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

ACEP Clinical Policy Review: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism

By Francis M. Fesmire, MD, FACEP, ACEP News Contributing Writer | on June 1, 2011 | 0 Comment
From the College
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Question 4: What is the role of the computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiogram of the chest as the sole diagnostic test in the exclusion of pulmonary embolism?

  • Level A recommendations. None specified.
  • Level B recommendations. For patients with a low or pulmonary embolism unlikely (Wells score 4 or less) pretest probability for pulmonary embolism who require additional diagnostic testing (e.g., positive D-dimer result or highly sensitive D-dimer test not available), a negative, multidetector CT pulmonary angiogram alone can be used to exclude pulmonary embolism.
  • Level C recommendations. (1) For patients with an intermediate pretest probability for pulmonary embolism and a negative CT pulmonary angiogram result in whom a clinical concern for pulmonary embolism still exists and CT venography has not already been performed, consider additional diagnostic testing (e.g., D-dimer, lower-extremity imaging, ventilation perfusion [VQ] scanning, traditional pulmonary arteriography) prior to exclusion of VTE disease. (2) For patients with a high pretest probability for pulmonary embolism and a negative CT angiogram result, and CT venography has not already been performed, perform additional diagnostic testing (e.g., D-dimer, lower-extremity imaging, VQ scanning, traditional pulmonary arteriography) prior to exclusion of VTE disease.

Note that a negative, highly sensitive, quantitative D-dimer result in combination with a negative multidetector CT pulmonary angiogram result theoretically provides a posttest probability of venous thromboembolism disease less than 1%.

You Might Also Like
  • Clinical Guideline Review: Diagnosis of DVT
  • ACEP Revises Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Policy
  • ACEP Clinical Policy Review: Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients in the ED with Asymptomatic Elevated BP
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 30 – No 06 – June 2011

Spiral CT pulmonary angiography, when available, has replaced VQ lung scanning as the principal imaging modality for diagnosing PE in patients without contraindications (e.g., renal insufficiency, contrast allergy). With the technology advancing so rapidly, evidence regarding performance of the newest generation of CT scanners is lacking. Although diagnostic studies report sensitivity in the range of 90% for detection of pulmonary embolism, outcome studies suggest that non-high-risk patients with a negative CT angiogram have very low rates of VTE on 3-month follow-up. The addition of venous imaging either by concurrent CT venogram or by venous ultrasound of the lower extremities results in an incremental increase in sensitivity for detection of VTE disease. Also, high-risk patients with a negative D-dimer and negative CT angiogram have an extremely low rate of VTE on 3-month follow-up. As the reported false-negative rate of CT pulmonary angiogram alone in high-risk patients ranges from 5% to 40%, it is recommended that high-risk patients with a negative CT angiogram undergo additional diagnostic testing prior to ruling out VTE.

Although there has been an explosion of research in PE and in VTE disease, there are still many unanswered questions.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page

Topics: ACEPACEP Clinical Policy ReviewAmerican College of Emergency PhysiciansCardiovascularClinical ExamClinical GuidelineClinical PolicyDeathDiagnosisEducationEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianImaging and UltrasoundPulmonary

Related

  • FACEPs in the Crowd: Dr. John Ludlow

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • ACEP4U: the ACEP/CORD Teaching Fellowship

    November 4, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Dr. Joe Sachs and “The Pitt” Redefine Public Health Education Through Storytelling

    July 3, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “ACEP Clinical Policy Review: Suspected Pulmonary Embolism”

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