Strategies to Safely Rule out Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 Outpatients: a Multicenter Retrospective Study

Objectives: The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

Methods: COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.

Results: In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.

Conclusions: The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor.

Key Points: • D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

Citing Articles

Interest of D-dimer level, severity of COVID-19 and cost of management in Gabon.

Iroungou B, Nze O A, M Kandet Y H, Longo-Pendy N, Mezogho-Obame N, Dikoumba A World J Crit Care Med. 2025; 14(1):100486.

PMID: 40060739 PMC: 11671835. DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v14.i1.100486.

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection on the Performance of Clinical Decision-Making Algorithms for Pulmonary Embolism.

Eksioglu M, Azapoglu Kaymak B, Elhan A, Ozturk T J Clin Med. 2024; 13(23).

PMID: 39685466 PMC: 11642087. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13237008.

References

Bompard F, Monnier H, Saab I, Tordjman M, Abdoul H, Fournier L . Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Eur Respir J. 2020; 56(1). PMC: 7236820. DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01365-2020. View

Le Berre A, Marteau V, Emmerich J, Zins M . Concomitant acute aortic thrombosis and pulmonary embolism complicating COVID-19 pneumonia. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020; 101(5):321-322. PMC: 7161476. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.04.003. View

Suh Y, Hong H, Ohana M, Bompard F, Revel M, Valle C . Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2020; 298(2):E70-E80. PMC: 7745997. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020203557. View

Jalaber C, Revel M, Chassagnon G, Bajeux E, Lapotre T, Croisille P . Role of upfront CT pulmonary angiography at admission in COVID-19 patients. Thromb Res. 2020; 196:138-140. PMC: 7446616. DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.08.037. View

Freund Y, Drogrey M, Miro O, Marra A, Feral-Pierssens A, Penaloza A . Association Between Pulmonary Embolism and COVID-19 in Emergency Department Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiogram: The PEPCOV International Retrospective Study. Acad Emerg Med. 2020; 27(9):811-820. DOI: 10.1111/acem.14096. View

Revel M, Beeker N, Porcher R, Jilet L, Fournier L, Rance B . What level of D-dimers can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department?. Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(4):2704-2712. PMC: 8739682. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08377-9. View

Stals M, Takada T, Kraaijpoel N, van Es N, Buller H, Courtney D . Safety and Efficiency of Diagnostic Strategies for Ruling Out Pulmonary Embolism in Clinically Relevant Patient Subgroups : A Systematic Review and Individual-Patient Data Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2021; 175(2):244-255. DOI: 10.7326/M21-2625. View

Wells P, Anderson D, Rodger M, Stiell I, DREYER J, Barnes D . Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135(2):98-107. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00010. View

Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy P, Sanchez O, Aujesky D, Bounameaux H . Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144(3):165-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004. View

10.

Wang L, Yang L, Bai L, Huang Z, Peng Y . Association between D-dimer level and chest CT severity score in patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):11636. PMC: 8172878. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91150-1. View

11.

Mestre-Gomez B, Lorente-Ramos R, Rogado J, Franco-Moreno A, Obispo B, Salazar-Chiriboga D . Incidence of pulmonary embolism in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. Predicting factors for a challenging diagnosis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2020; 51(1):40-46. PMC: 7327193. DOI: 10.1007/s11239-020-02190-9. View

12.

Mouhat B, Besutti M, Bouiller K, Grillet F, Monnin C, Ecarnot F . Elevated D-dimers and lack of anticoagulation predict PE in severe COVID-19 patients. Eur Respir J. 2020; 56(4). PMC: 7487272. DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01811-2020. View

13.

Hani C, Trieu N, Saab I, Dangeard S, Bennani S, Chassagnon G . COVID-19 pneumonia: A review of typical CT findings and differential diagnosis. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020; 101(5):263-268. PMC: 7129663. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.03.014. View

14.

Jalaber C, Lapotre T, Morcet-Delattre T, Ribet F, Jouneau S, Lederlin M . Chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia: A review of current knowledge. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2020; 101(7-8):431-437. PMC: 7287482. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.06.001. View

15.

van der Hulle T, Cheung W, Kooij S, Beenen L, van Bemmel T, van Es J . Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2017; 390(10091):289-297. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30885-1. View

16.

Harrell Jr F, Lee K, Mark D . Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996; 15(4):361-87. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4. View

17.

Musoro J, Zwinderman A, Puhan M, Ter Riet G, Geskus R . Validation of prediction models based on lasso regression with multiply imputed data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14:116. PMC: 4209042. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-116. View

18.

Rubin D, Schenker N . Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med. 1991; 10(4):585-98. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780100410. View

19.

White I, Royston P, Wood A . Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011; 30(4):377-99. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4067. View

20.

Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons K, Altman D . Development and validation of a prediction model with missing predictor data: a practical approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 63(2):205-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.017. View