Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study

3Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Methods: COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated. Results: In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2–4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5–11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2–5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4–18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4–14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2–5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7–19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8–19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594–0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4–22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%. Conclusions: The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor. Key Points: • D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

References Powered by Scopus

Multivariable prognostic models: Issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors

8138Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice

6668Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: Management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer

1244Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

D‑Dimers in diagnosis and prevention of venous thrombosis: recent advances and their practical implications

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Controversies in the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the Emergency Department

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chassagnon, G., El Hajjam, M., Boussouar, S., Revel, M. P., Khoury, R., Ghaye, B., … Porcher, R. (2023). Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study. European Radiology, 33(8), 5540–5548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09475-6

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

50%

Researcher 1

50%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 1

50%

Computer Science 1

50%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free