Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Excluding pulmonary embolism with helical (spiral) computed tomography: Evidence is catching up with enthusiasm

Clive Kearon
CMAJ May 27, 2003 168 (11) 1430-1431;
Clive Kearon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Advances in computed tomography (CT) technology have enabled imaging of the pulmonary arteries with injection of contrast medium into an arm vein. This technique, which involves continuous imaging with a rotating gantry as the patient is moved through the scanner, is usually referred to as “helical,” “spiral” or “continuous-volume” CT, and it is now widely used to diagnose pulmonary embolism. Enthusiasts have proposed that helical CT is accurate enough to “rule in” or “rule out” pulmonary embolism in most patients. These claims have been based on the results of mostly small studies that reported high accuracy of helical CT in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism when compared with an established diagnostic standard, usually ventilation–perfusion lung scanning and conventional pulmonary angiography. However, until recently, the methodologic limitations of studies evaluating helical CT in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism have cast doubt on this technique's accuracy and led to uncertainty as to how helical CT should be used in clinical practice.1,2

Using the estimated accuracy of helical CT and extrapolations from experience with ventilation–perfusion scanning, I recently recommended in CMAJ how helical CT should be used to diagnose pulmonary embolism.3 The results of 2 recent, well-designed studies of helical CT in the management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism4,5 strengthen those recommendations and allow the role of helical CT for the exclusion of pulmonary embolism to be extended. These studies tested the safety of withholding anticoagulant therapy on the basis of negative results of both helical CT for embolism and ultrasound examinations of the legs for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Single-detector helical CT scanners, rather than more modern multidetector scanners that have better spatial resolution, were used in both studies.

In France, Musset and colleagues4 performed a standardized clinical assessment of pulmonary embolism probability, helical CT of the pulmonary arteries and bilateral ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs (including the calf-vein trifurcations) in 1041 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulant therapy was withheld from 507 patients on the basis of a combination of low or moderate clinical probability of pulmonary embolism and negative results of both helical CT and ultrasonography; during 3 months of follow-up, venous thromboembolism developed in 9 patients (1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8%–3.3%).

In the Netherlands, van Strijen and associates5 performed helical CT in 510 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. If the results were negative for pulmonary embolism and did not reveal a clear alternative diagnosis, ultrasonography of the proximal veins of the legs was performed. If those results were normal, ultrasonography was repeated after 4 and 7 days. Of the 130 patients in whom helical CT revealed an alternative diagnosis, 2 (1.5%, 95% CI 0.2%–5.6%) had venous thromboembolism during 3 months of follow-up. Of the 246 patients in whom ultrasonography was repeated, none had ultrasonographic abnormalities on day 4 or 7, and only 1 patient (0.4%, 95% CI 0.0%–2.2%) had venous thromboembolism during 3 months of follow-up.

On the basis of the findings in these 2 studies, I believe that it is safe to consider pulmonary embolism excluded if the results of helical CT of the pulmonary arteries and ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs are negative for embolism and thrombosis, respectively, provided the clinical probability of embolism is low or moderate. Because pulmonary embolism was found in 5% of the patients who had a high clinical probability but negative results of both helical CT and ultrasonography,4 I recommend further testing for such patients.3 It is important to note that negative results of helical CT alone do not exclude pulmonary embolism in patients with a low or moderate clinical probability; ultrasonography should also be performed to look for proximal deep-vein thrombosis in the legs. If helical CT reveals a clear alternative diagnosis, it may be safe to exclude pulmonary embolism without ultrasonography; however, in my opinion, there is still insufficient evidence to support such a recommendation.

Major advantages of helical CT over ventilation–perfusion scanning are that fewer examinations — 10%(4,5) v. 60%(3) — are technically inadequate or “nondiagnostic” and that helical CT identifies an alternative diagnosis that may influence clinical management in about 25% of patients.5 The main disadvantage of helical CT is that, unlike ventilation–perfusion scanning, a negative result does not exclude pulmonary embolism.1,2,3,4 However, the new French and Dutch studies indicate that ultrasonography of the proximal deep veins of the legs in patients with helical CT scans negative for pulmonary embolism overcomes this limitation in most patients.

Although the French study found that helical CT abnormalities confined to subsegmental pulmonary arteries were nondiagnostic, neither study systematically tested the positive predictive value for pulmonary embolism of helical CT abnormalities or of abnormal ultrasound examinations when combined with negative helical CT scans. The Second Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED 2) is evaluating the accuracy of helical CT and ancillary investigations in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in more than 1000 patients. This study, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, should bring us closer to an answer to these questions.

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgements: Dr. Kearon is a Research Scholar of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Rathbun SW, Raskob GE, Whitsett TL. Sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:227-32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Mullins MD, Becker DM, Hagspiel KD, Philbrick JT. The role of spiral volumetric computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:293-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Kearon C. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. CMAJ 2003;168:183-94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Musset D, Parent F, Meyer G, Maitre S, Girard P, Leroyer C, et al. Diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicentre outcome study. Lancet 2002;360:1914-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    van Strijen MJ, de Monye W, Schiereck J, Kieft GJ, Prins MH, Huisman MV, et al. Single-detector helical computed tomography as the primary diagnostic test in suspected pulmonary embolism: a multicenter clinical management study of 510 patients. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:307-14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 168, Issue 11
27 May 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Excluding pulmonary embolism with helical (spiral) computed tomography: Evidence is catching up with enthusiasm
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Excluding pulmonary embolism with helical (spiral) computed tomography: Evidence is catching up with enthusiasm
Clive Kearon
CMAJ May 2003, 168 (11) 1430-1431;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Excluding pulmonary embolism with helical (spiral) computed tomography: Evidence is catching up with enthusiasm
Clive Kearon
CMAJ May 2003, 168 (11) 1430-1431;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Ensuring timely genetic diagnosis in adults
  • The case for improving the detection and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea following stroke
  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cardiovascular medicine

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire