Multidetector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography in patients with a high clinical probability of pulmonary embolism.

UNLABELLED: ESSENTIALS: When high probability of pulmonary embolism (PE), sensitivity of computed tomography (CT) is unclear. We investigated the sensitivity of multidetector CT among 134 patients with a high probability of PE. A normal CT alone may not safely exclude PE in patients with a high clinical pretest probability. In patients with no clear alternative diagnosis after CTPA, further testing should be strongly considered. BACKGROUND: Whether patients with a negative multidetector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) result and a high clinical pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) should be further investigated is controversial. METHODS: This was a prospective investigation of the sensitivity of multidetector CTPA among patients with a priori clinical assessment of a high probability of PE according to the Wells criteria. Among patients with a negative CTPA result, the diagnosis of PE required at least one of the following conditions: ventilation/perfusion lung scan showing a high probability of PE in a patient with no history of PE, abnormal findings on venous ultrasonography in a patient without previous deep vein thrombosis at that site, or the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a 3-month follow-up period after anticoagulation was withheld because of a negative multidetector CTPA result. RESULTS: We identified 498 patients with a priori clinical assessment of a high probability of PE and a completed CTPA study. CTPA excluded PE in 134 patients; in these patients, the pooled incidence of VTE was 5.2% (seven of 134 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-9.0). Five patients had VTEs that were confirmed by an additional imaging test despite a negative CTPA result (five of 48 patients; 10.4%; 95% CI 1.8-19.1), and two patients had objectively confirmed VTEs that occurred during clinical follow-up of at least 3 months (two of 86 patients; 2.3%; 95% CI 0-5.5). None of the patients had a fatal PE during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A normal multidetector CTPA result alone may not safely exclude PE in patients with a high clinical pretest probability.

Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in cancer-associated incidental pulmonary embolism among treated and untreated patients: a pooled analysis of 926 patients.

UNLABELLED: ESSENTIALS: We performed a pooled analysis of 926 patients with cancer-associated incidental pulmonary embolism (IPE). Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage. Recurrence risk is comparable after subsegmental and more proximally localized IPE. Our results support low molecular weight heparins over VKA and similar management of subsegmental IPE. BACKGROUND: Incidental pulmonary embolism (IPE) is defined as pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed on computed tomography scanning not performed for suspected PE. IPE has been estimated to occur in 3.1% of all cancer patients and is a growing challenge for clinicians and patients. Nevertheless, knowledge about the treatment and prognosis of cancer-associated IPE is scarce. We aimed to provide the best available evidence on IPE management. METHODS: Incidence rates of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major hemorrhage, and mortality during 6-month follow-up were pooled using individual patient data from studies identified by a systematic literature search. Subgroup analyses based on cancer stage, thrombus localization, and management were performed. RESULTS: In 926 cancer patients with IPE from 11 cohorts, weighted pooled 6-month risks of recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage and mortality were 5.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-8.3%), 4.7% (95% CI 3.0-6.8%), and 37% (95% CI 28-47%). VTE recurrence risk was comparable under low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (6.2% vs. 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.9; 95% CI 0.3-3.1), while 12% in untreated patients (HR 2.6; 95% CI 0.91-7.3). Risk of major hemorrhage was higher under VKAs than under LMWH (13% vs. 3.9%; HR 3.9; 95% CI 1.6-10). VTE recurrence risk was comparable in patients with an subsegmental IPE and those with a more proximally localized IPE (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.50-2.4). CONCLUSION: These results support the current recommendation to anticoagulate cancer-associated IPE with LMWH and argue against different management of subsegmental IPE.