence of PE was 20.7%. Among the 136 patients with low clinical probability of PE, a d-dimer test was done in 54.4%, and it was normal in 24.3%; none of these patients had PE. The most common alternative findings on CTPA were emphysema (7.6%), pneumonia (7%), atelectasis (5.5%), bronchiectasis (3.8%), and congestive heart failure (3.3%). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of CTPA for (RVD) was 92% and 80%, respectively. Conclusions. PE could have been excluded without CTPA in ~1 out of 4 patients with low clinical probability of PE, if a formal assessment of probability and d-dimer test had been done. In patients without PE, CTPA did not provide an alternative diagnosis in 65%. In patients with PE, CTPA showed the potential to evaluate RVD.
    08/2013; 2013:915213. DOI:10.1155/2013/915213
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gadolinium-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) can be an option in patients with a history of previous adverse reaction to iodinated contrast material and renal insufficiency. Radiation is also avoided. The aim of this study is to prospectively compare the diagnostic value of MRA with that of a diagnostic strategy, taking into account catheter angiography, computed tomography angiography (CTA), and lung scintigraphy [ventilation-perfusion (VQ)]. Magnetic resonance angiography was done in 48 patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) using fast gradient echo coronal acquisition with gadolinium. Interpretation was done with native coronal images and multiplanar maximum intensity projection reconstructions. Results were compared to catheter angiography (n=15), CTA (n=34), VQ (n=45), as well as 6-12 months clinical follow-ups, according to a sequenced reference tree. The final diagnosis of PE was retained in 11 patients (23%). There were two false negatives and no false positive results with MRA. Computed tomography angiography resulted in no false negatives or false positives. Magnetic resonance angiography had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 100%. In our study, pulmonary MRA had a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of PE, with slightly less sensitivity than CTA. In the diagnostic algorithm of PE, pulmonary MRA should be considered as an alternative to CTA when iodine contrast injection or radiation is a significant matter.
    Clinical Imaging 05/2006; 30(3):166-72. DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2005.10.005 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the term "all that wheezes is not asthma" is not new, and the long list of asthma masqueraders has remained essentially the same for several decades, the importance of knowing when to question the accuracy ofa diagnosis of asthma has remained critical for physicians who care for patients with respiratory symptoms. The concepts of "asthma control" and"asthma severity" are currently evolving, although the fundamental hall-marks that define the syndrome of asthma endure and should be mastered by asthma specialists. Asthma masqueraders, including several that may confound a correct diagnosis of asthma, are important to consider when either the presentation of asthma is atypical or the response of the patient to treatment is suboptimal. COPD and VCD head the list of diagnoses most likely to be confused with asthma in everyday practice. Correctly identifying the diagnosis of COPD enables implementation of an up-to-date treatment plan that differs from asthma management. VCD is a vastly under recognized syndrome whose existence is widely accepted but whose pathophysiology is poorly understood, and correctly identifying a VCD component to asthma symptoms enables both a reduction in costly and potentially harmful asthma medications and focus on specific VCD treatment, such as speech therapy. For less common and uncommon asthma masqueraders, it is important to be familiar with their typical clinical presentation and basic diagnostic approaches.
    Medical Clinics of North America 02/2006; 90(1):61-76. DOI:10.1016/j.mcna.2005.08.004 · 2.80 Impact Factor