Emergency evaluation for pulmonary embolism, part 2: Diagnostic approach

Jeffrey Kline, Christopher Kabrhel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background In part 1 of this two-part review, we discussed which risk factors, historical features, and physical findings increase risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Objectives Use published evidence to describe criteria that a reasonable and prudent clinician can use to initiate and guide the process of excluding and diagnosing PE. Discussion The careful and diligent emergency physician can use clinical criteria to safely obviate a formal evaluation of PE, including the use of gestalt reasoning and the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC rule, Table 2, part 1). We present published clinical and radiographic features of patients with PE who eluded diagnosis in the ED. D-dimer can be used to exclude PE in many patients, and employing age-based adjustments to the threshold to define an abnormal value can further reduce patient exposure to pulmonary vascular imaging. Moreover, we discuss benefits, limitations, and potential harms of computed tomographic pulmonary vascular imaging relevant to patients and the practice of emergency care. We present algorithms to guide exclusion and diagnosis of PE in patients with suspected PE, including those who are pregnant. Conclusions Reasonable and prudent emergency clinicians can exclude PE in symptomatic ED patients on clinical grounds alone in many patients, and many more can have PE ruled out by use of the D-dimer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)104-117
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Emergency Medicine
Volume49
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Embolism
Emergencies
Hospital Emergency Service
Blood Vessels
Lung
Emergency Medical Services
Physicians

Keywords

  • decision making
  • defensive medicine
  • diagnosis
  • medicolegal
  • pregnancy
  • pregnancy
  • pulmonary embolism
  • venous thromboembolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Emergency evaluation for pulmonary embolism, part 2 : Diagnostic approach. / Kline, Jeffrey; Kabrhel, Christopher.

In: Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 1, 01.07.2015, p. 104-117.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cceed8c3538240a0acca5e2ebbb9114c,
title = "Emergency evaluation for pulmonary embolism, part 2: Diagnostic approach",
abstract = "Background In part 1 of this two-part review, we discussed which risk factors, historical features, and physical findings increase risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Objectives Use published evidence to describe criteria that a reasonable and prudent clinician can use to initiate and guide the process of excluding and diagnosing PE. Discussion The careful and diligent emergency physician can use clinical criteria to safely obviate a formal evaluation of PE, including the use of gestalt reasoning and the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC rule, Table 2, part 1). We present published clinical and radiographic features of patients with PE who eluded diagnosis in the ED. D-dimer can be used to exclude PE in many patients, and employing age-based adjustments to the threshold to define an abnormal value can further reduce patient exposure to pulmonary vascular imaging. Moreover, we discuss benefits, limitations, and potential harms of computed tomographic pulmonary vascular imaging relevant to patients and the practice of emergency care. We present algorithms to guide exclusion and diagnosis of PE in patients with suspected PE, including those who are pregnant. Conclusions Reasonable and prudent emergency clinicians can exclude PE in symptomatic ED patients on clinical grounds alone in many patients, and many more can have PE ruled out by use of the D-dimer.",
keywords = "decision making, defensive medicine, diagnosis, medicolegal, pregnancy, pregnancy, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism",
author = "Jeffrey Kline and Christopher Kabrhel",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.041",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "104--117",
journal = "Journal of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0736-4679",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Emergency evaluation for pulmonary embolism, part 2

T2 - Diagnostic approach

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

AU - Kabrhel, Christopher

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - Background In part 1 of this two-part review, we discussed which risk factors, historical features, and physical findings increase risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Objectives Use published evidence to describe criteria that a reasonable and prudent clinician can use to initiate and guide the process of excluding and diagnosing PE. Discussion The careful and diligent emergency physician can use clinical criteria to safely obviate a formal evaluation of PE, including the use of gestalt reasoning and the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC rule, Table 2, part 1). We present published clinical and radiographic features of patients with PE who eluded diagnosis in the ED. D-dimer can be used to exclude PE in many patients, and employing age-based adjustments to the threshold to define an abnormal value can further reduce patient exposure to pulmonary vascular imaging. Moreover, we discuss benefits, limitations, and potential harms of computed tomographic pulmonary vascular imaging relevant to patients and the practice of emergency care. We present algorithms to guide exclusion and diagnosis of PE in patients with suspected PE, including those who are pregnant. Conclusions Reasonable and prudent emergency clinicians can exclude PE in symptomatic ED patients on clinical grounds alone in many patients, and many more can have PE ruled out by use of the D-dimer.

AB - Background In part 1 of this two-part review, we discussed which risk factors, historical features, and physical findings increase risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) in symptomatic emergency department (ED) patients. Objectives Use published evidence to describe criteria that a reasonable and prudent clinician can use to initiate and guide the process of excluding and diagnosing PE. Discussion The careful and diligent emergency physician can use clinical criteria to safely obviate a formal evaluation of PE, including the use of gestalt reasoning and the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC rule, Table 2, part 1). We present published clinical and radiographic features of patients with PE who eluded diagnosis in the ED. D-dimer can be used to exclude PE in many patients, and employing age-based adjustments to the threshold to define an abnormal value can further reduce patient exposure to pulmonary vascular imaging. Moreover, we discuss benefits, limitations, and potential harms of computed tomographic pulmonary vascular imaging relevant to patients and the practice of emergency care. We present algorithms to guide exclusion and diagnosis of PE in patients with suspected PE, including those who are pregnant. Conclusions Reasonable and prudent emergency clinicians can exclude PE in symptomatic ED patients on clinical grounds alone in many patients, and many more can have PE ruled out by use of the D-dimer.

KW - decision making

KW - defensive medicine

KW - diagnosis

KW - medicolegal

KW - pregnancy

KW - pregnancy

KW - pulmonary embolism

KW - venous thromboembolism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84933278900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84933278900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.041

DO - 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.041

M3 - Article

C2 - 25800524

AN - SCOPUS:84933278900

VL - 49

SP - 104

EP - 117

JO - Journal of Emergency Medicine

JF - Journal of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0736-4679

IS - 1

ER -