HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jouveshomme, S. Articles by Cazaban, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jouveshomme, S. Articles by Cazaban, A.

Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in hospitalised patients: retrospective survey of an institutional standard

¹ Pneumology and Thoracic Oncology Service, and ² Radiology Service, CHI Poissy-St Germain, St Germain-en-Laye, France.

CORRESPONDENCE: S. Jouveshomme, Service de Pneumologie et d'Oncologie Thoracique, CHI Poissy-St Germain, 20, rue d'Armagis, 78100 St Germain-en-Laye, France. Fax: 33 139274162. E-mail: stephanejouveshomme{at}chi-psg.com

Keywords: Compression ultrasonography, computed tomography, deep vein thrombosis, implementation study, pulmonary embolism

Received: February 22, 2007
Accepted August 3, 2007

The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and implementation of a diagnostic strategy in hospitalised patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE).

A diagnostic strategy was established and implemented in a general hospital. A retrospective cohort study, including 400 consecutive in-patients, was performed in order to assess the appropriateness of the diagnostic management and the incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTE) during follow-up.

PE was confirmed in 116 (29%) patients. The incremental value of adding compression ultrasonography (CUS) to multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for the diagnosis of PE was 8.6%. PE was appropriately excluded in 169 (42%) patients due to a normal lung scan (n = 34), a negative MDCT providing an alternative diagnosis (n = 94), and a negative MDCT and CUS (n = 41). During follow-up, VTE occurred in 3.5% patients. The almost unique cause of inappropriate management was the absence of further work-up after a MDCT-negative result for PE providing no alternative diagnosis (n = 115). Inappropriate management was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of VTE (7.2%).

A frontline diagnostic work-up based on pulmonary multidetector-row computed tomography associated with a compression ultrasonography of the leg veins is effective and more sensitive than pulmonary multidetector-row computed tomography alone in ruling out pulmonary embolism.