Diagnosis of DVT/PE

Annals of Thoracic Medicine
Search Ahead of print Current Issue Archives Instructions Subscribe e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: : 5 Home Email this article link Print this article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 31-40
Pulmonary embolism: A diagnostic approach

Muntasir M Abdelaziz1, Siraj O Wali1, Mahir M.A Hamad2, Ayman B Krayem1, Yaseen S Samman1
1 Department of Medicine, King Khalid National Guard Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
2 Department of Medicine, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK,
 
Correspondence Address:
Siraj O Wali
Department of Medicine, King Khalid National Guard Hospital, PO Box 9515, Jeddah 21423, Saudi Arabia

Login to access the Email id
Get Permissions
Despite the availability of many diagnostic modalities and the advent of new tests, the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a challenge. Clinical manifestations can be notoriously deceptive and there is not a single test, that can be relied on solely, to exclude PE. Although it has been regarded as the gold standard test, pulmonary angiography has not been tested against a reference standard and thromboembolic events have been reported after a normal study. Therefore the diagnosis of PE depends on judicious utilization of the available tests in the right clinical setting, as the accuracy of the results of the investigations, depends largely on the pretest clinical probability. Simple investigations such as chest radiograph, electrocardiogram and arterial blood gas, are used to enhance the clinical probabilities, rather than confirming or refuting the diagnosis of PE. On the other hand, Perfusion ventilation (VQ) scan and computerized tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), are the main screening tests used for patients with suspected PE. Recently CTPA has largely replaced VQ scan, in many centres. As both VQ scan and CTPA have their limitations, other diagnostic modalities, such as D-dimer and Compression ultrasound of the legs (CUS), are used as adjunctive diagnostic investigations. High probability and normal VQ scan, especially when combined with the concordant clinical probability, has a high positive and negative predicative value, respectively. On the other hand, CTPA is more sensitive and specific than VQ scan, though it has to be combined with CUS and clinical probability, to reduce the chance of missing PE.Although many diagnostic algorithms have been advocated, the discretion of the clinician and clinical experience, still has a major role to play in the diagnosis of PE. In this article, we try to come with a plausible approach to the diagnosis of PE, based on the current literature.


 
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next Article
 Previous Article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search Google Scholar
 Search based on keywords
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed 8431    
    Printed 164    
    Emailed 2    
    PDF Downloaded 379    
    Comments  [Add]    

 

Total downloads in last 2 months
 Aug
2009 
 23 
 
 Jul
2009 
 60 
 

 

 
Recommend this journal
 
About us | Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2006 - 2009 Annals of Thoracic Medicine | A journal by Medknow
Online since 1st May '06
Creative Commons Open Access Journal No author-side fee Romeo Green Journal Dublin Core W3C XHTML W3C CSS  This website is ACAP-enabled 
ISSN: Print -1817-1737, Online - 1998-3557
 

News and Events

Gulf Thoracic 2010

Gulf Thoracic 2010 March 17- 20, 2010 Beach Rotana Hotel & Towers, Abu Dhabi, UAE Click Here

Read More

3rd International SAPH/PVRI me

3rd International SAPH/PVRI meeting on Pulmonary Hypertension (Preliminary announcement) Apr

Read More

Another Sponsor

Designed and Developed by Genius Web Arabia