Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 42(02): 176-182
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723936
Review Article

Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Gestalt, Scoring Systems, and Artificial Intelligence

Delphine Douillet
1   Emergency Department, Angers University Hospital, INSERM 1083, Health Faculty, UNIV Angers, F-CRIN INNOVTE, Angers, France
,
Pierre-Marie Roy
1   Emergency Department, Angers University Hospital, INSERM 1083, Health Faculty, UNIV Angers, F-CRIN INNOVTE, Angers, France
,
Andrea Penaloza
2   Emergency Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, UCLouvain, F-CRIN INNOVTE, Brussels, Belgium
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a diagnostic challenge in 2021. As the pathology is potentially fatal and signs and symptoms are nonspecific, further investigations are classically required. Based on the Bayesian approach, clinical probability became the keystone of the diagnostic strategy to rule out PE in the case of a negative testing. Several clinical probability assessment methods are validated: gestalt, the Wells score, or the revised Geneva score. While the debate persists as to the best way to assess clinical probability, its assessment allows for the good interpretation of the investigation results and therefore directs the correct diagnostic strategy. The wide availability of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) resulted in a major increase in investigations with a moderate increase in diagnosis, without any notable improvement in patient outcomes. This leads to a new challenge for PE diagnosis which is the limitation of the number of testing for suspected PE. We review different strategies recently developed to achieve this goal. The last challenge concerns the implementation in clinical practice. Two approaches are developed: simplification of the strategies versus the use of digital support tools allowing more sophisticated strategies. Artificial intelligence with machine-learning algorithms will probably be a future tool to guide the physician in this complex approach concerning acute PE suspicion.



Publication History

Article published online:
16 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 
  • References

  • 1 Heit JA, Cohen AT, Anderson FA. Group on B of the VIA. Estimated annual number of incident and recurrent, non-fatal and fatal venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the US. Blood 2005; 106 (11) 910-910
  • 2 Aujesky D, Jiménez D, Mor MK, Geng M, Fine MJ, Ibrahim SA. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation 2009; 119 (07) 962-968
  • 3 Laporte S, Mismetti P, Décousus H. et al; RIETE Investigators. Clinical predictors for fatal pulmonary embolism in 15,520 patients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbolica venosa (RIETE) Registry. Circulation 2008; 117 (13) 1711-1716
  • 4 Stein PD, Athanasoulis C, Alavi A. et al. Complications and validity of pulmonary angiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation 1992; 85 (02) 462-468
  • 5 Roy P-M, Colombet I, Durieux P, Chatellier G, Sors H, Meyer G. Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. BMJ 2005; 331 (7511): 259
  • 6 Roy P-M, Meyer G, Vielle B. et al; EMDEPU Study Group. Appropriateness of diagnostic management and outcomes of suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (03) 157-164
  • 7 Kline JA, Garrett JS, Sarmiento EJ, Strachan CC, Courtney DM. Over-testing for suspected pulmonary embolism in American emergency departments: the continuing epidemic. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020; 13 (01) e005753
  • 8 Wang RC, Miglioretti DL, Marlow EC. et al. Trends in imaging for suspected pulmonary embolism across US health care systems, 2004 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (11) e2026930
  • 9 Dobler CC. Overdiagnosis of pulmonary embolism: definition, causes and implications. Breathe (Sheff) 2019; 15 (01) 46-53
  • 10 Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Time trends in pulmonary embolism in the United States: evidence of overdiagnosis. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171 (09) 831-837
  • 11 PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA 1990; 263 (20) 2753-2759
  • 12 Hildner FJ, Ormond RS. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. JAMA 1967; 202 (07) 567-570
  • 13 Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2 (08) 1247-1255
  • 14 Runyon MS, Webb WB, Jones AE, Kline JA. Comparison of the unstructured clinician estimate of pretest probability for pulmonary embolism to the Canadian score and the Charlotte rule: a prospective observational study. Acad Emerg Med 2005; 12 (07) 587-593
  • 15 Le Gal G, Bounameaux H. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism: running after the decreasing prevalence of cases among suspected patients. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2 (08) 1244-1246
  • 16 Korkut M, Bedel C, Erman K, Yüksel S. Incidental findings of computed tomography angiography in patients suspected to pulmonary embolism; a brief report. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2019; 7 (01) e60
  • 17 Champion N, Hogan S, Flemming J. Assessing the prevalence of incidental findings identified by CTPA in women of reproductive age. Emerg Med Int 2018; 2018: 4630945
  • 18 Mitchell AM, Jones AE, Tumlin JA, Kline JA. Prospective study of the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy among patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism by contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Acad Emerg Med 2012; 19 (06) 618-625
  • 19 Niemann T, Zbinden I, Roser HW, Bremerich J, Remy-Jardin M, Bongartz G. Computed tomography for pulmonary embolism: assessment of a 1-year cohort and estimated cancer risk associated with diagnostic irradiation. Acta Radiol 2013; 54 (07) 778-784
  • 20 Singh B, Mommer SK, Erwin PJ, Mascarenhas SS, Parsaik AK. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) in pulmonary embolism–revisited: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J 2013; 30 (09) 701-706
  • 21 Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL. et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA 2014; 311 (11) 1117-1124
  • 22 van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S. et al; YEARS study group. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet 2017; 390 (10091): 289-297
  • 23 Kearon C, de Wit K, Parpia S. et al; PEGeD Study Investigators. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with D-dimer adjusted to clinical probability. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (22) 2125-2134
  • 24 Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C. et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6 (05) 772-780
  • 25 Musset D, Parent F, Meyer G. et al; Evaluation du Scanner Spiralé dans l'Embolie Pulmonaire study group. Diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicentre outcome study. Lancet 2002; 360 (9349): 1914-1920
  • 26 Perrier A, Desmarais S, Miron M-J. et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in outpatients. Lancet 1999; 353 (9148): 190-195
  • 27 Perrier A, Bounameaux H, Morabia A. et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by a decision analysis-based strategy including clinical probability, D-dimer levels, and ultrasonography: a management study. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156 (05) 531-536
  • 28 Rodger MA, Maser E, Stiell I, Howley HE, Wells PS. The interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 2005; 116 (02) 101-107
  • 29 Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM. et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (03) 165-171
  • 30 Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M. et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83 (03) 416-420
  • 31 Klok FA, Mos ICM, Nijkeuter M. et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168 (19) 2131-2136
  • 32 Gibson NS, Sohne M, Kruip MJ. et al; Christopher study investigators. Further validation and simplification of the Wells clinical decision rule in pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99 (01) 229-234
  • 33 Shen J-H, Chen H-L, Chen J-R, Xing J-L, Gu P, Zhu B-F. Comparison of the Wells score with the revised Geneva score for assessing suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2016; 41 (03) 482-492
  • 34 Calisir C, Yavas US, Ozkan IR. et al. Performance of the Wells and revised Geneva scores for predicting pulmonary embolism. Eur J Emerg Med 2009; 16 (01) 49-52
  • 35 Ceriani E, Combescure C, Le Gal G. et al. Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8 (05) 957-970
  • 36 Dronkers CEA, van der Hulle T, Le Gal G. et al; Subcommittee on Predictive and Diagnostic Variables in Thrombotic Disease. Towards a tailored diagnostic standard for future diagnostic studies in pulmonary embolism: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2017; 15 (05) 1040-1043
  • 37 Crawford F, Andras A, Welch K, Sheares K, Keeling D, Chappell FM. Cochrane Vascular Group. D-dimer test for excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (08) CD010864
