No abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate whether trimester-specific D-dimer levels or the modified Wells score (MWS) is a useful risk stratification tool to exclude pregnant women at low risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) from diagnostic imaging. Study Design This is a prospective and retrospective cohort study. Pregnant women who underwent diagnostic imaging for suspected PE were prospectively enrolled. D-dimer serum levels were drawn, and a MWS was assigned. Pregnant women diagnosed with a PE before study launch who underwent diagnostic imaging and had a D-dimer level drawn were also evaluated. Results In this study, 17 patients were diagnosed with a PE and 42 patients had no PE on diagnostic imaging. Sixteen out of 17 patients with a PE versus 11 out of 42 without PE had an abnormal D-dimer level (p = 0.001). Four patients with a PE versus zero without a PE had an abnormal MWS (p = 0.005). The combination of a trimester-specific D-dimer level along with the MWS was abnormal in all 17 patients with a documented PE versus 11/42 (26.2%) patients without a documented PE (p = 0.001). Conclusion A combination of trimester-specific D-dimer levels along with a MWS can be used in pregnancy to triage women into a low-risk category for PE and thereby avoid radiation exposure in a majority of pregnant patients.

Compare individualized contrast protocol, or weight-based protocol, to standard methodology in evaluating acute pulmonary embolism.Retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing computed tomography angiography with standard contrast protocol (n = 50) or individualized protocol (n = 50). Computerized tomography images were assessed for vascular enhancement and image quality.Demographics were comparable, however, more patients in the individualized group were admitted to intensive care unit (48% vs 16%, P = 0.004). Vascular enhancement and image quality were also comparable, although individualized protocol had significantly fewer contrast and motion artifact limitations (28% vs 48%, P = 0.039). Fifteen percent decrease in intravenous contrast volume was identified in individualized group with no compromise in image quality.Individualized contrast protocol provided comparable vascular enhancement and image quality to the standard, yet with fewer limitations and lower intravenous contrast volume. Catheter-gauge flow rate restrictions resulting in inconsistent technologist exam execution were identified, supporting the need for further investigation of this regimen.

No abstract