Why the study?
Pulmonary embolism is underdiagnosed despite effective early treatment, and diagnosis requires objective tests aligned with clinical probability due to nonspecific symptoms and significant anticoagulant risks.
This document provides consensus-based recommendations from the AIMAR multidisciplinary Task Force for the practical diagnostic and therapeutic management of pulmonary embolism.
Standardizes PE diagnosis and risk-adapted therapy now; extends prior consensus with multidisciplinary recommendations.
The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) is frequently considered in patients presenting to the emergency department or when hospitalized. Although early treatment is highly effective, PE is underdiagnosed and, therefore, the disease remains a major health problem. Since symptoms and signs are non specific and the consequences of anticoagulant treatment are considerable, objective tests to either establish or refute the diagnosis have become a standard of care. Diagnostic strategy should be based on clinical evaluation of the probability of PE. The accuracy of diagnostic tests for PE are high when the results are concordant with the clinical assessment. Additional testing is necessary when the test results are inconsistent with clinical probability. The present review article represents the consensus-based recommendations of the Interdisciplinary Association for Research in Lung Disease (AIMAR) multidisciplinary Task Force for diagnosis and treatment of PE. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians a practical diagnostic and therapeutic management approach using evidence from the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lavorini et al. (2013) conducted a review in Pulmonary embolism. Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies was evaluated. This consensus-based review provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism, emphasizing clinical probability assessment, D-dimer testing, and risk-adapted therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: