Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

A Rational Approach to Pulmonary Embolism Evaluation

By Anton Helman, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP | on March 15, 2019 | 1 Comment
CME CME Now EM Cases
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version
shutterstock.com

Big-Picture Solutions to Over-Investigating

Some potential solutions to over-investigating include malpractice reform, more time spent talking to patients, and a change in the system of financial rewards for ordering tests. For PE workup in particular, departmental decision support systems have been shown to reduce imaging rates and increase diagnostic yield.17

You Might Also Like
  • Expanded Testing for Pulmonary Embolism Leads CT Scan Overuse
  • ACEP Clinical Policy Review: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism
  • Pulmonary Embolism Prevalence Examined in Patients with Syncope
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 38 – No 03 – March 2019

So next time you’re about to pull the trigger on ordering a CTPA for suspected PE based on gestalt, instead take the time to use your evidence-based departmental decision support system that utilizes diagnostic decision tools such as Geneva score, Wells’ score, D-dimer and PERC rule. If your patient is young or has a contrast allergy, consider a V/Q SPECT as a potentially more accurate test for PE that may result in fewer false positives with less radiation than CTPA.

Special thanks to Dr. Eddy Lang and Dr. Kerstin de Wit for their expert contributions to the EM Cases podcast on which this article was based. 


Complete the CME activity

References

  1. Pollack CV, Schreiber D, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: initial report of EMPEROR (Multicenter Emergency Medicine Pulmonary Embolism in the Real World Registry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(6):700-706.
  2. Bariteau A, Stewart LK, Emmett TW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(7):828-835.
  3. MacDougall DA, Feliu AL, Boccuzzi SJ, et al. Economic burden of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and post-thrombotic syndrome. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(20 suppl 6):S5-S15.
  4. Schechter MT, Sheps SB. Diagnostic testing revisited: pathways through uncertainty. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(7):755-760.
  5. Penaloza A, Verschuren F, Meyer G, et al. Comparison of the unstructured clinician gestalt, the wells score, and the revised Geneva score to estimate pretest probability for suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;62(2):117-124.e2.
  6. Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A, et al. Effect of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: the PROPER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(6):559-566.
  7. Kline JA, Stubblefield WB. Clinician gestalt estimate of pretest probability for acute coronary syndrome and pulmonary embolism in patients with chest pain and dyspnea. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;63(3):275-280.
  8. 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.
  9. van der Hulle T, van Es N, den Exter PL, et al. Is a normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography safe to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in patients with a likely clinical probability? A patient-level meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(8):1622-1629.
  10. Belzile D, Jacquet S, Bertoletti L, et al. Outcomes following a negative computed tomography pulmonary angiography according to pulmonary embolism prevalence: a meta-analysis of the management outcome studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(6):1107-1120.
  11. den Exter PL, van Es J, Klok FA, et al. Risk profile and clinical outcome of symptomatic subsegmental acute pulmonary embolism. Blood. 2013;122(7):1144-1149.
  12. Gutte H, Mortensen J, Jensen CV, et al. Comparison of V/Q SPECT and planar V/Q lung scintigraphy in diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism. Nucl Med Commun. 2010;31(1):82-86.
  13. Bhatia KD, Ambati C, Dhaliwal R, et al. SPECT-CT/VQ versus CTPA for diagnosing pulmonary embolus and other lung pathology: pre-existing lung disease should not be a contraindication. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016;60(4):492-497.
  14. Goy J, Lee J, Levine O, et al. Sub-segmental pulmonary embolism in three academic teaching hospitals: a review of management and outcomes. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(2):214-218.
  15. Yoo HH, Queluz TH, El Dib R. Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD010222.
  16. ACEP Clinical Policies Subcommittee (Writing Committee) on Thromboembolic Disease. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute venous thromboembolic disease. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):e59-109.
  17. Deblois S, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Toporowicz K, et al. Interventions to reduce the overuse of imaging for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(1):52-61.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Topics: CMECT pulmonary angiogramPulmonary Embolismpulmonary embolism rule out criteria

Related

  • Discharge Tachycardia: Remember the Big 4 and Don’t Play with Fire

    May 8, 2025 - 2 Comments
  • Anticoagulant Selection Is Cornerstone of Pulmonary Embolism Treatment

    March 11, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Treating Acute Pulmonary Embolism with EKOS and the Inari FlowTriever

    December 7, 2024 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: June 2025 (Digital)

Read More

About the Author

Anton Helman, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP

Dr. Helman is an emergency physician at North York General Hospital in Toronto. He is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, Division of Emergency Medicine, and the education innovation lead at the Schwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine Institute. He is the founder and host of Emergency Medicine Cases podcast and website (www.emergencymedicinecases.com).

View this author's posts »

One Response to “A Rational Approach to Pulmonary Embolism Evaluation”

  1. April 14, 2019

    Mark Baker, FACEP, FAMIA Reply

    Thanks for addressing an important topic. I liked the information about the landmark Canadian article. This is what Bayes theorem does. The likelihood of a test being a true positive or a false positive is based on the prior probability of the disease before the test was done. For example,a positive HIV test on a group of IV drug users sharing needles is likely to be a true positive. A positive HIV test on a group of patients with no risk factors at all is much less likely to be a true positive and more may be a false positive. So don’t throw darts at diagnoses… use tests wisely knowing the prior probability of the disease and how the test will change your management.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603