ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Utility and Outcomes of Repeat Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic yield of repeat CT pulmonary angiography after a negative examination in the emergency department.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Short- and long-term risk stratification in acutely ill medical patients by implementing D-dimer in the emergency setting - A prospective cohort study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- External validation of a commercial AI system for pulmonary embolism detection on chest CTPA: a multicenter study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. While computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the diagnostic gold standard, uncertainty persists in some patients after a negative or inconclusive scan. The role of repeat CTPA and the utility of D-dimer testing in this context are not well defined.
objectivesThe objectives of this study are to evaluate the prevalence and severity of PE detected on repeat CTPA, assess the diagnostic performance of D-dimer testing in repeat evaluations, and examine the clinical outcomes and resource implications associated with repeat imaging.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted across public tertiary care hospitals in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia, from January 2022 to December 2023. Adult patients (≥18 years) presenting to the emergency department with suspected PE who underwent initial CTPA and had a repeat visit within 30 days were included. Patients undergoing repeat CTPA comprised the primary analysis group. Data included demographics, clinical risk factors, D-dimer levels, CTPA findings, and outcomes. Diagnostic accuracy metrics were calculated for D-dimer. Statistical analyses compared patients with and without repeat imaging.
resultsOut of 412 patients evaluated for suspected PE, 61 (14.8%) underwent repeat CTPA. These patients were older and more likely to have cancer, a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and elevated Wells scores. PE was detected in 34.4% (n=21) of the repeat scans compared to 14.3% (n=59) of the initial scans (P < 0.001). Repeat imaging showed more frequent right ventricular strain (14.8%; n=9) and incidental findings (18.0%; n=11). D-dimer testing remained highly sensitive (>95%) but had low specificity; however, its positive predictive value increased during repeat visits (38.2% (21 of 55) vs. 19.3% (57 of 295)). Repeat CTPA was associated with higher hospital admission rates (55.7% (n=34) vs. 16.8% (n=59), P < 0.001) and ICU admission rates (9.8% (n=6) vs. 1.4% (n=5), P = 0.002), more frequent contrast-related adverse events (6.6% (n=4 ) vs. 1.1% (n=4), P = 0.017), and significant changes in clinical management (42.6%; n=26).
conclusionsRepeat CTPA identifies a meaningful proportion of missed or newly developed PEs, particularly in high-risk patients. However, its benefits must be weighed against increased adverse events and healthcare resource use. Improved risk stratification and more targeted use of D-dimer testing could help optimize repeat imaging decisions and reduce unnecessary scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.