  • 38 Lucassen W, Geersing G-J, Erkens PMG. et al. Clinical decision rules for excluding pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (07) 448-460
  • 39 Douma RA, Mos IC, Erkens PM. et al; Prometheus Study Group. Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154 (11) 709-718
  • 40 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 (02) 117-124.e2
  • 41 Perrier A, Miron M-J, Desmarais S. et al. Using clinical evaluation and lung scan to rule out suspected pulmonary embolism: Is it a valid option in patients with normal results of lower-limb venous compression ultrasonography?. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (04) 512-516
  • 42 Kabrhel C, McAfee AT, Goldhaber SZ. The contribution of the subjective component of the Canadian pulmonary embolism score to the overall score in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med 2005; 12 (10) 915-920
  • 43 Roy P-M, Friou E, Germeau B. et al. Derivation and validation of a 4-level clinical probability score for suspected pulmonary embolism to safely decrease imaging testing: 4PEPS (4-level pulmonary embolism clinical probability score). Social Science Research Network 2020; DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3627356.
  • 44 van Es J, Beenen LFM, Douma RA. et al. A simple decision rule including D-dimer to reduce the need for computed tomography scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13 (08) 1428-1435
  • 45 Cervellin G, Borghi L, Lippi G. Do clinicians decide relying primarily on Bayesians principles or on Gestalt perception? Some pearls and pitfalls of Gestalt perception in medicine. Intern Emerg Med 2014; 9 (05) 513-519
  • 46 Kabrhel C, Camargo Jr CA, Goldhaber SZ. Clinical gestalt and the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: does experience matter?. Chest 2005; 127 (05) 1627-1630
  • 47 Righini M, Robert-Ebadi H, Elias A. et al; CT-PE-Pregnancy Group. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: a multicenter prospective management outcome study. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (11) 766-773 DOI: 10.7326/M18-1670.
  • 48 van der Pol LM, Tromeur C, Bistervels IM. et al; Artemis Study Investigators. Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (12) 1139-1149
  • 49 Roy P-M, Rachas A, Meyer G. et al. Multifaceted intervention to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized for acute medical illness: a multicenter cluster-randomized trial. PLoS One 2016; 11 (05) e0154832
  • 50 Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D. et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 371 (9621): 1343-1352
  • 51 van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV. et al; Christopher Study Investigators. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006; 295 (02) 172-179
  • 52 Penaloza A, Soulié C, Moumneh T. et al. Pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule in European patients with low implicit clinical probability (PERCEPIC): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet Haematol 2017; 4 (12) e615-e621
  • 53 Malavolta D, Quatela V, Moffat J, Ottolini BB. GrAM (Gruppo di Autoformazione metodologica). Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: the PROPER randomized clinical trial. Intern Emerg Med 2019; 14 (02) 309-310
  • 54 Righini M, Robert-Ebadi H, Le Gal G. Diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2017; 15 (07) 1251-1261
  • 55 West J, Goodacre S, Sampson F. The value of clinical features in the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. QJM 2007; 100 (12) 763-769
  • 56 Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy P-M. et al. Differential value of risk factors and clinical signs for diagnosing pulmonary embolism according to age. J Thromb Haemost 2005; 3 (11) 2457-2464
  • 57 Dachs RJ, Kulkarni D, Higgins III GL. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule in a community hospital ED: a retrospective study of its potential utility. Am J Emerg Med 2011; 29 (09) 1023-1027
  • 58 Wolf SJ, McCubbin TR, Nordenholz KE, Naviaux NW, Haukoos JS. Assessment of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria rule for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 2008; 26 (02) 181-185
  • 59 Hugli O, Righini M, Le Gal G. et al. The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 9 (02) 300-304
  • 60 Meyer G, Becattini C, Geersing G-J. et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (04) 543-603
  • 61 Ghobadi A, Lin B, Musigdilok VV. et al. Effect of using an age-adjusted D-dimer to assess for pulmonary embolism in community emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med 2020; 28 (01) 60-69
  • 62 Kabrhel C, Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Muzikanski A. et al. Multicenter evaluation of the YEARS criteria in emergency department patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism. Acad Emerg Med 2018; 25 (09) 987-994
  • 63 Gorlicki J, Penaloza A, Germeau B. et al. Safety of the combination of PERC and YEARS rules in patients with low clinical probability of pulmonary embolism: a retrospective analysis of two large European cohorts. Acad Emerg Med 2019; 26 (01) 23-30
  • 64 Eddy M, Robert-Ebadi H, Richardson L. et al. External validation of the YEARS diagnostic algorithm for suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2020; 18 (12) 3289-3295
  • 65 Wang RC, Bent S, Weber E, Neilson J, Smith-Bindman R, Fahimi J. The impact of clinical decision rules on computed tomography use and yield for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 67 (06) 693-701.e3
  • 66 Roy PM, Durieux P, Gillaizeau F. et al. A computerized handheld decision-support system to improve pulmonary embolism diagnosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (10) 677-686
  • 67 Kline JA, Jones AE, Shapiro NI. et al. Multicenter, randomized trial of quantitative pretest probability to reduce unnecessary medical radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain and dyspnea. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7 (01) 66-73
  • 68 Banerjee I, Sofela M, Yang J. et al. Development and performance of the pulmonary embolism result forecast model (PERFORM) for computed tomography clinical decision support. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (08) e198719
  • 69 Willan J, Katz H, Keeling D. Machine-learning algorithms can improve upon current methods of risk-stratification of patients presenting with suspected deep vein thrombosis. Accessed January 25, 2021 at: https://academy.isth.org/isth/2019/melbourne/273984/john.willan.machine-learning.algorithms.can.improve.upon.current.methods.of.html?f=menu%3D17%2Abrowseby%3D8%2Asortby%3D2%2Amedia%3D1%2Atopic%3D21502
  • 70 Greco M, Caruso PF, Cecconi M. Artificial Intelligence in the Intensive Care Unit. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 24: 101