Angelo Porfidia1, Rosa Talerico1, Carolina Mosoni1, Enrica Porceddu1, Roberto Pola1. 1. Section of Internal Medicine and Thromboembolic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
The meta-analysis published by Suh and coll. in a recent issue of
Radiology (1) is just the
last of a series of reports that support the concept that pulmonary embolism (PE) is a
very frequent complication in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease-19
(COVID-19). However, this awareness does not correspond to an adequate diagnostic effort
towards PE. Indeed, clear indications on the appropriate use of computed tomography
pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the diagnosis of PE in COVID-19patients are still
lacking. If we look at the single studies taken into account by the many meta-analyses
published in the last year (1–5), we will see that the proportion of patients who
underwent CTPA varied from 2.1% to 100%. In many studies, this information
was not even provided. In others, the proportion of patients who underwent CTPA was
unknown. It is obvious that this has a strong influence on the end-point of these
studies, i.e. the incidence of PE, which might be underestimated. We believe that it
would be important to understand why some COVID-19patients underwent CTPA in these
studies, while others did not. Were they different, in terms of demographical, clinical,
and/or laboratory characteristics, from those who did not undergo CTPA? More in general,
we believe that it would be important to determine which proportion of patients in these
studies had a theoretical indication to undergo CTPA, based on the probability scoring
systems and the rule-out algorithms that are commonly used for diagnosing PE. Until the
decision of ordering CTPA will be left to the discretion of the individual physician, it
will be impossible to establish the precise incidence of PE in patients hospitalized for
COVID-19, as well its actual impact on prognosis.We appreciate your interest (1) and agree that
the actual prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) should be assessed by uniformly
applying computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) based on objective
criteria. However, what ought to be and what is practically achievable or happens in
real-world practice are different issues. First, CTPA in COVID-19 is typically
indicated when clinical or radiologic observations cannot explain current or
worsening respiratory distress (2). The
criterion of explainability inevitably depends on individual physicians'
discretion. CTPA was indeed requested based on the judgments of various physicians
(3), implying that CTPA was not applied to
COVID-19 using a uniform rule. Second, objective criteria for when CTPA is indicated
also have not been established. Several guidelines exist for anticoagulation in
COVID-19, but there are inconsistent recommendations on laboratory testing
(including D-dimer) to triage patients at risk for thrombotic complications across
those guidelines (4). Third, CTPA might not be
an easily-applicable test for COVID-19patients at some sites due to staff exposure
or the lack of an established CT protocol. Bedside echocardiography and
lower-extremity Doppler ultrasonography can be adjunct tests for establishing a
diagnosis of PE, and even if CTPA is uniformly applied, indeterminate results can
hinder interpreting the presence of PE in COVID-19 (5).Our meta-analysis rapidly provided information on the pooled incidence and range of
PE in early studies on COVID-19patients, and also discussed how the incidence was
unevenly distributed according to several important factors such as intensive care
unit treatment, deep vein thrombosis, and the proportion of patients who underwent
CTPA. We believe that the results of our analysis will help authors understand
variation in the reported incidence of PE in the literature on COVID-19.
Furthermore, we established a basis for applying the pre-existing rule-out algorithm
based on D-dimer (which the authors emphasized) to COVID-19 by soliciting individual
patient data from 11 studies. Therefore, the implications of this study go far
beyond simply listing a series of reports on PE in COVID-19.