
==== Front
Crit CareCritical Care1364-85351466-609XBioMed Central London 100310.1186/s13054-015-1003-9ReviewVenous thromboembolism in the ICU: main characteristics, diagnosis and thromboprophylaxis Minet Clémence catherine66@example.org Potton Leila Bonadona Agnès Hamidfar-Roy Rébecca Somohano Claire Ara Lugosi Maxime Cartier Jean-Charles Ferretti Gilbert Schwebel Carole Timsit Jean-François  UJF-Grenoble I, University Hospital Albert Michallon, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Grenoble, F-38041 France  Department of Radiology, UJF-Grenoble I, University Hospital Albert Michallon, Grenoble, F-38041 France  UJF-Grenoble I, University Hospital Albert Michallon, U823 Institut Albert Bonniot, Team 11: Outcome of mechanically ventilated patients and airway cancers, Grenoble, F-38041 France 18 8 2015 18 8 2015 2015 19 1 287© Minet et al. 2015
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT), is a common and severe complication of critical illness. Although well documented in the general population, the prevalence of PE is less known in the ICU, where it is more difficult to diagnose and to treat. Critically ill patients are at high risk of VTE because they combine both general risk factors together with specific ICU risk factors of VTE, like sedation, immobilization, vasopressors or central venous catheter. Compression ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) scan are the primary tools to diagnose DVT and PE, respectively, in the ICU. CT scan, as well as transesophageal echography, are good for evaluating the severity of PE. Thromboprophylaxis is needed in all ICU patients, mainly with low molecular weight heparin, such as fragmine, which can be used even in cases of non-severe renal failure. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis has to be used if anticoagulation is not possible. Nevertheless, VTE can occur despite well-conducted thromboprophylaxis.

issue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2015
==== Body
Introduction
A 77-year-old man was admitted to the ICU as a result of status epilepticus. He was mechanically ventilated for 3 days, and received 5,000 UI unfractionated heparin (UFH) daily as thromboprophylaxis. The day after his extubation, he became hypoxemic without hypotension. A contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest (Fig. 1) showed a proximal bilateral pulmonary embolism from the lobar to subsegmental arteries of both sides. Transthoracic echocardiography and CT scan did not show any signs suggestive of right ventricular strain. He recovered with a therapeutic dose of heparin, and was discharged home 1 week later. This clinical case shows that clinical presentation of proximal pulmonary embolism is not typical in mechanical ventilated patients and can occur under thromboprophylaxis.Fig. 1 Proximal bilateral pulmonary embolism on computed tomography scan in a mechanically ventilated ICU patient



Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common complication in the ICU. Critically ill patients are at high risk of VTE as they are susceptible to both general risks factors of VTE as well as those specific to ICU patients, such as sedation, immobilization, and vasopressors. The prevalence of VTE, and especially of PE, is underestimated in the ICU, as it is often clinically silent, especially in sedated and mechanically ventilated patients. ICU-acquired thromboembolic events are difficult to diagnose, as they may mimic many other diseases.

Our purpose was to conduct a review of the most relevant published clinical studies on ICU-acquired VTE in order to highlight the main characteristics and the current strategies for the diagnosis and prevention of this disease.

Search strategy
A search on the PubMed database for English language publications between 1981 and 2014 was performed using search terms "VTE in ICU", "risk factors of VTE in ICU", "thromboprophylaxis in ICU", "pulmonary embolism in ICU", "deep venous thrombosis in ICU", "mechanical thromboprophylaxis", "diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in ICU".

Epidemiology
PE is one of the three most frequently underdiagnosed illnesses identified during autopsies [1]. Autopsy studies detected PE in 7 to 27 % of critically ill patients; of these, only one-third were clinically suspected [2].

When PE is clinically suspected, there are three categories of risk: high-risk patients, who are hemodynamically unstable with shock or hypotension; intermediate- to high-risk patients, who are normotensive with a Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) ≥ III or a simplified (s)PESI ≥1 and in whom there is right ventricular failure or a rise of cardiac biomarkers; and low risk patients, who have a PESI of class I or II, or a sPESI of 0 [3]. Studies on VTE in the ICU predominantly focus on DVT. The incidence of DVT ranges from 5 to 31 % according to the case-mix and the diagnosis methods used [4–10] (Tables 1 and 2).Table 1 Rate of deep venous thrombosis in critically ill patients without thromboprophylaxis (control groups in randomized clinical trials versus groups with thromboprophylaxis)

Study	Study design	Population	DVT screening method	Number of patients	DVT (%)	
Moser et al. 1981 [4]	Prospective cohort	Respiratory ICU	I-labeled fibrinogen leg scanning for 3-6 days	23	13	
Cade 1982 [5]	Blinded RCT	General ICU patients	125I-labeled fibrinogen leg scanning for 4-10 days	59	29	
Kapoor et al. 1999 [6]	Blinded RCT	Medical ICU patients	CUS at admission and every 3 days	390	31	
Fraisse et al. 2000 [7]	Blinded RCT	Exacerbated COPD patients with mechanical ventilation >48 hours	CUS (weekly) and venography (before day 21)	85	28	

COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CUS compression ultrasonography; DVT deep vein thrombosis; RCT randomized clinical trial

Table 2 Rates of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients with thromboprophylaxis

Author (Year)	Study design	Population	DVT screening method	Thromboprophylaxis	Number of patients	DVT (%)	
Ibrahim et al. 2002 [10]	Prospective study	Medical ICU patients; MV >7 days	Serial CUS (weekly)	Twice daily SC UFH 5,000 UI	110	23.6	
Cook et al. 2005 [9]	Prospective study	Medical-surgical ICU	CUS 48 hours after admission, twice weekly and in case of clinical suspicion	Twice daily SC UFH 5,000 UI	261	9.6	
PROTECT 2011 [8]	Blinded RCT	Medical-surgical ICU	CUS 48 hours after admission, twice weekly and in case of clinical suspicion	SC UFH 5,000 UI/dalteparin 5,000 UI plus placebo	3,764	5.4	

CUS compression ultrasonography; DVT deep vein thrombosis; MV mechanical ventilation; RCT randomized clinical trial; SC subcutaneous; UFH unfractionated heparin



In a medical-surgical ICU, when compression ultrasonography (CUS) was performed, the incidence of DVT ranged from 10 to 100 % in patients with no clinical suspicion of DVT [11, 12]. Among patients with trauma, routine CT scans discovered asymptomatic PE in 24 % of patients [13].

The prevalence and incidence of PE in the ICU remain unclear. Three recent prospective studies have investigated the incidence of PE in the ICU. A PE was clinically suspected in 0.4 to 2.3 % of medical ICU patients [14, 15]; the incidence rose to 3.2 % in post-traumatic ICU patients [16], although most patients had thromboprophylaxis. In the PROTECT trial comparing prophylaxis with dalteparin versus UFH in critically ill patients (90 % mechanically ventilated), a clinically suspected PE was diagnosed in 1.3 % and 2.3 % of patients, respectively [8].

In 176 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients requiring a CT scan for any medical reason, we applied a standard imaging protocol to detect PE [17]. PE was diagnosed in 33 (18.7 %) patients, and was clinically silent in 20 (60 %) of these [17]. CUS was performed within 48 hours of the CT scan and detected DVT associated with PE in 11 (33 %) patients. Thirty-five (19.9 %) of the 176 patients had a diagnosis of DVT, despite pharmacological thromboprophylaxis or anticoagulant treatment administered to 92 (52.2 %) of them.

PE is associated with a high mortality rate, especially when it is associated with right ventricular failure or shock [18]. Mortality in untreated PE is approximately 30 %, but with adequate (anticoagulant) treatment, this can be reduced to 2 to 8 % [19].

Diagnosis of ICU-acquired venous thromboembolism
DVT can be ruled out in an outpatient who is judged clinically unlikely to have it and who has a negative D-dimer test [20]. But D-dimer levels can rise in some pathologies like atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, infection, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and severe renal dysfunction, which are frequent in critically ill patients. As such, D-dimer levels have low specificity in the ICU [21]. Crowther et al. [22] have shown that neither hypercoagulability nor D-dimer levels predict critically ill patients at risk of DVT and should thus not be used as a diagnostic test for it.

In the general population, CUS is now the first choice to diagnose DVT with high sensitivity and specificity [23]. Outpatients with symptoms of DVT and two consecutively negative CUS exams within 7 days have less than 1 % risk to develop DVT, suggesting that CUS is accurate for ruling out clinically important DVT [24]. DVT can be excluded based on a negative single proximal CUS in patients with low and intermediate clinical probability of DVT [25]. In critically ill patients, an accurate diagnosis of proximal lower extremity DVT can be achieved by intensivists performing lower limb CUS at the bedside, with a sensitivity of 85 % and a specificity of 96 % [26].

A chest CT-based approach has now replaced the gold standard pulmonary angiography with equivalent clinical validity to rule out PE [27]. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has become the imaging reference exam to diagnose PE in the ICU. Multi-detector CT catherine66@example.org mm collimation thickness is the most sensitive and allows better imaging of segmental and sub-segmental pulmonary arteries [28]. In cases where PE is suspected, multi-detector CT angiography sensitivity ranged between 83 and 100 %, and its specificity ranged between 89 and 97 % [29], although this study did not provide specific data for the ICU population. CT scans can also be useful for determining the severity of acute pulmonary embolisms, by evaluating right ventricular dysfunction, which is well correlated with echocardiography findings [30, 31].

As CTPA requires patients to be transported to the radiology department and in a rather stable state, it cannot be performed in all ICU patients with a clinical suspicion of PE. Moreover, intra-hospital transport may have a negative impact on ventilated critically ill patients [32]. This explains the delayed use of such definitive diagnostic tests in the ICU. Most epidemiologic studies have to be interpreted with caution, as the diagnosis of PE is often based on questionable definitions. We identified only two prospective studies evaluating the rate of PE in critically ill patients with a standardized protocol of CT scans performed in a homogenous consecutive population: one in severe injured trauma patients (24 % PE when scanning asymptomatic severe injured patients) [13]; and one in mechanically ventilated patients (18.7 % PE using a standard imaging protocol to detect PE during CT scan for any other medical reason) [17].

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) could be helpful in the diagnosis of PE at the bedside by looking for right ventricular hypokinesis, increases in right ventricular end-diastolic diameter, or tricuspid regurgitation velocity. Miniati et al. [33] showed that TTE could help to assess the physiological effects of PE but that it fails to identify more than 50 % of PE proven on pulmonary angiography. TTE requires better sensitivity for it to be used as a screening test to rule out PE.

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) could be useful in PE diagnosis, particularly in hemodynamically unstable patients who have predominantly bilateral central PE. This exam is non-invasive, can be done at the bedside, identifies clots and, compared with CT scanning, has very good sensitivity and specificity (80 % and 100 %, respectively, in Pruszczyk et al.'s study [34]). But TEE has a higher failure rate than CT scans for diagnosis of distal PE.

Venous thromboembolism risk factors more specific to critically ill patients
ICU patients share similar general risk factors for VTE with other patients: age, immobilization, obesity, past history of personal or familial VTE, past history of neoplasm, sepsis, stroke, respiratory or heart failure, pregnancy, trauma, or recent surgery [9, 17, 35–37].

Additional, specific risk factors for the ICU population have also been described [35, 38] (Table 3).Table 3 Venous thromboembolism risk factors

General VTE risk factors	ICU-acquired VTE risk factor	
Age	Sepsis	
Past history of VTE	Vasopressor use	
Past history of cancer	Respiratory or cardiac failure	
Immobilization	Pharmacologic sedation	
Obesity	Mechanical ventilation	
Pregnancy	Central venous catheter	
Trauma, spinal cord injury	End-stage renal failure	
Recent surgery		
Stroke		

VTE venous thromboembolism



Mechanical ventilation, by decreasing venous return and requiring sedation (and immobilization) increases the risk of VTE. Although critically ill patients with DVT had a longer duration of mechanical ventilation than those who did not [9], the causal relationship between length of mechanical ventilation and VTE is unclear [17]. Sedation is not an independent risk factor in itself.

Central venous catheterization is another important risk factor for ICU-acquired VTE [39], especially when inserted in femoral veins [38, 40], with a catheter-related thrombosis occurrence rate ranging from 2.2 % [8] up to 69 % [17]. Catheter-related thrombosis was originally described by Chastre et al. [41]. The incidence of thrombosis is 2 to 10 % with subclavian catheter [39, 40] but may reach 10 to 69 % with femoral catheter [17, 40, 42, 43] and 40 to 56 % with internal jugular catheter. In superior vena cava catheter-related thrombosis, the risk of associated PE is 7 to 17 % [44, 45]. Lower-limb DVT was associated with a four-fold increase in the risk of PE [17], whereas upper-limb DVT was not a significant risk factor for PE [46–48]. Catheter-related thrombosis risk increases with the duration of catheter placement [10]. In the ICU, catheter-related thrombosis is more frequent in older patients, with femoral catheters, when catheters are inserted in an emergency situation, and in patients not receiving therapeutic heparin [39, 40]. Sepsis may induce procoagulant status and favor catheter-related thrombosis. Catheter-related sepsis is often associated with catheter-related thrombosis [49], and also in ICU patients [39].

Vasopressor administration was found to be an independent risk factor for DVT (hazard ratio 2.8, 95 % confidence interval 1.1 to 7.2) [9], certainly explained by reduced absorption of subcutaneous heparin linked to the vasoconstriction of peripheral blood vessels. This mechanism could explain the lower anti-Xa factor activity after thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in critically ill patients on vasopressors [50].

Platelet transfusion (hazard ratio 3.2, 95 % confidence interval 1.2 to 8.4) [9] and high levels of platelets (odds ratio 1.003, 95 % confidence interval 1.000 to 1.006) [17] have been identified as risk factors for VTE, certainly related to increased platelet activation and adherence to vessel walls with subsequent fibrin clot formation, as described in inflammatory processes and sepsis [51].

The level of risk of VTE in critically ill patients also depends on the underlying illness leading to ICU admission [52].

Is there a rationale to use thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients?
Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in the general surgical [53] and medical [54] populations. In the ICU, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing thromboprophylaxis with placebo using objective screening for DVT [5–7] (Table 4), found that the rate of DVT was significantly lower in the thromboprophylaxis group regardless of the thromboprophylaxis used, UFH [5, 6] or LMWH [7]. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommends thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in critical care patients (grade Ia: strong recommendation with high quality of evidence) [35, 55]. Moreover, omission of thromboprophylaxis within the first 24 hours of ICU admission without obvious reasons is associated with a higher risk of mortality in the ICU [56].Table 4 Thromboprophylaxis in ICU (blinded randomized controlled trials)

						DVT (%)	PE (%)	
Author (Year)	Population	Number of patients	Diagnosis method	Control	Intervention	Control	Intervention	
P-value	Control	Intervention	
P-value	
Cade 1982 [5]	General ICU patients	119	125I-labeled fibrinogen leg scanning for 4-10 days	Placebo	UFH 5,000 UI SC twice daily	NR/NR (29 %)	NR/NR (13 %)	<0.05				
Kapoor et al. 1999 [6]	Medical ICU patients	791	CUS at admission and every 3 days	Placebo	UFH 5,000 UI SC twice daily	122/390 (31 %)	44/401 (11 %)	0.001				
Fraisse et al. 2000 [7]	Exacerbated COPD patients with MV >48 hours	223	CUS weekly and venography before day 21	Placebo	Nadroparin 70 UI anti-factor Xa/kg once daily	24/85 (28 %)	13/84 (15.5 %)	<0.045				
PROTECT 2011 [8]	Medico-surgical ICU patients	3764	CUS at admission, twice weekly, and in case of clinical suspicion	5,000 UI SC UFH twice daily	Dalteparin 5,000 UI SC once daily plus placebo	96/1,873 (5.1 %)	109/1,873 (5.8 %)	0.57	43/1,873 (2.3 %)	24/1,873 (1.3 %)	0.01	

COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CUS, compression ultrasonography; DVT deep vein thrombosis; MV mechanical ventilation; NR not reported; PE pulmonary embolism; SC subcutaneous; UFH unfractionated heparin



In the ICU, up to 80 % of patients under thromboprophylaxis have at least one episode of bleeding, more often minor [57]. Major bleeding is described in 5.6 % of critically ill patients with or without preventive anticoagulation [57], and up to 7.2 % when dalteparin is used in severe renal insufficiency patients [58].

Which thromboprophylaxis for which patients in the ICU?
Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin
In general surgical patients [59] and medically ill in-patients [60], LMWH and UFH have similar efficacy and safety. In patients with major trauma, enoxaparin (LMWH) was more effective than subcutaneous UFH [61]. In patients with heart failure or severe respiratory disease, enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was as effective as 5,000 UI UFH three times daily for prevention of thromboembolic events [62].

Until now, the PROTECT study [8] is the only RCT to have compared UFH with LMWH as VTE prophylaxis in the ICU, excluding patients at very high risk of bleeding. Overall, 3,764 patients, including 90 % mechanically ventilated patients, were randomly allocated to receive 5,000 UI subcutaneous dalteparin once daily plus placebo once daily, or 5,000 UI subcutaneous UFH twice daily. DVT was screened for using CUS within 48 hours after admission, and then twice weekly or in case of clinical suspicion. There was no significant difference in proximal DVT: 5.1 % DVT in the dalteparin group versus 5.8 % in the UFH group (P = 0.57). However, the rate of PE was significantly lower in the dalteparin group (1.3 %) compared with the UFH group (2.3 %) (P = 0.01).

A recent review described a significant reduction in PE, but not DVT, with LMWH compared with UFH, with a similar rate of bleeding [63]. ACCP recommends the use of LMWH or UFH thromboprophylaxis in critical care patients at moderate risk for VTE and LMWH for critical care patients at higher risk (major trauma or orthopedic surgery patients) (grade Ia) [35, 55].

Are low molecular weight heparins easy to use in critically ill patients?
Anti-factor Xa level is a clinically practicable marker of LWMH anticoagulant effectiveness; levels of 0.1 to 0.3 UI/ml are considered as effective antithrombotic activity. There is no need to systematically measure anti-factor Xa levels for each patient but it could be useful in some populations such as critically ill patients because possible patient-dependent factors can influence plasma anti-factor Xa activity, like decreased bioavailability because of edema, vasoconstrictive treatment or renal failure.

Lower anti-factor Xa levels in blood have been reported in ICU patients with generalized edema [64] or receiving vasopressors [50, 65]. This can be explained by impaired peripheral circulation. The systemic bioavailability of the anticoagulant may then be inadequate. However, Priglinger et al. [65] did not show any correlation between dose of norepinephrine and anti-factor Xa blood levels. Robinson et al. [66] conducted a RCT showing that an increase in enoxaparin dose led to significantly increased anti-factor Xa activity but a ceiling effect seems to exist at the dose of 60 mg/day [66]. Mayr et al. also reported an anti-factor Xa activity below the recommended level (0.1 to 0.3 UI/ml) in ICU patients; it was significantly correlated to multiple organ dysfunction as well as to a high body weight [67].

These results suggest that an inadequate dose of enoxaparin can fail to prevent VTE in critically ill patients. Its efficacy should be controlled by monitoring the anti-factor Xa activity in each ICU patient, regardless of the patient's renal function.

Low molecular weight heparins and renal insufficiency in critically ill patients
LMWHs are more dependent on renal clearance than UFHs and could bioaccumulate in patients with renal insufficiency, causing more bleeding. Critically ill patients are at higher risk of acute renal failure; at ICU admission, nearly one-third of patients have a creatinine clearance below 30 ml/minute [9]. This reduced renal clearance of LMWH has led to recommendations to monitor LMWH blood levels in patients with severe renal insufficiency [68]. A first meta-analysis failed to demonstrate bioaccumulation of LMWH used as thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with renal insufficiency [69]. Two recent prospective observational studies have been performed: the first is a single-center cohort study enrolling 19 patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 ml/minute or above at ICU admission, receiving 5,000 UI subcutaneous dalteparin daily [70]. The second study was a multicenter prospective cohort study of 138 ICU patients with an estimated creatinine clearance under 30 ml/minute [58], and who received 5,000 UI subcutaneous dalteparin once daily for thromboprophylaxis. No bioaccumulation of LMWH occurred in both studies. Dalteparin has not been associated with bleeding in critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency. However, the impact of LMWHs other than dalteparin is still controversial.

Mechanical thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients
When anticoagulant is contraindicated, mechanical thromboprophylaxis using either graduated compression stockings (GCS) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) may be proposed. Thromboprophylaxis by mechanical means alone is recommended for critical care patients at high risk of bleeding with contraindications to prophylaxis with anticoagulant agents [35]. The main RCTs that include GCS or IPC for DVT prophylaxis in ICU patients are listed in Table 5 [71]; one was conducted in patients with acute myocardial infarction [72], and three others in trauma patients [73–75]. These four studies represent 791 patients who underwent mechanical prophylaxis (several methods were evaluated) or received LMWH. One study evaluated GCS on one leg versus nothing on the second leg in each patient; the incidence of DVT was lower with GCS (0 % versus 10 %) [72]. Combining IPC with GCS was not more effective than GCS alone [76]. In neurosurgical patients, GCS alone prevented DVT less effectively than when combined with LMWH [77].Table 5 Randomized clinical trials evaluating mechanical thromboprophylaxis in the ICU

Author (year)	Population	Number of patients	Diagnosis method	Intervention	DVT incidence	
P-value	
Kierkegaard and Norgren 1993 [72]	Patients aged >70 years, myocardial infarction	80	I-labeled fibrinogen test on alternate days	No GCS	8 (10 %)	0.003	
GCS	0 (0 %)	
Elliott et al. 1999 [74]	Trauma patients	149	CUS on day 8 or before	Calf-thigh IPC	4 (6.5 %)	0.009	
Plantar venous IPC	13 (21 %)	
Ginzburg et al. 2003 [75]	Trauma patients	442	CUS within 24 hours of admission and weekly	IPC	6 (2.7 %)	0.12	
LMWH	1 (0.5 %)	
Kurtoglu et al. 2004 [73]	Trauma patients	120	CUS on admission, weekly, and 1 week after discharge	IPC	4 (6.6 %)	0.04	
LMWH	3 (5 %)	

CUS compression ultrasonography; DVT deep vein thrombosis; GCS graduated compression stockings; IPC intermittent pneumatic compression; LMWH low molecular weight heparin



The use of vena cava filters for thromboprophylaxis is not recommended by the ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (eighth edition) [35].

Thromboprophylaxis compliance in the ICU
The ENDORSE multinational study enrolled 68,183 hospitalized patients in an acute care setting and showed that only a low rate of patients had appropriate prophylaxis according to the 2004 ACCP guidelines on VTE prophylaxis. In an Asian ICU, a recent observational study revealed that 20 % of the critically ill patients did not receive the appropriate recommended prophylaxis [78]. In North-American ICUs, Lauzier et al. [79] recently reported appropriate guideline concordance occurred for 95.5 % patient-days, which was better in sicker patients and in patients with a previous history of VTE or cancer. LMWH was less used than UHF in sicker and surgical patients, and in patients receiving vasopressors or renal replacement therapy [79].

What about asymptomatic pulmonary embolism?
The prevalence of incidental emboli in in-patients varies from 0.6 to 5.7 % [80]. In moderate to severe injured trauma patients, CT scans showed asymptomatic PE in 22 (24 %) patients, of which 30 % were receiving thromboprophylaxis. Only four patients with a major clot, and one with a minor clot but with an associated DVT, were treated at therapeutic doses. None of the 10 patients with minor clot and no therapeutic anticoagulation therapy was associated with any complication attributable to thromboembolic disease within 3 months [13]. In our study of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, 33 of 176 (18.7 %) patients had a diagnosed PE; 20 of these were asymptomatic (60 %) [17]. All these patients were treated early with therapeutic anticoagulation whenever they had lobar, segmental or subsegmental PE. ICU and hospital mortality were not different between patients with and without diagnosed PE.

So what should we do for asymptomatic PE cases? Should we routinely look to detect all asymptomatic PE? Although it seems evident to treat all PE, regardless of their symptoms, once they are detected, should we treat all asymptomatic PE cases? Most unsuspected emboli found on CT scans are small and segmental or subsegmental [81] and their management is not clear. Patients with false negative undiagnosed PE on CT scan have favorable short-term outcome without therapeutic anticoagulation [82]. Eyer et al. [83] also demonstrated no attributable mortality with untreated subsegmental emboli. On the other hand, early diagnosis of PE and routine use of early therapeutic anticoagulation in symptomatic or asymptomatic PE contributed to a low rate of fatal PE [17]. These results seem to support the need for routinely looking for PE in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Whether mortality would be higher if these asymptomatic PE cases are not treated remains to be evaluated.

Conclusion
Diagnosis and management of clinically silent PE in critically ill patients are challenging. Current diagnosis tools, such as CTPA, allow the efficient diagnosis of silent PE if carried out systematically in mechanically ventilated patients. Considering the high risk of VTE in ICU patients, including specific VTE risk factors like mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use and central venous catheter use, thromboprophylaxis is recommended. LMWH could be more effective than UFH for VTE prophylaxis in the ICU. However, the high risk of bleeding in many critically ill patients makes the benefit-risk ratio of thromboprophylaxis difficult to evaluate. Further research on the diagnosis of PE and on whether asymptomatic peripheral PE should be treated or not is needed.

Abbreviations
ACCPAmerican College of Chest Physicians

CTcomputed tomography

CTPAcomputed tomographic pulmonary angiography

CUScompression ultrasonography

DVTdeep venous thrombosis

GCSgraduated compression stockings

IPCintermittent pneumatic compression

LMWHlow molecular weight heparin

PEpulmonary embolism

PESIPulmonary Embolism Severity Index

RCTrandomized controlled trial

sPESIsimplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index

TEEtransesophageal echocardiography

TTEtransthoracic echocardiography

UFHunfractionated heparin

VTEvenous thromboembolism

Competing interests

This work received no financial support. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Céline Feger, MD (EMIBiotech) for her editorial assistance.
==== Refs
References
1. Perkins GD  McAuley DF  Davies S  Gao F   Discrepancies between clinical and postmortem diagnoses in critically ill patients: an observational study Crit Care 2003 7 R129 32 10.1186/cc2359 14624686 
2. McLeod AG  Geerts W   Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill patients Crit Care Clin 2011 27 765 80 10.1016/j.ccc.2011.07.001 22082513 
3. Konstantinides SV   2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism Eur Heart J 2681-37-9490 6 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu243 25452462 
4. Moser KM  LeMoine JR  Nachtwey FJ  Spragg RG   Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Frequency in a respiratory intensive care unit JAMA 1981 246 1422 4 10.1001/jama.1981.03320130028018 7265445 
5. Cade JF   High risk of the critically ill for venous thromboembolism Crit Care Med 1982 10 448 50 10.1097/00003246-198207000-00006 7044682 
6. Kapoor M  Kupfer YY  Tessler S   Subcutaneous heparin prophylaxis significantly reduces the incidence of venous thromboembolic events in the critically ill [abstract] Crit Care Med 1999 27 A69 10.1097/00003246-199912001-00165 
7. Fraisse F  Holzapfel L  Couland JM  Simonneau G  Bedock B  Feissel M    Nadroparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in acute decompensated COPD. The Association of Non-University Affiliated Intensive Care Specialist Physicians of France Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000 161 1109 14 10.1164/ajrccm.(629)623-5807 10764298 
8. Cook D  Meade M  Guyatt G  Walter S  Heels-Ansdell D  Warkentin TE    Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients N Engl J Med 2011 364 1305 14 10.1056/NEJMoa1014475 21417952 
9. Cook D  Crowther M  Meade M  Rabbat C  Griffith L  Schiff D    Deep venous thrombosis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors Crit Care Med 2681-37-9490 71 10.1097/01.CCM.0000171207.95319.B2 16003063 
10. Ibrahim EH  Iregui M  Prentice D  Sherman G  Kollef MH  Shannon W   Deep vein thrombosis during prolonged mechanical ventilation despite prophylaxis Crit Care Med 2002 30 771 4 10.1097/00003246-200204000-00008 11940743 
11. Harris LM  Curl GR  Booth FV  Hassett JM Jr  Leney G  Ricotta JJ   Screening for asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in surgical intensive care patients J Vasc Surg 1997 26 764 9 10.1016/S0741-5214(97)70088-0 9372813 
12. Hirsch DR  Ingenito EP  Goldhaber SZ   Prevalence of deep venous thrombosis among patients in medical intensive care JAMA 1995 274 335 7 10.1001/jama.1995.03530040063042 7609264 
13. Schultz DJ  Brasel KJ  Washington L  Goodman LR  Quickel RR  Lipchik RJ    Incidence of asymptomatic pulmonary embolism in moderately to severely injured trauma patients J Trauma 2004 56 727 31 10.1097/01.TA.0000119687.23542.EC 15187734 
14. Patel R  Cook DJ  Meade MO  Griffith LE  Mehta G  Rocker GM    Burden of illness in venous thromboembolism in critical care: a multicenter observational study J Crit Care 2005 20 341 7 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.09.014 16310605 
15. Bahloul M  Chaari A  Kallel H  Abid L  Hamida CB  Dammak H    Pulmonary embolism in intensive care unit: predictive factors, clinical manifestations and outcome Ann Thorac Med 2010 5 97 681-37-9490/1817-1737.62473 20582175 
16. Bahloul M  Chaari A  Dammak H  Medhioub F  Abid L  Ksibi H    Post-traumatic pulmonary embolism in the intensive care unit Ann Thorac Med 2011 6 199 681-37-9490/1817-1737.84773 21977064 
17. Minet C  Lugosi M  Savoye PY  Menez C  Ruckly S  Bonadona A    Pulmonary embolism in mechanically ventilated patients requiring computed tomography: Prevalence, risk factors, and outcome Crit Care Med 2681-37-9490 8 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318265e461 23164766 
18. Goldhaber SZ  Visani L  De Rosa M   Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER) Lancet 1999 353 1386 9 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07534-5 10227218 
19. Torbicki A  Perrier A  Konstantinides S  Agnelli G  Galie N  Pruszczyk P    Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J 2681-37-9490 681-37-9490/eurheartj/ehn475 18757870 
20. Wells PS  Anderson DR  Rodger M  Forgie M  Kearon C  Dreyer J    Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis N Engl J Med 2003 349 1227 35 10.1056/NEJMoa023153 14507948 
21. Sathe PM  Patwa UD   D Dimer in acute care Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2014 4 229 32 10.4103/2229-5151.141435 25337485 
22. Crowther MA  Cook DJ  Griffith LE  Devereaux PJ  Rabbat CC  Clarke FJ    Deep venous thrombosis: clinically silent in the intensive care unit J Crit Care 2005 20 334 40 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.09.011 16310604 
23. Fraser JD  Anderson DR   Deep venous thrombosis: recent advances and optimal investigation with US Radiology 1999 211 9 24 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap459 10189448 
24. Birdwell BG  Raskob GE  Whitsett TL  Durica SS  Comp PC  George JN    The clinical validity of normal compression ultrasonography in outpatients suspected of having deep venous thrombosis Ann Intern Med 1998 128 1 7 10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00001 9424975 
25. Goldhaber SZ  Bounameaux H   Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis Lancet 2012 379 1835 46 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61904-1 22494827 
26. Kory PD  Pellecchia CM  Shiloh AL  Mayo PH  DiBello C  Koenig S   Accuracy of ultrasonography performed by critical care physicians for the diagnosis of DVT Chest 2011 139 538 42 10.1378/chest.10-1479 21030490 
27. Quiroz R  Kucher N  Zou KH  Kipfmueller F  Costello P  Goldhaber SZ  Schoepf UJ   Clinical validity of a negative computed tomography scan in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review JAMA 2005 293 2012 7 10.1001/jama.681-37-9490 15855435 
28. Patel S  Kazerooni EA  Cascade PN   Pulmonary embolism: optimization of small pulmonary artery visualization at multi-detector row CT Radiology 2003 227 455 60 10.1148/radiol.2272011139 12732699 
29. Remy-Jardin M  Pistolesi M  Goodman LR  Gefter WB  Gottschalk A  Mayo JR  Sostman HD   Management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism in the era of CT angiography: a statement from the Fleischner Society Radiology 2007 245 315 29 10.1148/radiol.2452070397 17848685 
30. Kang DK  Thilo C  Schoepf UJ  Barraza JM Jr  Nance JW Jr  Bastarrika G    CT signs of right ventricular dysfunction: prognostic role in acute pulmonary embolism JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011 4 841 9 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.04.013 21835376 
31. Park JR  Chang SA  Jang SY  No HJ  Park SJ  Choi SH    Evaluation of right ventricular dysfunction and prediction of clinical outcomes in acute pulmonary embolism by chest computed tomography: comparisons with echocardiography Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012 28 979 87 10.1007/s10554-011-9912-4 21717126 
32. Schwebel C  Clec'h C  Magne S  Minet C  Garrouste-Orgeas M  Bonadona A    Safety of intrahospital transport in ventilated critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study Crit Care Med 2681-37-9490 28 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a3bbd 23863225 
33. Miniati M  Monti S  Pratali L  Di Ricco G  Marini C  Formichi B    Value of transthoracic echocardiography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of a prospective study in unselected patients Am J Med 2001 110 528 35 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00693-3 11343666 
34. Pruszczyk P  Torbicki A  Pacho R  Chlebus M  Kuch-Wocial A  Pruszynski B  Gurba H   Noninvasive diagnosis of suspected severe pulmonary embolism: transesophageal echocardiography vs spiral CT Chest 1997 112 722 8 10.1378/chest.112.3.722 9315806 
35. Geerts WH  Bergqvist D  Pineo GF  Heit JA  Samama CM  Lassen MR  Colwell CW   Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest 2008 133 381S 453S 10.1378/chest.08-0656 18574271 
36. Darze ES  Latado AL  Guimaraes AG  Guedes RA  Santos AB  de Moura SS  Passos LC   Incidence and clinical predictors of pulmonary embolism in severe heart failure patients admitted to a coronary care unit Chest 2005 128 2576 80 10.1378/chest.128.4.2576 16236926 
37. Shorr AF  Williams MD   Venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Observations from a randomized trial in sepsis Thromb Haemost 2009 101 681-37-94902200 
38. Cook D  Attia J  Weaver B  McDonald E  Meade M  Crowther M   Venous thromboembolic disease: an observational study in medical-surgical intensive care unit patients J Crit Care 2000 15 127 32 10.1053/jcrc.2000.19224 11138871 
39. Timsit JF  Farkas JC  Boyer JM  Martin JB  Misset B  Renaud B  Carlet J   Central vein catheter-related thrombosis in intensive care patients: incidence, risks factors, and relationship with catheter-related sepsis Chest 1998 114 207 13 10.1378/chest.114.1.(629)623-5807 
40. Merrer J  De Jonghe B  Golliot F  Lefrant JY  Raffy B  Barre E    Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2001 286 700 7 10.1001/jama.286.6.700 11495620 
41. Chastre J  Cornud F  Bouchama A  Viau F  Benacerraf R  Gibert C   Thrombosis as a complication of pulmonary-artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein: prospective evaluation by phlebography N Engl J Med 1982 306 278 81 10.1056/NEJM198202043060506 7054699 
42. Joynt GM  Kew J  Gomersall CD  Leung VY  Liu EK   Deep venous thrombosis caused by femoral venous catheters in critically ill adult patients Chest 2000 117 178 83 10.1378/chest.117.1.178 10631217 
43. Trottier SJ  Veremakis C  O'Brien J  Auer AI   Femoral deep vein thrombosis associated with central venous catheterization: results from a prospective, randomized trial Crit Care Med 1995 23 52 9 10.1097/00003246-199501000-00011 8001386 
44. Monreal M  Raventos A  Lerma R  Ruiz J  Lafoz E  Alastrue A  Llamazares JF   Pulmonary embolism in patients with upper extremity DVT associated to venous central lines - a prospective study Thromb Haemost 1994 72 681-37-9490630 
45. Kooij JD  van der Zant FM  van Beek EJ  Reekers JA   Pulmonary embolism in deep venous thrombosis of the upper extremity: more often in catheter-related thrombosis Neth J Med 1997 50 238 42 10.1016/S0300-2977(97)00020-X 9232088 
46. Mai C  Hunt D   Upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis: a review Am J Med 2011 124 402 7 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.11.022 21531227 
47. Lechner D  Wiener C  Weltermann A  Eischer L  Eichinger S  Kyrle PA   Comparison between idiopathic deep vein thrombosis of the upper and lower extremity regarding risk factors and recurrence J Thromb Haemost 2008 6 1269 74 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02998.x 18445117 
48. Munoz FJ  Mismetti P  Poggio R  Valle R  Barron M  Guil M  Monreal M   Clinical outcome of patients with upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis: results from the RIETE Registry Chest 2008 133 143 8 10.1378/chest.07-1432 17925416 
49. Raad II  Luna M  Khalil SA  Costerton JW  Lam C  Bodey GP   The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters JAMA 1994 271 1014 6 10.1001/jama.1994.03510370066034 8139059 
50. Dorffler-Melly J  de Jonge E  Pont AC  Meijers J  Vroom MB  Buller HR  Levi M   Bioavailability of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin to patients on vasopressors Lancet 2002 359 849 50 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07920-5 11897286 
51. Katz JN  Kolappa KP  Becker RC   Beyond thrombosis: the versatile platelet in critical illness Chest 2011 139 658 68 10.1378/chest.10-1971 21362652 
52. Selby R, Geerts W. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: consensus, controversies, and challenges. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2009;286–92.
53. Collins R  Scrimgeour A  Yusuf S  Peto R   Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin. Overview of results of randomized trials in general, orthopedic, and urologic surgery N Engl J Med 1988 318 1162 73 10.1056/NEJM198805053181805 3283548 
54. Mismetti P  Laporte-Simitsidis S  Tardy B  Cucherat M  Buchmuller A  Juillard-Delsart D  Decousus H   Prevention of venous thromboembolism in internal medicine with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparins: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials Thromb Haemost 2000 83 14 9 10669147 
55. Kearon C  Akl EA  Comerota AJ  Prandoni P  Bounameaux H  Goldhaber SZ    Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines Chest 2012 141 e419S 94S 10.1378/chest.11-2301 22315268 
56. Ho KM  Chavan S  Pilcher D   Omission of early thromboprophylaxis and mortality in critically ill patients: a multicenter registry study Chest 2011 140 1436 46 10.1378/chest.11-1444 21940768 
57. Arnold DM  Donahoe L  Clarke FJ  Tkaczyk AJ  Heels-Ansdell D  Zytaruk N    Bleeding during critical illness: a prospective cohort study using a new measurement tool Clin Invest Med 2007 30 E93 102 17716547 
58. Cook D  Douketis J  Meade M  Guyatt G  Zytaruk N  Granton J    Venous thromboembolism and bleeding in critically ill patients with severe renal insufficiency receiving dalteparin thromboprophylaxis: prevalence, incidence and risk factors Crit Care 2008 12 R32 10.1186/cc6810 18315876 
59. Mismetti P  Laporte S  Darmon JY  Buchmuller A  Decousus H   Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery Br J Surg 2001 88 913 30 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01800.x 11442521 
60. Harenberg J  Roebruck P  Heene DL   Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin and the prevention of thromboembolism in medical inpatients. The Heparin Study in Internal Medicine Group Haemostasis 1996 26 681-37-9490587 
61. Geerts WH  Jay RM  Code KI  Chen E  Szalai JP  Saibil EA  Hamilton PA   A comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma N Engl J Med 1996 336 701 7 10.1056/NEJM199609053351003 8703169 
62. Kleber FX  Witt C  Vogel G  Koppenhagen K  Schomaker U  Flosbach CW   Randomized comparison of enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with heart failure or severe respiratory disease Am Heart J 2003 145 614 21 10.1067/mhj.2003.189 12679756 
63. Alhazzani W  Lim W  Jaeschke RZ  Murad MH  Cade J  Cook DJ   Heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials Crit Care Med 2681-37-9490 98 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828cf104 23782973 
64. Haas CE  Nelsen JL  Raghavendran K  Mihalko W  Beres J  Ma Q  Forrest A   Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of enoxaparin in multiple trauma patients J Trauma 2681-37-9490 43 10.1097/01.ta.0000197354.69796.bd 16394906 
65. Priglinger U  Delle Karth G  Geppert A  Joukhadar C  Graf S  Berger R    Prophylactic anticoagulation with enoxaparin: is the subcutaneous route appropriate in the critically ill? Crit Care Med 2681-37-9490 9 10.1097/01.CCM.0000059725.60509.A0 12771610 
66. Robinson S  Zincuk A  Strom T  Larsen TB  Rasmussen B  Toft P   Enoxaparin, effective dosage for intensive care patients: double-blinded, randomised clinical trial Crit Care 2010 14 R41 10.1186/cc8924 20298591 
67. Mayr AJ  Dunser M  Jochberger S  Fries D  Klingler A  Joannidis M    Antifactor Xa activity in intensive care patients receiving thromboembolic prophylaxis with standard doses of enoxaparin Thromb Res 2002 105 201 4 10.1016/S0049-3848(02)00028-2 11927124 
68. Weitz JI   Low-molecular-weight heparins N Engl J Med 1997 337 688 98 10.1056/NEJM199709043371007 9278467 
69. Lim W  Dentali F  Eikelboom JW  Crowther MA   Meta-analysis: low-molecular-weight heparin and bleeding in patients with severe renal insufficiency Ann Intern Med 2006 144 673 84 10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00011 16670137 
70. Rabbat CG  Cook DJ  Crowther MA  McDonald E  Clarke F  Meade MO    Dalteparin thromboprophylaxis for critically ill medical-surgical patients with renal insufficiency J Crit Care 2005 20 357 63 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.09.009 16310608 
71. Limpus A  Chaboyer W  McDonald E  Thalib L   Mechanical thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Crit Care 2006 15 681-37-94903018 
72. Kierkegaard A  Norgren L   Graduated compression stockings in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction Eur Heart J 1993 14 1365 8 10.1093/eurheartj/14.10.(629)623-5807 
73. Kurtoglu M  Yanar H  Bilsel Y  Guloglu R  Kizilirmak S  Buyukkurt D  Granit V   Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after head and spinal trauma: intermittent pneumatic compression devices versus low molecular weight heparin World J Surg 2004 28 807 11 10.1007/s00268-004-7295-6 15457363 
74. Elliott CG  Dudney TM  Egger M  Orme JF  Clemmer TP  Horn SD    Calf-thigh sequential pneumatic compression compared with plantar venous pneumatic compression to prevent deep-vein thrombosis after non-lower extremity trauma J Trauma 1999 47 25 32 10.1097/00005373-199907000-00006 10421182 
75. Ginzburg E  Cohn SM  Lopez J  Jackowski J  Brown M  Hameed SM   Randomized clinical trial of intermittent pneumatic compression and low molecular weight heparin in trauma Br J Surg 2681-37-9490 44 10.1002/bjs.4309 14598411 
76. Vignon P  Dequin PF  Renault A  Mathonnet A  Paleiron N  Imbert A    Intermittent pneumatic compression to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with high risk of bleeding hospitalized in intensive care units: the CIREA1 randomized trial Intensive Care Med 2013 39 872 80 10.1007/s00134-013-2814-2 23370827 
77. Agnelli G  Piovella F  Buoncristiani P  Severi P  Pini M  D'Angelo A    Enoxaparin plus compression stockings compared with compression stockings alone in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective neurosurgery N Engl J Med 1998 339 80 5 10.1056/NEJM199807093390204 9654538 
78. Parikh KC  Oh D  Sittipunt C  Kalim H  Ullah S  Aggarwal SK   Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medical ICU patients in Asia (VOICE Asia): a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study Thromb Res 2012 129 e152 8 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.01.012 22326367 
79. Lauzier F  Muscedere J  Deland E  Kutsogiannis DJ  Jacka M  Heels-Ansdell D    Thromboprophylaxis patterns and determinants in critically ill patients: a multicenter audit Crit Care 2014 18 R82 10.1186/cc13844 24766968 
80. Desai SR   Unsuspected pulmonary embolism on CT scanning: yet another headache for clinicians? Thorax 2007 62 470 2 10.1136/thx.2006.067884 17536028 
81. Ritchie G  McGurk S  McCreath C  Graham C  Murchison JT   Prospective evaluation of unsuspected pulmonary embolism on contrast enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) scanning Thorax 2007 62 536 40 10.1136/thx.2006.062299 17158631 
82. Engelke C  Rummeny EJ  Marten K   Pulmonary embolism at multi-detector row CT of chest: one-year survival of treated and untreated patients Radiology 2006 239 563 75 10.1148/radiol.(629)623-5807 16569782 
83. Eyer BA  Goodman LR  Washington L   Clinicians' response to radiologists' reports of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism or inconclusive interpretation of pulmonary embolism using MDCT AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005 184 623 8 10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840623 15671388


{'source': 'PubMedDataset'}