Key result
Diagnostic algorithms incorporating clinical probability, D-dimer, and imaging safely excluded pulmonary embolism in pregnant women with a very low 3-month failure rate.
Why the study?
Pulmonary embolism remains a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, yet pregnant women face a low prevalence of confirmed disease and high risk of inappropriate diagnostic management.
Are diagnostic algorithms based on clinical probability, D-dimer, CUS, and CTPA safe for excluding pulmonary embolism in pregnant women?
Are diagnostic algorithms based on clinical probability, D-dimer, CUS, and CTPA safe for excluding pulmonary embolism in pregnant women?
Validated diagnostic algorithms using clinical probability and D-dimer can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in pregnant women, avoiding unnecessary chest imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Algorithms may safely exclude PE without imaging in pregnancy; extends observational data but leaves open need for prospective validation.
Robert‐Ebadi et al. (2022) conducted a review in Suspected pulmonary embolism during pregnancy. Diagnostic algorithms (clinical probability, D-dimer, CUS, CTPA) was evaluated on Subsequent 3-month venous thromboembolism in women left untreated after a negative work-up. Diagnostic algorithms incorporating clinical probability, D-dimer, and imaging safely excluded pulmonary embolism in pregnant women with a very low 3-month failure rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: