Background: The low specificity of ventilation-perfusion lung scanning comp
licates the management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.
Objective: To determine the safety of a clinical model for patients with su
spected pulmonary embolism.
Design: Prospective cohort study.
Setting: Five tertiary care hospitals.
Patients: 1239 inpatients and outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism
.
Interventions: A clinical model categorized pretest probability of pulmonar
y embolism as low, moderate, or high, and ventilation-perfusion scanning an
d bilateral deep venous ultrasonography were done. Testing by serial ultras
onography, venography, or angiography depended on pretest probability and l
ung scans.
Measurements: Patients were considered positive for pulmonary embolism if t
hey had an abnormal pulmonary angiogram, abnormal ultrasonogram or venogram
, high-probability ventilation-perfusion scan plus moderate or high pretest
probability, or venous thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up.
All other patients were considered negative for pulmonary embolism. Rates o
f pulmonary embolism during follow-up in patients who had a normal lung sca
n and those with a non-high-probability scan and normal serial ultrasonogra
m were compared.
Results: Pretest probability was low in 734 patients (3.4% with pulmonary e
mbolism), moderate in 403 (27.8% with pulmonary embolism), and high in 102
(78.4% with pulmonary embolism). Three of the 665 patients (0.5% [95% CI, 0
.1 % to 1.3 % ]) with low or moderate pretest probability and a non-high-pr
obability scan who were considered negative for pulmonary embolism had pulm
onary embolism or deep venous thrombosis during 90-day follow-up; this rate
did not differ from that in patients with a normal scan (0.6% [CI, 0.1% to
1.8%]; P > 0.2).
Conclusion: Management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism on the
basis of pretest probability and results of ventilation-perfusion scanning
is safe.