Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

BackgroundDiagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19. MethodsWe included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician's clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was >= 1000 ug/L, or >= 500 ug/L in case of >= 1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort). Results1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p<0.001), even after adjustment for differences in patient characteristics (adjusted OR 8.45 (95%CI 2.61-27.42, p<0.001) for PE diagnosis). In multivariate analysis, D-dimer (OR 1.09 per 1000 mu g/L increase, 95%CI 1.06-1.13, p<0.001) and CRP >100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE. ConclusionIn ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE.