Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism on Computed Tomography: Common Pathologic and Imaging Mimics

  • Caroline L. Robb
  • Sanjeev Bhalla
  • Constantine A. Raptis
Chest Imaging (T Henry, Section Editor)
  • 17 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Chest Imaging

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most-common acute cardiovascular disease in the United States. Nearly 900,000 new diagnoses are made each year, with 250,000 associated hospitalizations and up to 100,000 deaths (Palacio et al. in Semin Roentgenol 50(3):217–225, 2015; Metter et al. in Am J Roentgenol 208(3):489–494, 2017; Jaff et al. in Circulation 123(16):1788–830, 2011). Timely and accurate diagnosis of acute PE is crucial for the prevention of most deaths associated with PE, even more so than optimal medical therapy (Palacio et al. in Semin Roentgenol 50(3):217–225, 2015; Jaff et al. in Circulation 123(16):1788–830, 2011; Raja et al. in Ann Intern Med 163(9):701, 2015).

Recent Findings

Computed tomography (CT) has emerged as the primary imaging modality used in the diagnosis of acute PE. Thus, radiologists play a key role in the correct diagnosis of acute PE, and must differentiate this diagnosis from other conditions that mimic the imaging findings of acute PE, as well as from artifacts associated with imaging techniques (Palacio et al. in Semin Roentgenol 50(3):217–225, 2015; Jaff et al. in Circulation 123(16):1788–830, 2011; Raja et al. in Ann Intern Med 163(9):701, 2015). Understanding how these diagnoses present on CT is necessary for improved patient care.

Summary

This article will discuss the diagnosis of acute PE with CT, the diagnosis of diseases that may be mistaken for acute PE, and how to identify imaging artifacts that may be mistaken for an acute PE.

Keywords

Acute pulmonary embolism Chest imaging Acute cardiovascular disease 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

Caroline L. Robb, Sanjeev Bhalla, and Constantine A. Raptis: each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •Palacio D, Benveniste MF, Betancourt-Cuellar SL, Gladish GW. Multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography pitfalls in the evaluation of pulmonary embolism with emphasis in technique. Semin Roentgenol. 2015;50(3):217–225.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2015.01.012. Palacio et al. provide a thorough review of common imaging pitfalls in the diagnosis of acute PE, including diagnostic errors related to image acquisition and imaging artifacts.
  2. 2.
    Metter D, Tulchinsky M, Freeman LM. Current status of ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy for suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):489–94.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jaff MR, McMurtry MS, Archer SL, et al. Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(16):1788–830.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914f.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, et al. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: Best practice advice from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(9):701.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1772.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartmann IJC, Wittenberg R, Schaefer-Prokop C. Imaging of acute pulmonary embolism using multi-detector CT angiography: an update on imaging technique and interpretation. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(1):40–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology. 2010;256(1):32–61.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10090908.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •Wijesuriya S, Chandratreya L, Medford AR. Chronic pulmonary emboli and radiologic mimics on CT pulmonary angiography: a diagnostic challenge. Chest. 2013;143(5):1460–1471.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-1384. Wijesuriya et al. provide a comprehensive, updated review of the accurate diagnosis of CPTD on CT and how to differentiate CPTD from acute PE.
  8. 8.
    Wittram C, Maher M, Yoo A, Mannudeep K, Shepard J-A, McLoud T. CT angiography of pulmonary embolism: diagnostic criteria and causes of misdiagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2004;24(5):1219–38.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.245045008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ••Devaraj A, Sayer C, Sheard S, Grubnic S, Nair A, Vlahos I. Diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism with computed tomography: imaging update. J Thorac Imaging. 2015;30(3):176–192.  https://doi.org/10.1097/rti.0000000000000146. Devaraj et al. provide an updated review of recent literature regarding the utilization of CTPA in the diagnosis of acute PE, including how to optimize CTPA image acquisition and avoid common imaging pitfalls in the diagnosis of acute PE.
  10. 10.
    •Unal E, Balci S, Atceken Z, Akpinar E, Ariyurek OM. Nonthrombotic Pulmonary artery embolism: imaging findings and review of the literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):505–516.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.17326. In this article, Unal et al. discuss common pathologic, nonthrombotic mimics of acute PE and how to differentiate these mimics from acute PE.
  11. 11.
    Bach AG, Restrepo CS, Abbas J, et al. Imaging of nonthrombotic pulmonary embolism: biological materials, nonbiological materials, and foreign bodies. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(3):e120–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egermayer P, Peacock AJ. Is pulmonary embolism a common cause of chronic pulmonary hypertension? Limitations of the embolic hypothesis. Eur Respir J. 2000;15(3):440–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang IM, Pesavento R, Bonderman D. Yuan JX-J. Risk factors and basic mechanisms of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a current understanding. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(2):462–8.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00049312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hasegawa I, Boiselle PM, Hatabu H. Bronchial artery dilatation on MDCT scans of patients with acute pulmonary embolism: comparison with chronic or recurrent pulmonary embolism. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(1):67–72.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ley S, Kreitner K-F, Morgenstern I, Thelen M, Kauczor H-U. Bronchopulmonary shunts in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: evaluation with helical CT and MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1209–15.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agarwal P, Wolfsohn A, Matzinger J, Peterson R, Dennie C. In situ central pulmonary artery thrombosis in primary pulmonary hypertension. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(7):696–700.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850500215501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoeper MM, Mayer E, Simonneau G, Rubin LJ. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2006;113(16):2011–20.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.602565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kwek BH, Wittram C. Postpneumonectomy pulmonary artery stump thrombosis: CT features and imaging follow-up. Radiology. 2005;237(1):338–41.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371041686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ye R, Zhao L, Wang C, Wu X, Yan H. Clinical characteristics of septic pulmonary embolism in adults: a systematic review. Respir Med. 2014;108(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen Y, Gilman MD, Humphrey KL, et al. Pulmonary artery pseudoaneurysms: clinical features and CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(1):84–91.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saad NEA, Saad WEA, Davies MG, Waldman DL, Fultz PJ, Rubens DJ. Pseudoaneurysms and the role of minimally invasive techniques in their management. RadioGraphics. 2005;25(suppl_1):S173–89.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.25si055503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kluge A, Luboldt W, Bachmann G. Acute pulmonary embolism to the subsegmental level: diagnostic accuracy of three MRI techniques compared with 16-MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(1):W7–14.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1814.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hosch W, Schlieter M, Ley S, Heye T, Kauczor H-U, Libicher M. Detection of acute pulmonary embolism: feasibility of diagnostic accuracy of MRI using a stepwise protocol. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21(2):151–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1176-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salomon O, Leshem Y, Gluck I, Grossman E, Apter S, Konen E. Pseudo pulmonary embolism in cancer patients: a new clinical syndrome. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2014;25(8):871–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MBC.0000000000000174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bandyopadhyay D, Panchabhai TS, Bajaj NS, Patil PD, Bunte MC. Primary pulmonary artery sarcoma: a close associate of pulmonary embolism—20-year observational analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(9):2592–601.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.08.89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newbigin K, Souza CA, Torres C, et al. Fat embolism syndrome: state-of-the-art review focused on pulmonary imaging findings. Respir Med. 2016;113:93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2016.01.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoang JK, Lee WK, Hennessy OF. Multidetector CT pulmonary angiography features of pulmonary embolus. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008;52(4):307–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.01961.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tay KL, Ridley LJ. Contrast column interruption artefact in computed tomography pulmonary angiography. Australas Radiol. 2005;49(4):338–41.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2005.01447.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martinez S, Heyneman LE, McAdams HP, Rossi SE, Restrepo CS, Eraso A. Mucoid impactions: finger-in-glove sign and other CT and radiographic features. RadioGraphics. 2008;28(5):1369–82.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.285075212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline L. Robb
    • 1
  • Sanjeev Bhalla
    • 2
  • Constantine A. Raptis
    • 2
  1. 1.Washington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Mallinckrodt Institute of RadiologySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations