Abstract

Because the clinical diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism is nonspecific, integrated diagnostic approaches for patients with suspected venous thromboembolism have been developed over the years, involving both non-invasive bedside tools (clinical decision rules and D-dimer blood tests) for patients with low pretest probability and diagnostic techniques (compression ultrasound for deep-vein thrombosis and computed tomography pulmonary angiography for pulmonary embolism) for those with a high pretest probability. This combination has led to standardized diagnostic algorithms with proven safety for excluding venous thrombotic disease. At the same time, it has become apparent that, as a result of the natural history of venous thrombosis, there are special patient populations in which the current standard diagnostic algorithms are not sufficient. In this review, we present 3 evidence-based patient cases to underline recent developments in the imaging diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which refers to a diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), is worldwide the third most frequently diagnosed cardiovascular disorder. VTE may be complicated by recurrent thrombosis, anticoagulant associated bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.1-3  Over the years, the diagnostic approach has evolved from clinical diagnosis to fully standardized diagnostic management algorithms, in which validated pretest clinical decision rules, D-dimer testing, and foremost straightforward diagnostic imaging allow for safe, convenient, and cost-effective management of patients.4  Patients with a low pretest probability and a normal D-dimer can have VTE excluded without the need for imaging, although there is a trend for increased imaging taking place, leading to ever-increasing demands on busy emergency departments.5  Despite all advancements during the past decade, the imaging diagnosis of VTE remains challenging in patients with suspected recurrent VTE disease, pregnant patients, and elderly patients. These 3 distinct clinical presentations that were managed recently at our hospital form the basis for this overview, in which we focus on imaging but consider diagnostic management as a whole.

Case 1

Patient A, a 52-year-old male, contacts his general practitioner because of complaints of progressive pain and swelling of his right leg. The patient has been well until ∼3 days ago, when he noticed pain in his right thigh. Two days later, the pain had worsened and his wife noted that his right leg appeared more reddish than his left leg. The morning of presentation, the leg was clearly swollen and movement was restricted. He reported to be in good health and not to suffer from respiratory symptoms. He had not been immobilized recently, admitted to a hospital, or traveled. He had a history of hypertension and was diagnosed with unprovoked proximal DVT of his right leg 10 years ago, for which he was treated with a vitamin K antagonist for a period of 6 months. Current medications were lisinopril and simvastatin. His general practitioner suspected a recurrent DVT and referred the patient to our emergency ward for additional diagnostic workup. On admission, inspection of his lower extremities revealed painful swelling up to halfway up his right upper leg with 5-cm difference in calf circumference between both legs. In addition, vaguely demarcated erythema was present. Peripheral pulses were normal and the superficial veins were not prominent. The attending physician agrees that recurrent DVT may be an explanation for his symptoms. Would a compression ultrasonography (CUS) of the right leg be the most optimal diagnostic test?

Diagnosis of recurrent DVT

Pitfalls in current diagnostic management of recurrent DVT

The diagnostic management of suspected first DVT is straightforward. A low clinical pretest probability by the Wells rule for DVT in combination with a normal D-dimer blood test result safely rules out a first DVT, whereas inability to completely compress the common femoral and/or popliteal vein by CUS is the criterion for establishing the diagnosis of a first DVT.6  Conversely, diagnostic management of suspected recurrent DVT is challenging, especially when the same leg is affected again. To start with, the use of clinical decision rules in combination with D-dimer assays has not been evaluated in large cohorts for this specific clinical setting.6-8  Furthermore, it has been shown that ultrasound abnormalities persist in ∼80% of patients 3 months and in 50% of patients 1 year after initial DVT diagnosis, despite adequate anticoagulation.9  Because a sonographer cannot determine whether incompressibility of a specific vein segment is caused by a new DVT or residual thrombosis, the usefulness of CUS in a patient with suspected ipsilateral recurrent DVT is questionable.6,10  Ultrasonographers sometimes describe acute clots as having a fresh appearance versus older clots, which are retracted. However, the sensitivity and specificity of this appearance has never been studied systematically. Other imaging modalities, such as conventional venography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) venography, and echo Doppler, are subject to the same limitations. Measurement of residual thrombus diameter by CUS has been suggested to increase the accuracy of diagnosing ipsilateral recurrent DVT.11,12  However, in clinical practice, a reference CUS assessed after treatment cessation to evaluate the presence and exact location of residual thrombosis is not routinely performed and not always available if patients present to different hospitals.13  Furthermore, although 2-mm residual vein diameter has been applied as the criterion for confirming a definite recurrence,6  the absolute mean difference in the measurement between observers is also 2 mm and interobserver agreement of the comparison of 2 CUS examinations is average at best.14  A recent report of clinical practice patterns suggested that recurrent ipsilateral DVT could neither be ruled out nor be confirmed using CUS in 32% [95% confidence interval (CI), 23%-43%] of patients.13 

Direct thrombus imaging by magnetic resonance technique as a promising alternative

Direct thrombus imaging by magnetic resonance technique (MRDTI), a technique that is based on measurement of a shortening T1 signal as a result of the formation of methemoglobin in a fresh thrombus and does not require injection of contrast material such as gadolinium, has been shown to be a promising alternative for current diagnostic modalities for suspected ipsilateral recurrent DVT.15-18  The diagnostic accuracy of MRDTI for a first DVT is high (sensitivity, 97%-100%; specificity, 100%), the interobserver agreement between the 2 readers is excellent (κ = 0.98), and the signal is present within hours of thrombus formation and extinguishes completely after 6 months.15-17  The results from the RETURN study, in which MRDTI examination of 39 patients with confirmed recurrent DVT and 42 patients with residual thrombosis were compared with outcomes with compression ultrasound, clearly pointed out that MRDTI differentiates the 2 patient groups with great accuracy and reproducibility (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 100%), with a negative predictive value of 95% (95% CI, 85-99) in this highly selected cohort with a recurrent DVT incidence of 48% (Figure 1).18  Based on this observation, it was hypothesized that MRDTI has equally high sensitivity but superior specificity than currently available ultrasonography techniques. To confirm this hypothesis, a prospective, multicenter management study, the Theia study, has started recently that will manage 305 patients with suspected ipsilateral recurrent DVT based on the result of MRDTI only, performed within 24 hours of clinical presentation (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02262052).19  All patients will be followed for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thrombosis during 3-month follow-up. In addition, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of MRDTI in clinical practice will be addressed.

Figure 1

MRDTI of patient from case. (A) The white arrow indicates the fresh thrombus in the popliteal vein of the right leg. For contrast, B depicts the MRDTI of a patient with residual thrombosis in the left popliteal and femoral vein: no DTI signal is present.

Figure 1

MRDTI of patient from case. (A) The white arrow indicates the fresh thrombus in the popliteal vein of the right leg. For contrast, B depicts the MRDTI of a patient with residual thrombosis in the left popliteal and femoral vein: no DTI signal is present.

As for our patient, his Wells score for DVT indicated “likely probability” (total of 2 points, 1 point for “calf enlargement >3 cm compared with the other site” and 1 point for “pitting edema”), indicating that a D-dimer test could definitely not be used for ruling out DVT.6,20  Because the patient fulfilled all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria for the Theia study, he was referred for MRDTI, which showed a clear signal in the right popliteal vein (Figure 1), confirming the diagnosis of recurrent ipsilateral DVT. After 6 months of treatment, a reference CUS was performed and showed persistent incompressibility of the right popliteal vein.

If the patient could not have been included in the study, a CUS would have been made and, if possible, compared with a previously performed reference CUS or the CUS that confirmed the previous DVT to compare current findings with the location and extent of the residual thrombosis or the first DVT. If there are no reference tests (or reports) to compare with and the CUS is abnormal, there is no choice but to assume recurrent DVT and start anticoagulant treatment. The preferred diagnostic algorithm for suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Preferred diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT. Dotted lines and boxes indicate lack of evidence for strong recommendations and/or running studies. CDR indicates clinical decision rule. *Not validated in a large outcome study.

Figure 2

Preferred diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT. Dotted lines and boxes indicate lack of evidence for strong recommendations and/or running studies. CDR indicates clinical decision rule. *Not validated in a large outcome study.

Diagnosis of recurrent PE

For patients with a suspected recurrent PE, interpretation of the imaging tests of choice, i.e. computed tomography–pulmonary angiography (CTPA), is not as complicated as in suspected recurrent DVT. It has been shown that ruling out recurrent PE based on CTPA is safe, although patients with a normal CTPA had somewhat higher recurrence rates on follow-up than patients with a suspected first PE.21,22  Although in large management studies for suspected first PE episodes the 3-month VTE failure rate is estimated to be ∼1.2%,23  this was 2.8% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.5%) in the REPEAD study by Mos et al21  that focused on suspected recurrent PE. The common belief was that persistent thrombi were prevalent in PE, as is the case after DVT of the leg. Indeed, according to a review in 2006 that summarized the results of the then published mostly small studies of average quality, up to 50% of patients had old pulmonary artery thrombi after 6 months of anticoagulant treatment.24  However, a very recent careful follow-up study in which all patients had repeated CTPA after 6 months of anticoagulant therapy showed that complete PE resolution had occurred in 85%, compared with 71% in the 14 patients with a history of recurrent PE (p = 0.18).25  This result of this study challenges the need for a baseline repeated CTPA imaging after 6 months. The preferred diagnostic algorithm for suspected recurrent acute PE is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Preferred diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected recurrent acute PE. CDR indicates clinical decision rule; HS, highly sensitive; MD-CTPA, multirow detector CTPA.

Figure 3

Preferred diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected recurrent acute PE. CDR indicates clinical decision rule; HS, highly sensitive; MD-CTPA, multirow detector CTPA.

Case 2

An 82-year-old female, with a history of mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is visited by her general practitioner because she complained of acute onset of left-sided thoracic pain and dyspnea. She has been fully ambulant in the previous months but has been in bed for the past week because of what seems to have been an intercurrent viral pneumonia with fever up to 38.5°C. She did not complain of pain in the calf or arrhythmia. On physical examination, her blood pressure is 135/90 mmHg with a regular pulse of 76/minute. Some pleural friction at the left side is heard but no cardiac bruits. The pocket electrocardiogram reveals a sinus rhythm of 76 beats/min. The point-of-care D-dimer test is 890 ng/mL (cutoff level of 500 ng/mL; STA-LIA, Stago, France). A recent laboratory examination had shown her estimated creatinine clearance to be 26 mL/min. What is the next diagnostic step: should the attending physician consider acute PE as a possible explanation for her symptoms and refer her for imaging tests, or is this diagnosis safely excluded by the D-dimer test?

Diagnosing acute PE in elderly patients

Clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing

The clinical presentation of acute PE varies widely among patients. Elderly patients have a high prevalence of acute PE, being ∼1% per year.26  Although younger patients, generally without cardiopulmonary comorbidity, often present with typical complaints, including rapid-onset dyspnea or pleuritic chest pain, wheezing, or a nonproductive cough, symptoms in elderly patients are more nonspecific. In retrospective case series, syncope was reported to be present more often, whereas pleuritic chest pain was less frequent.27-29  Proven algorithms such as those used in the Christopher Study consist of a validated clinical decision rule, a D-dimer blood test, and imaging by either CTPA or ventilation–perfusion (V–Q) lung scan.30-33  As in younger patients, the diagnosis should always start with assessing clinical probability by one of the validated decision rules. Whether these decision rules perform differently in elderly patients has not been studied systematically. A challenging difficulty is the physiologic increase of D-dimer with age. As a result, in patients older than 80 years, normal D-dimer rules out the diagnosis of PE in only 5% compared with >50% in patients younger than 50 years.34 

Attempts have been made to increase the number of patients in whom PE can be ruled out without imaging tests. This is especially appealing to elderly patients in whom transfer to an imaging facility can be spared. Thus, an age-dependent D-dimer cutoff level was proposed: age × 10 μg/L in patients >50 years of age.35,36  A recent large, prospective management outcome trial demonstrated the safety of applying this age-dependent D-dimer cutoff.37  The 3-month VTE incidence in patients with “PE unlikely” probability and a D-dimer level ≥500 μg/L but below the age-adjusted threshold was only 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1.7). The absolute increase of the patients >50 years old that could be managed without CTPA was 11.6%. Particularly patients of ≥75 years were shown to be more frequently managed without CTPA in a safe manner.

Imaging

For both younger and elderly patients, multirow detector CTPA has very high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing PE. Several outcome studies have demonstrated the safety of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients with a negative CTPA alone. In a meta-analysis, the pooled 3-month VTE incidence after a normal CTPA alone in patients in whom CTPA was indicated based on a validated clinical decision rule and/or D-dimer test was 1.2% (95% CI, 0.8-1.8) and 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6-2.0) after normal CTPA in combination with normal lower bilateral limb CUS, indicating that the safety of a normal CTPA could not be improved further by excluding asymptomatic DVT after a normal CTPA.23  Although an important drawback of CTPA is the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy,38  a recent study randomly allocated patients to short prehydration with sodium bicarbonate or placebo.39  The mean creatinine clearance was ∼50 mL/min, and the study included patients with clearances as low as 15 mL/min. No significant difference in the rate of worsening of creatinine clearance or contrast-induced acute kidney injury was seen, suggesting that preventive hydration could be withheld safely in patients with chronic renal insufficiency, who are referred for CTPA to rule out acute PE. This will facilitate management of these patients and prevents delay in diagnosis, as well as unnecessary start of anticoagulant treatment while receiving volume expansion, which in itself may lead to acute heart failure.

In elderly patients who often have renal insufficiency and are thus prone to develop contrast nephropathy, performing CUS of the legs to screen for symptomatic DVT as an alternative to CTPA is attractive, because it does not involve radiation and injecting contrast.40,41  In a patient with suspected PE, the presence of a DVT is highly predictive of PE (positive likelihood of 42), thus obviating the need for CTPA imaging in a hospital-based setting.42  Although the yield for CUS is low in younger patients with suspected PE, only 7% of patients younger than 40 years had a proximal DVT as shown by CUS, proximal DVT was found in 25% of patients with suspected PE older than 80 years.34  This means that the number to test with CUS is only 4 to rule out one PE without additional imaging. Importantly, after normal CUS, CTPA is still necessary to rule out PE. Thus, CUS as the initial imaging test will obviate the need for CTPA only in a limited number of patients.

Applying the adjust PE rule in our patient indicated a D-dimer cutoff level of 820 ng/mL. The general physician concluded that she had a high probability of PE. Because this patient had severe renal insufficiency, he first ordered a CUS, which was normal in both legs. CTPA imaging was performed without prehydration; it showed multiple segmental PE in the left lung. She was started on low–molecular–weight heparin, adjusted for her creatinine clearance, followed by vitamin K antagonists, and she had an uneventful follow-up.

Case 3

A 26-year-old, 31-week pregnant female patient is evaluated at the emergency unit because of suspected PE. She woke up at night 4 hours earlier because of sudden shortness of breath, which has since then worsened. Two years ago, she has had an idiopathic PE for which she had taken vitamin K antagonists for a period of 6 months. She had been treated with 2850 IU of prophylactic nadroparin subcutaneously once daily since she became pregnant and has been very compliant with the injections. She does not complain of dizziness, arrhythmia, or pain in the calf. At the physical examination, the patient is very anxious and alarmed. She has a blood pressure of 120/75 mmHg with a pulse rate of 96/minute, her central venous pressure is not increased, and no abnormal lung or heart sounds are heard. The legs do not display signs of DVT. What is the next step in the diagnostic process?

VTE diagnosis in the pregnant patient

The risk of VTE is increased during pregnancy, and VTE remains one of the main causes of maternal mortality in developed countries.43  Although the absolute risk of VTE in pregnancy is modest, there is generally a high concern among physicians and the patient on presentation with symptoms of VTE. Leg or thoracic symptoms are often experienced in pregnancy and are sometimes clinically indistinguishable from those found in patients with DVT and PE. Hence, the clinical diagnosis is inaccurate, and accurate diagnostic testing is essential to exclude or diagnose VTE. As a result, many physicians use a low imaging test threshold. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that this led to a low 4.1% prevalence of VTE among suspected pregnant patients compared with 12.4% in nonpregnant patients.44  Moreover, many of the common diagnostic tests, including CUS, V–Q lung scan, and CTPA, that have been investigated extensively in nonpregnant patients have not been validated appropriately in pregnancy. Extrapolating results of diagnostic studies of DVT and PE in nonpregnant patients to those who are pregnant may not be correct because of physiologic changes during pregnancy and the possibility of differences in pathophysiology and presentation of VTE in pregnancy. In addition, imaging is complicated by a concern for reduced accuracy of CUS, whereas both CTPA and V–Q lung scanning involve radiation with associated concern for unwanted side effects to the mother and/or child.4 

Workup of suspected DVT in pregnancy

In DVT diagnosis during pregnancy, the performance of CUS is challenged by a higher proportion of isolated iliac DVT. In a recent review of the literature, it was found that 62% of all DVTs in symptomatic pregnant women were in the iliofemoral veins, 17% were in the iliac vein alone, and 6% were in the calf veins.45  In contrast, in the general population, >80% of DVTs involved calf veins, and iliofemoral DVTs or isolated iliac veins are uncommon (<5%).46  Three management studies do support the use of either serial proximal ultrasound or one whole-leg ultrasound, both combined with a Doppler examination of the iliac veins, to rule out DVT in pregnant women.47-49  In the largest study with a 7.7% prevalence of DVT (17/221 patients), 65% (11/17) of patients had isolated iliofemoral DVT, and 12% (2/17) had isolated iliac DVT.49  If no Doppler examination is available, shielded CT venography or MR venography are alternative imaging methods. Finally, the role of pretest probability assessment and D-dimer testing in the diagnosis of suspected DVT in pregnancy has yet to be defined. A prospective management study in which patients' management is based on the results of the so-called “LEFt” clinical decision rule in combination with D-dimer and CUS is currently under way and recruiting patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01708239). LEFt is the acronym for symptoms in the left leg (L), calf circumference difference ≥2 cm between asymptomatic and symptomatic legs (E), and first trimester presentation (Ft). All 3 variables were shown to be highly predictive of DVT in pregnant patients.50 

Workup of suspected PE in pregnancy

As for suspected DVT in pregnancy, no established clinical decision rule exists for PE, leaving imaging as the logical first choice. Three options for imaging exist: (1) to start with bilateral CUS; (2) to start with V–Q lung scanning; or (3) to start with CTPA. This first approach has the advantage that additional imaging of the chest may be omitted: an abnormal CUS is sufficient to start anticoagulant treatment, whereas a normal bilateral CUS should be followed by additional imaging. Of note, although never studied specifically, the yield of CUS in patients presenting with PE symptoms during pregnancy without signs of DVT is likely low (Figure 4).51 

Figure 4

Diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected acute PE in pregnant patients. MD-CTPA indicates multirow detector CTPA. *Strategy with very low yield, unless symptomatic DVT.

Figure 4

Diagnostic algorithm for clinically suspected acute PE in pregnant patients. MD-CTPA indicates multirow detector CTPA. *Strategy with very low yield, unless symptomatic DVT.

According to North American guidelines on diagnosis of PE in pregnancy, V–Q lung scintigraphy is to be considered as the first-line diagnostic test, especially in the presence of a normal chest x-ray, and rules out the diagnosis of PE when the result of the perfusion scan is normal.52  However, some argue that, because fetal radiation is higher with V–Q lung scan than with CTPA, the latter method is to be preferred (Table 1).53  When a high-probability V–Q lung scan is obtained, the diagnosis of PE can be considered confirmed. All other abnormal V–Q scan results are nondiagnostic and the diagnosis of PE needs to be confirmed or excluded by additional testing with a CTPA.

Table 1

Radiation dose to the fetus for different imaging tests53 

Imaging testFetal radiation dose (mSv)
Perfusion scintigraphy (99 mTc MAA, 200 MBq) 0.2 to 0.6 
Perfusion scintigraphy (99 mTc MAA, 40 MBq) 0.11 to 0.20 
Ventilation scintigraphy (99 mTc aerosol) 0.1 to 0.3 
Ventilation scintigraphy (81 mKr, 600 MBq) 0.0001 
Multidetector CTPA 0.013 
Imaging testFetal radiation dose (mSv)
Perfusion scintigraphy (99 mTc MAA, 200 MBq) 0.2 to 0.6 
Perfusion scintigraphy (99 mTc MAA, 40 MBq) 0.11 to 0.20 
Ventilation scintigraphy (99 mTc aerosol) 0.1 to 0.3 
Ventilation scintigraphy (81 mKr, 600 MBq) 0.0001 
Multidetector CTPA 0.013 

CTPA has the advantage over a V–Q of low fetal radiation exposure, although some studies warned about the increased risk of breast cancer in pregnant women exposed to CTPA.51,54  CTPA is associated with a low number of nondiagnostic results, although it has been claimed to involve a higher inadequacy rate during pregnancy because of the underlying physiologic changes in pregnancy, such as alterations in cardiac output and changes in plasma volume.55  The ability to make an alternative diagnosis that can explain the patient's complaints by imaging other chest structures (lung parenchyma, mediastinum, etc.) is an advantage of the CT, although its significance for patients' management has been debated recently.56  The safety of using helical CT as a sole imaging method to exclude PE during pregnancy has been investigated in a recent cohort follow-up study in 134 patients. None of the patients with normal CTPA returned with recurrent VTE (upper 95% CI, 2.5%), whereas there was a low 6% inadequacy rate of CTPA imaging.57  It should be noted that the prevalence of PE in this study was only 3.7%, stressing the need for studies in which better triaging of these patients by means of clinical decision rules and D-dimer testing is evaluated. In general, the radiation exposure risks are lower than the consequences of a misdiagnosis in PE [risk of (fatal) untreated PE and risk of (fatal) bleeding in case of unnecessary anticoagulant therapy], and it is stressed that all pregnant women with suspected PE should undergo a complete workup if relevant, including a CTPA. Of note, pregnancy was one of the most common reasons for not following diagnostic algorithms, which has been shown to be associated with less favorable outcome. Specifically, patients in whom diagnostic algorithms were not strictly followed had higher rates of a symptomatic VTE diagnosis during 3-month follow-up than patients who were managed according to the validated diagnostic algorithms.58 

In our patient, a bilateral CUS did not show any incompressible deep venous segments. The subsequently performed CTPA showed no new pulmonary emboli, so the diagnosis of acute PE could be excluded, and she remained on prophylactic dose nadroparin and was not treated with therapeutic intensity anticoagulation. Eight weeks later, she gave birth to a healthy boy. The postpartum period was without complications.

Emerging imaging tests for diagnosing VTE

With concerns for contrast nephropathy and radiation exposure associated with CTPA, contrast-enhanced or not-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be an alternative imaging method.59-62  Initial studies reported sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 96% of magnetic resonance pulmonary angiography (MR-PA) for acute PE.59  However, a recent, carefully performed study confirmed the average sensitivity (70%) and good specificity (100%) but showed a high inter-individual variability, with κ = 0.59.60  An additional and important practical drawback of MR-PA was a 30% proportion of technically inadequate tests. Given the current techniques and evidence from clinical studies and despite the attractive potential of MR-PA, it is not yet a suitable alternative for CTPA in the daily management of patients presenting with clinically suspected PE.62  However, this modality could still be useful in patients with contraindications to CTPA or in pregnant women. An ongoing prospective management study is evaluating the diagnostic performance of a combination of contrast-enhanced MRI and bilateral CUS of the leg veins (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02059551).

Normal V–Q lung scanning has the drawback of many indeterminate results. V–Q single photon emission tomography (SPECT) scanning is a new technique, very similar to conventional planar V–Q, but it allows for tomographic imaging, which may lead to better contrast resolution. Initial results show a reasonable accuracy for PE diagnosis when compared with CTPA imaging, but validation of predefined interpretation criteria is required, as well as management outcome studies, in which a normal V–Q SPECT scan as the sole test is used to rule out PE.63 

Because both venous and arterial thrombosis and inflammation are intimately linked, the inflammatory component of VTE may allow the use of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT in the detection of thrombotic process. A pilot diagnostic study in 100 consecutive patients showed disappointing accuracy (sensitivity, 3%; specificity, 99%), and this method proved not yet suitable for clinical practice.64 

Conclusions

After decades of dedicated research, diagnostic management of acute VTE has become standardized but remains challenging for special patient groups. Much benefit can be expected if adherence to validated algorithms in day-to-day clinical practice can be improved. Strictly adhering to these strategies will limit the number of necessary imaging tests and are associated with lower recurrence rates and a reduction in healthcare costs, as well as complications. Furthermore, enhanced imaging methods are being developed and validated for specific circumstances, including recurrent VTE.

This article was selected by the Blood and Hematology 2015 American Society of Hematology Education Program editors for concurrent submission to Blood and Hematology 2015. It is reprinted in Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2015;2015:202-209.

Authorship

Contribution: M.V.H. and F.A.K. wrote and reviewed the manuscript and reviewed and approved each other's sections.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests. Off-label drug use: None disclosed.

Correspondence: M. V. Huisman, Leiden University Medical Center (C-7-Q), Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands; e-mail: m.v.huisman@lumc.nl.

References

References
1
Rathbun
 
S
Cardiology patient pages. The Surgeon General's call to action to prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
Circulation
2009
, vol. 
119
 
15
(pg. 
e480
-
e482
)
2
Klok
 
FA
Zondag
 
W
van Kralingen
 
KW
, et al. 
Patient outcomes after acute pulmonary embolism. A pooled survival analysis of different adverse events.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2010
, vol. 
181
 
5
(pg. 
501
-
506
)
3
Department of Health and Human Services
Surgeon General's call to action to prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism 2008.
 
4
Konstantinides
 
SV
2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism.
Eur Heart J
2014
, vol. 
35
 
45
(pg. 
3145
-
3146
)
5
Huisman
 
MV
Klok
 
FA
Diagnostic management of acute deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
J Thromb Haemost
2013
, vol. 
11
 
3
(pg. 
412
-
422
)
6
Bates
 
SM
Jaeschke
 
R
Stevens
 
SM
, et al. 
Diagnosis of DVT: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
Chest
2012
, vol. 
141
 
Suppl. 2
(pg. 
e351S
-
e418S
)
7
Aguilar
 
C
del Villar
 
V
Combined D-dimer and clinical probability are useful for exclusion of recurrent deep venous thrombosis.
Am J Hematol
2007
, vol. 
82
 
1
(pg. 
41
-
44
)
8
Geersing
 
GJ
Zuithoff
 
NP
Kearon
 
C
, et al. 
Exclusion of deep vein thrombosis using the Wells rule in clinically important subgroups: individual patient data meta-analysis.
BMJ
2014
, vol. 
348
 pg. 
g1340
 
9
Piovella
 
F
Crippa
 
L
Barone
 
M
, et al. 
Normalization rates of compression ultrasonography in patients with a first episode of deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs: association with recurrence and new thrombosis.
Haematologica
2002
, vol. 
87
 
5
(pg. 
515
-
522
)
10
Schellong
 
SM
Diagnosis of recurrent deep vein thrombosis.
Hamostaseologie
2013
, vol. 
33
 
3
(pg. 
195
-
200
)
11
Prandoni
 
P
Cogo
 
A
Bernardi
 
E
, et al. 
A simple ultrasound approach for detection of recurrent proximal-vein thrombosis.
Circulation
1993
, vol. 
88
 
4 Pt 1
(pg. 
1730
-
1735
)
12
Le
 
GG
Kovacs
 
MJ
Carrier
 
M
, et al. 
Validation of a diagnostic approach to exclude recurrent venous thromboembolism.
J Thromb Haemost
2009
, vol. 
7
 
5
(pg. 
752
-
759
)
13
Tan
 
M
Velthuis
 
SI
Westerbeek
 
RE
, et al. 
High percentage of non-diagnostic compression ultrasonography results and the diagnosis of ipsilateral recurrent proximal deep vein thrombosis.
J Thromb Haemost
2010
, vol. 
8
 
4
(pg. 
848
-
850
)
14
Linkins
 
LA
Stretton
 
R
Probyn
 
L
Kearon
 
C
Interobserver agreement on ultrasound measurements of residual vein diameter, thrombus echogenicity and Doppler venous flow in patients with previous venous thrombosis.
Thromb Res
2006
, vol. 
117
 
3
(pg. 
241
-
247
)
15
Fraser
 
DG
Moody
 
AR
Morgan
 
PS
Martel
 
AL
Davidson
 
I
Diagnosis of lower-limb deep venous thrombosis: a prospective blinded study of magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging.
Ann Intern Med
2002
, vol. 
136
 
2
(pg. 
89
-
98
)
16
Saha
 
P
Andia
 
ME
Modarai
 
B
, et al. 
Magnetic resonance T1 relaxation time of venous thrombus is determined by iron processing and predicts susceptibility to lysis.
Circulation
2013
, vol. 
128
 
7
(pg. 
729
-
736
)
17
Westerbeek
 
RE
Van Rooden
 
CJ
Tan
 
M
, et al. 
Magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging of the evolution of acute deep vein thrombosis of the leg.
J Thromb Haemost
2008
, vol. 
6
 
7
(pg. 
1087
-
1092
)
18
Tan
 
M
Mol
 
GC
Van Rooden
 
CJ
, et al. 
Magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging differentiates acute recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis from residual thrombosis.
Blood
2014
, vol. 
124
 
4
(pg. 
623
-
627
)
19
Klok
 
FA
Tan
 
M
Huisman
 
MV
Letter by Klok et al regarding article, “18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Enables the Detection of Recurrent Same-Site Deep Vein Thrombosis by Illuminating Recently Formed, Neutrophil-Rich Thrombus.”
Circulation
2015
, vol. 
131
 
24
(pg. 
e531
-
e532
)
20
Wells
 
PS
Anderson
 
DR
Bormanis
 
J
, et al. 
Value of assessment of pretest probability of deep-vein thrombosis in clinical management.
Lancet
1997
, vol. 
350
 
9094
(pg. 
1795
-
1798
)
21
Mos
 
IC
Douma
 
RA
Erkens
 
PM
, et al. 
Diagnostic outcome management study in patients with clinically suspected recurrent acute pulmonary embolism with a structured algorithm.
Thromb Res
2014
, vol. 
133
 
6
(pg. 
1039
-
1044
)
22
Fabia Valls
 
MJ
van der Hulle
 
T
den Exter
 
PL
, et al. 
Performance of a diagnostic algorithm based on a prediction rule, D-dimer and CT-scan for pulmonary embolism in patients with previous venous thromboembolism. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Thromb Haemost
2015
, vol. 
113
 
2
(pg. 
406
-
413
)
23
Mos
 
IC
Klok
 
FA
Kroft
 
LJ
, et al. 
Safety of ruling out acute pulmonary embolism by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with an indication for computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Thromb Haemost
2009
, vol. 
7
 
9
(pg. 
1491
-
1498
)
24
Nijkeuter
 
M
Hovens
 
MM
Davidson
 
BL
Huisman
 
MV
Resolution of thromboemboli in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review.
Chest
2006
, vol. 
129
 
1
(pg. 
192
-
197
)
25
Den Exter
 
PL
van Es
 
J
Kroft
 
LJ
, et al. 
Thromboembolic resolution assessed by CT pulmonary angiography after treatment for acute pulmonary embolism.
Thromb Haemost
2015
, vol. 
114
 
1
(pg. 
26
-
34
)
26
Oger
 
E
Incidence of venous thromboembolism: a community-based study in Western France. EPI-GETBP Study Group. Groupe d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale.
Thromb Haemost
2000
, vol. 
83
 
5
(pg. 
657
-
660
)
27
Timmons
 
S
Kingston
 
M
Hussain
 
M
Kelly
 
H
Liston
 
R
Pulmonary embolism: differences in presentation between older and younger patients.
Age Ageing
2003
, vol. 
32
 
6
(pg. 
601
-
605
)
28
Kokturk
 
N
Oguzulgen
 
IK
Demir
 
N
Demirel
 
K
Ekim
 
N
Differences in clinical presentation of pulmonary embolism in older vs younger patients.
Circ J
2005
, vol. 
69
 
8
(pg. 
981
-
986
)
29
Robert-Ebadi
 
H
Le
 
GG
Carrier
 
M
, et al. 
Differences in clinical presentation of pulmonary embolism in women and men.
J Thromb Haemost
2010
, vol. 
8
 
4
(pg. 
693
-
698
)
30
van Belle
 
A
Buller
 
HR
Huisman
 
MV
, et al. 
Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography.
JAMA
2006
, vol. 
295
 
2
(pg. 
172
-
179
)
31
Anderson
 
DR
Kahn
 
SR
Rodger
 
MA
, et al. 
Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography vs ventilation-perfusion lung scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA
2007
, vol. 
298
 
23
(pg. 
2743
-
2753
)
32
Douma
 
RA
Mos
 
IC
Erkens
 
PM
, et al. 
Performance of 4 clinical decision rules in the diagnostic management of acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort study.
Ann Intern Med
2011
, vol. 
154
 
11
(pg. 
709
-
718
)
33
Pasha
 
SM
Klok
 
FA
Snoep
 
JD
, et al. 
Safety of excluding acute pulmonary embolism based on an unlikely clinical probability by the Wells rule and normal D-dimer concentration: a meta-analysis.
Thromb Res
2010
, vol. 
125
 
4
(pg. 
e123
-
e127
)
34
Righini
 
M
Goehring
 
C
Bounameaux
 
H
Perrier
 
A
Effects of age on the performance of common diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism.
Am J Med
2000
, vol. 
109
 
5
(pg. 
357
-
361
)
35
Douma
 
RA
Le
 
GG
Sohne
 
M
, et al. 
Potential of an age adjusted D-dimer cut-off value to improve the exclusion of pulmonary embolism in older patients: a retrospective analysis of three large cohorts.
BMJ
2010
, vol. 
340
 pg. 
c1475
 
36
Schouten
 
HJ
Geersing
 
GJ
Koek
 
HL
, et al. 
Diagnostic accuracy of conventional or age adjusted D-dimer cut-off values in older patients with suspected venous thromboembolism: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ
2013
, vol. 
346
 pg. 
f2492
 
37
Righini
 
M
Van
 
EJ
den Exter
 
PL
, et al. 
Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study.
JAMA
2014
, vol. 
311
 
11
(pg. 
1117
-
1124
)
38
Kooiman
 
J
Klok
 
FA
Mos
 
IC
, et al. 
Incidence and predictors of contrast-induced nephropathy following CT-angiography for clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism.
J Thromb Haemost
2010
, vol. 
8
 
2
(pg. 
409
-
411
)
39
Kooiman
 
J
Sijpkens
 
YW
van
 
BM
, et al. 
Randomised trial of no hydration vs. sodium bicarbonate hydration in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing acute computed tomography-pulmonary angiography.
J Thromb Haemost
2014
, vol. 
12
 
10
(pg. 
1658
-
1666
)
40
Meguid El
 
NA
Bello
 
AK
Chronic kidney disease: the global challenge.
Lancet
2005
, vol. 
365
 
9456
(pg. 
331
-
340
)
41
Abdelhafiz
 
AH
Ahmed
 
S
Flint
 
K
El Nahas
 
M
Is chronic kidney disease in older people a new geriatric giant?
Aging Health
2011
, vol. 
7
 
5
(pg. 
749
-
762
)
42
Le
 
GG
Righini
 
M
Sanchez
 
O
, et al. 
A positive compression ultrasonography of the lower limb veins is highly predictive of pulmonary embolism on computed tomography in suspected patients.
Thromb Haemost
2006
, vol. 
95
 
6
(pg. 
963
-
966
)
43
James
 
AH
Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol
2009
, vol. 
29
 
3
(pg. 
326
-
331
)
44
Kline
 
JA
Richardson
 
DM
Than
 
MP
Penaloza
 
A
Roy
 
PM
Systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnant patients investigated for suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.
Acad Emerg Med
2014
, vol. 
21
 
9
(pg. 
949
-
959
)
45
Chan
 
WS
Spencer
 
FA
Ginsberg
 
JS
Anatomic distribution of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy.
CMAJ
2010
, vol. 
182
 
7
(pg. 
657
-
660
)
46
Cogo
 
A
Lensing
 
AW
Prandoni
 
P
Hirsh
 
J
Distribution of thrombosis in patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. Implications for simplifying the diagnostic process with compression ultrasound.
Arch Intern Med
1993
, vol. 
153
 
24
(pg. 
2777
-
2780
)
47
Le
 
GG
Kercret
 
G
Ben
 
YK
, et al. 
Diagnostic value of single complete compression ultrasonography in pregnant and postpartum women with suspected deep vein thrombosis: prospective study.
BMJ
2012
, vol. 
344
 pg. 
e2635
 
48
Chan
 
WS
Chunilal
 
S
Lee
 
A
, et al. 
A red blood cell agglutination D-dimer test to exclude deep venous thrombosis in pregnancy.
Ann Intern Med
2007
, vol. 
147
 
3
(pg. 
165
-
170
)
49
Chan
 
WS
Spencer
 
FA
Lee
 
AY
, et al. 
Safety of withholding anticoagulation in pregnant women with suspected deep vein thrombosis following negative serial compression ultrasound and iliac vein imaging.
CMAJ
2013
, vol. 
185
 
4
(pg. 
E194
-
E200
)
50
Chan
 
WS
Lee
 
A
Spencer
 
FA
, et al. 
Predicting deep venous thrombosis in pregnancy: out in “LEFt” field?
Ann Intern Med
2009
, vol. 
151
 
2
(pg. 
85
-
92
)
51
Middeldorp
 
S
How I treat pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism.
Blood
2011
, vol. 
118
 
20
(pg. 
5394
-
5400
)
52
Leung
 
AN
Bull
 
TM
Jaeschke
 
R
, et al. 
An official American Thoracic Society/Society of Thoracic Radiology clinical practice guideline: evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2011
, vol. 
184
 
10
(pg. 
1200
-
1208
)
53
Nijkeuter
 
M
Geleijns
 
J
De
 
RA
Meinders
 
AE
Huisman
 
MV
Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: rationalizing fetal radiation exposure in radiological procedures.
J Thromb Haemost
2004
, vol. 
2
 
10
(pg. 
1857
-
1858
)
54
Nijkeuter
 
M
Ginsberg
 
JS
Huisman
 
MV
Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in pregnancy: a systematic review.
J Thromb Haemost
2006
, vol. 
4
 
3
(pg. 
496
-
500
)
55
Cahill
 
AG
Stout
 
MJ
Macones
 
GA
Bhalla
 
S
Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in pregnancy using computed-tomographic angiography or ventilation-perfusion.
Obstet Gynecol
2009
, vol. 
114
 
1
(pg. 
124
-
129
)
56
Van
 
EJ
Douma
 
RA
Schreuder
 
SM
, et al. 
Clinical impact of findings supporting an alternative diagnosis on CT pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.
Chest
2013
, vol. 
144
 
6
(pg. 
1893
-
1899
)
57
Nijkeuter
 
M
Tan
 
M
Middeldorp
 
S
Kroft
 
LJM
Beenen
 
L
Huisman
 
MV
Safety of ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy by computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).
 
Abstracts of the XXIV Congress of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [abstract OC 20.2]. New York, NY: Wiley; 2013
58
Roy
 
PM
Meyer
 
G
Vielle
 
B
, et al. 
Appropriateness of diagnostic management and outcomes of suspected pulmonary embolism.
Ann Intern Med
2006
, vol. 
144
 
3
(pg. 
157
-
164
)
59
Oudkerk
 
M
van Beek
 
EJ
Wielopolski
 
P
, et al. 
Comparison of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and conventional pulmonary angiography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a prospective study.
Lancet
2002
, vol. 
359
 
9318
(pg. 
1643
-
1647
)
60
Revel
 
MP
Sanchez
 
O
Couchon
 
S
, et al. 
Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for an acute pulmonary embolism: results of the “IRM-EP” study.
J Thromb Haemost
2012
, vol. 
10
 
5
(pg. 
743
-
750
)
61
Stein
 
PD
Chenevert
 
TL
Fowler
 
SE
, et al. 
Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for pulmonary embolism: a multicenter prospective study (PIOPED III).
Ann Intern Med
2010
, vol. 
152
 
7
(pg. 
434
-
443
)
62
Huisman
 
MV
Klok
 
FA
Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism: not yet a suitable alternative to CT-PA.
J Thromb Haemost
2012
, vol. 
10
 
5
(pg. 
741
-
742
)
63
Le Duc-Pennec
 
A
Le Roux
 
PY
Cornily
 
JC
, et al. 
Diagnostic accuracy of single-photon emission tomography ventilation/perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Chest
2012
, vol. 
141
 
2
(pg. 
381
-
387
)
64
Le Roux
 
PY
Robin
 
P
Delluc
 
A
, et al. 
Performance of 18F fluoro-2-desoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.
Thromb Res
2015
, vol. 
135
 
1
(pg. 
31
-
35
)