Advertisement

Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 429–431 | Cite as

A simplified diagnostic algorithm for the management of suspected pulmonary embolism: the YEARS study

  • Marco ManzoniEmail author
  • Matteo Reggiani
  • on behalf of GrAM (Gruppo di Autoformazione Metodologica)
THE CUTTING EDGE: RESEARCH UPDATE

Background

The significant clinical burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is expressed by its high rate of mortality and morbidity: sudden death is the clinical presentation in almost 25% of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE), and about 15% of patients with a PE dies within 3 months, about half of them because of the direct consequences of the PE. The estimated annual incidence rates of overall VTE range from 104 to 183 per 100,000 person-years in Europe, with the higher rate observed in older people [1]. The clinical picture of PE is non-specific: consequently, when PE is suspected, a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is generally performed to confirm or exclude the diagnosis, owing to its high diagnostic accuracy. However, considering the risk of radiation exposure, of contrast-induced nephropathy and the elevated costs, the number of performed CTPA should be restricted. Therefore, diagnostic algorithms have been introduced and validated, with the aim of safely...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with human and animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Heit John A, Spencer Frederick A, White Richard H (2016) The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-015-1311-6 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV et al (2006) Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.2.172 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL et al (2014) Age-adjusted d-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism. The ADJUST-PE Study. JAMA.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2135 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Hulle Tom, Cheung Whitney Y, Kooij Stephanie et al (2017) Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30885-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wells PS, Andersen DR, Rodger M et al (2000) Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost 83(3):416–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unità di Medicina III, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Dipartimento di Scienze della SaluteUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations