Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy: A Multicenter Prospective Management Outcome Study.

Righini, Marc; Robert-Ebadi, Helia; Elias, Antoine; Sanchez, Olivier; Le Moigne, Emmanuelle; Schmidt, Jeannot; Le Gall, Catherine; Cornuz, Jacques; Aujesky, Drahomir; Roy, Pierre-Marie; Chauleur, Céline; Rutschmann, Olivier T; Poletti, Pierre-Alexandre; Le Gal, Grégoire (2018). Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy: A Multicenter Prospective Management Outcome Study. Annals of internal medicine, 169(11), pp. 766-773. American College of Physicians 10.7326/M18-1670

Text Righini-2018-Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism D.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (206kB)

Background

Data on the optimal diagnostic management of pregnant women with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) are limited, and guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations on use of diagnostic tests.

Objective

To prospectively validate a diagnostic strategy in pregnant women with suspected PE.

Design

Multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic management outcome study involving pretest clinical probability assessment, high-sensitivity D-dimer testing, bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS), and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00740454).

Setting

11 centers in France and Switzerland between August 2008 and July 2016.

Patients

Pregnant women with clinically suspected PE in emergency departments.

Intervention

Pulmonary embolism was excluded in patients with a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability and a negative D-dimer result. All others underwent lower limb CUS and, if results were negative, CTPA. A ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was done if CTPA results were inconclusive. Pulmonary embolism was excluded if results of the diagnostic work-up were negative, and untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months.

Measurements

The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated venous thromboembolic events during the 3-month follow-up.

Results

441 women were assessed for eligibility, and 395 were included in the study. Among these, PE was diagnosed in 28 (7.1%) (proximal deep venous thrombosis found on ultrasonography [n = 7], positive CTPA result [n = 19], and high-probability V/Q scan [n = 2]) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability and negative D-dimer result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received extended anticoagulation during follow-up, mainly for previous venous thromboembolic disease. The rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 1.0%) among untreated women after exclusion of PE on the basis of negative results on the diagnostic work-up.

Limitation

There were several protocol deviations, reflecting the difficulty of performing studies in pregnant women with suspected PE.

Conclusion

A diagnostic strategy based on assessment of clinical probability, D-dimer measurement, CUS, and CTPA can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

Primary Funding Source

Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research, Groupe d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale, and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

4 since deposited on 18 Jan 2019
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item