Original Articles Open access

Diagnostic performance of YEARS criteria combined with point-of-care lung and venous ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism

Authors

Published
8 May 2025
Section
Original Articles
DOI
10.4081/ecj.2025.13779

Abstract

Clinical prediction rules and bedside lung and venous ultrasound are frequently used in the diagnostic workup of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The possibility of improving the YEARS algorithm by integrating ultrasound has never been investigated. We analyzed data from a previous study involving a total of 446 outpatients with suspected PE. Signs of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on venous ultrasound and signs of pulmonary infarctions or alternative diagnoses on lung ultrasound were used to recalculate two items of the YEARSc: signs and symptoms of DVT and alternative diagnosis less likely than PE. Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-enhanced YEARS criteria (US-YEARSc) and YEARSc were compared after final diagnosis. 446 patients were included, PE was confirmed in 125 (28%). US-YEARSc performed significantly better than YEARSc (sensitivity 82.4% vs 64.8%, p=0.001; specificity 81% vs 48.6%, p < 0.001). US-YEARSc plus negative d-dimer compared to YEARSc and negative d-dimer showed an inferior failure rate (5.9% vs 8.9%,  p=0.25) and a superior efficiency (51.8% vs 48.2%, p=0.31), without reaching statistical significance. US-YEARSc perform better than YEARSc in the diagnosis of PE.

Keywords

References

  1. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 2020;41:543-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405
  2. Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, et al. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:701–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1772
  3. Le Gal G, Bounameaux H. Diagnosing pulmonary embolism: running after the decreasing prevalence of cases among suspected patients. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:1244–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00795.x
  4. Wiener R, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Time trends in pulmonary embolism in the United States. Evidence of overdiagnosis. Arch Int Med 2011;171:831–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.178
  5. van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S, et al. Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet 2017;390:289-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30885-1
  6. Eddy M, Robert-Ebadi H, Richardson L, et al. External validation of the YEARS diagnostic algorithm for suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:3289-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15083
  7. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-Care Ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 2011;364(8):749–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0909487
  8. Le Gal G, 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;95:963–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH06-03-0158
  9. Elias A, Colombier D, Victor G, et al. Diagnostic performance of complete lower limb venous ultrasound in patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Thromb Haemost 2004;91:187–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH03-05-0278
  10. Mathis G, Blank W, Reissig A, et al. Thoracic ultrasound for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicenter study of 352 patients. Chest 2005;128:1531–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.3.1531
  11. Koenig S, Chandra S, Alaverdian A, et al. Ultrasound assessment of pulmonary embolism in patients receiving CT pulmonary angiography. Chest 2014;145:818–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0797
  12. Nazerian P, Vanni S, Volpicelli G, et al. Accuracy of point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Chest 2014;145:950–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-1087
  13. Nazerian P, Volpicelli G, Gigli C, et al. Diagnostic performance of wells score combined with point-of-care lung and venous ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism. Acad Emerg Med 2017;24:270-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13130
  14. Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med 2012;38:577–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4
  15. Lucassen W, Geersing G-J, Erkens PM, et al. Clinical decision rules for excluding pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:448–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00007
  16. Falster C, Jacobsen N, Coman KE, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of focused deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2022;77:679-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-216838
  17. Copetti R, Cominotto F, Meduri S, Orso D. The "survived lung:" an ultrasound sign of "bubbly consolidation" pulmonary infarction. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020;46:2546-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.04.036
  18. Hawass N. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997;70:360–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.70.832.9166071
  19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the Area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747
  20. Chunilal SD, Eikelboom JW, Attia J, et al. Does this patient have pulmonary embolism? JAMA 2003;290:2849–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.21.2849
  21. Wicki J, Perneger T, Junod A, Bounameaux H, Perrier A. Assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism in the emergency ward: a simple score. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:92–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.1.92
  22. Nordenholz KE, Naviaux NW, Stegelmeier K, et al. Pulmonary embolism risk assessment screening tools: the interrater reliability of their criteria. Am J Emerg Med 2007;25:285–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2006.08.016
  23. Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, et al. Age-Adjusted D-Dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA 2014;311:1117–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2135
  24. Righini M, Le Gal G, Aujesky D, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008;371:1343–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60594-2
  25. Van Belle A, Buller H, Huisman M, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA 2006;295:172–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.2.172
  26. Kruip MJ, Leclercq MG, van der Heul C, et al. Diagnostic strategies for excluding pulmonary embolism in clinical outcome studies. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:941–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-12-200306170-00005
  27. Perrier A, Roy P-M, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1760–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa042905
  28. Squizzato A, Rancan E, Dentali F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2013;11:1269–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12232
  29. Salaun P-Y, Couturaud F, Le Duc-Pennec A, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Chest 2011;139:1294–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-1209
  30. . Zanobetti M, Scorpiniti M, Gigli C, et al. Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Acute Dyspnea in the ED. Chest 2017;151:1295-1301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.02.003

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.