Affiliation:
1. Department of Cardiology , General Hospital Cuprija , Cuprija , Serbia
2. High Medical School of Professional Studies , Cuprija , Serbia
3. Department of Internal medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences , University of Kragujevac , Clinical Center Kragujevac , Serbia
Abstract
Abstract
Current diagnostic workup of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) usually starts with the assessment of clinical pretest probability, using clinical prediction rules and plasma D-dimer measurement. Although an accurate diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients is thus of crucial importance, the diagnostic management of suspected PE is still challenging.
A 60-year-old man with chest pain and expectoration of blood was admitted to the Department of Cardiology, General Hospital in Cuprija, Serbia. After physical examination and laboratory analyses, the diagnosis of Right side pleuropne monia and acute pulmonary embolism was established. Clinically, patient was hemodynamically stable, auscultative slightly weaker respiratory sound right basal, without pretibial edema. Laboratory: C-reactive protein (CRP) 132.9 mg/L, Leukocytes (Le) 18.9x109/L, Erythrocytes (Er) 3.23x1012/L, Haemoglobin (Hgb) 113 g/L, Platelets (Plt) 79x109/L, D-dimer 35.2. On the third day after admission, D-dimer was increased and platelet count was decreased (Plt up to 62x109/L). According to Wells’ rules, score was 2.5 (without symptoms on admission), a normal clinical finding with clinical manifestation of hemoptysis and chest pain, which represents the intermediate level of clinical probability of PE. After the recidive of PE, Wells’ score was 6.5. In summary, this study suggests that Wells’ score, based on a patient’s risk for pulmonary embolism, is a valuable guidance for decision-making in combination with knowledge and experience of clinicians. Clinicians should use validated clinical prediction rules to estimate pretest probability in patients in whom acute PE is being consiered.
Publisher
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
Reference17 articles.
1. 1. Torbicki A, Perrier A, Konstantidines S et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29: 2276–315.
2. 2. Bĕlohlávek J, Dytrych V, Linhart A. Pulmonary embolism, part I: Epidemiology, risk factors and risk stratification, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis and nonthrombotic pulmonary embolism. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2013; 18(2): 129–138.
3. 3. Bricola SA, Paiva EF, Lichtenstein A et al. Fatal pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients: a large autopsy-based matched case-control study. CLINICS 2013; 68(5): 679-685.10.6061/clinics/2013(05)16
4. 4. Konstantinides SV. Trends in Pulmonary Embolism Outcomes. Are We Really Making Progress? (Editorial Comment). JACC 2016. 67 (2) 171-2.
5. 5. Heit JA. Predicting the risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence. Am J Hematol 2012; 87 (S1): S63–S67.