Skip to main content
WoMWeb of Medicine
SearchGraphHistory
Radiology›Condition·Updated Jul 11, 2026·v1

CT Pulmonary Angiography for Pulmonary Embolism

CTPA is the first-line imaging modality for PE diagnosis, with high accuracy and prognostic value. Modern low-dose techniques and AI-assisted interpretation are improving safety and diagnostic performance, making it safer and more widely applicable.

High Evidence63 references·7,894 words·32 min read·v1
CT pulmonary angiographypulmonary embolismradiologyimagingcontrastdiagnostic test

Quick Reference

RxDrug of choiceLow-osmolar iodinated contrast (e.g., iohexol 350 mgI/mL) at 40-60 mL, 4-5 mL/s; low-dose protocols may use 15-20 mL.
AltAlternativesNon-contrast MR angiography, V/Q scintigraphy, point-of-care ultrasound (multi-organ).
⊘AvoidSevere contrast allergy (unless premedicated), eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² not suitable for low-dose protocol, pregnancy (relative; V/Q preferred if CXR normal).
DxTest of choiceCTPA
ScKey scoreRV/LV diameter ratio >1.0 on axial images (marker of right ventricular dysfunction, predicts adverse outcomes).
→When to referMassive or submassive PE for thrombolysis/embolectomy; chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension for surgical evaluation; incidental findings requiring follow-up.
CTPA is the reference standard for PE diagnosis; use after validated clinical probability assessment and D-dimer; optimize protocols for dose reduction; report RV/LV ratio for prognosis.
CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the first-line imaging test for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), offering high sensitivity (94%) and specificity (98%) for detecting thrombus from main to subsegmental arteries. It is indicated after pretest probability assessment and D-dimer testing, and provides prognostic information via RV/LV ratio. Modern low-dose protocols with iterative reconstruction and deep learning reconstruction reduce radiation and contrast exposure without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

Overview and Recommendations

Key Facts

  • •CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the first-line imaging test for suspected PE, using intravenous iodinated contrast timed to opacify the pulmonary arteries. It has replaced conventional angiography and V/Q scintigraphy as the reference standard due to its speed, accuracy, and ability to identify alternative diagnoses.
  • •Pooled sensitivity and specificity of CTPA for PE are 94% and 98% (95% CI 97-99%), respectively. A negative CTPA of adequate quality effectively rules out PE in low- and moderate-pretest probability patients (negative predictive value >95%).
  • •A diagnostic-quality CTPA requires pulmonary artery attenuation above 200 HU. This is achieved with contrast volumes of 40-60 mL at 4-5 mL/s, though modern low-dose protocols using ≤80 kVp and iterative reconstruction can reduce contrast to 15-20 mL while maintaining diagnostic attenuation.
  • •The definitive sign of acute PE is a filling defect within the opacified artery, either complete occlusion with convex margin, partial occlusion (central or eccentric defect), or saddle embolus at the bifurcation. Acute thrombi appear low-attenuation (30-50 HU) and may expand the vessel.
  • •CTPA provides prognostic information beyond diagnosis: an RV/LV diameter ratio >1.0 on axial images is the most validated marker of right ventricular dysfunction and predicts 30-day mortality (OR 2.08). Central embolus location also carries increased risk (OR 2.24).

Clinical Significance

  • •Suspect PE in patients with acute dyspnea, pleuritic chest pain, hemoptysis, or unexplained hypotension. Use validated clinical prediction rules such as the or revised to stratify risk: low (0-3 points), intermediate (4-10), or high (≥11).
  • •In patients with low or intermediate pretest probability, perform a high-sensitivity D-dimer assay. Use an age-adjusted threshold (age × 10 ng/mL) for patients >50 years to reduce false positives. A negative D-dimer effectively excludes PE in these groups (negative predictive value >99%).
  • •Do not order D-dimer in patients with high pretest probability, proceed directly to CTPA. In patients with low pretest probability who meet all criteria (age >50, HR >100, sat <95%, prior DVT/PE, surgery, hemoptysis, estrogen use, unilateral leg swelling), PE can be ruled out without D-dimer or imaging.
  • •Order CTPA when D-dimer is positive in intermediate probability, or directly in high probability. The test is also indicated when alternative diagnoses (e.g., aortic dissection, pneumonia) are suspected and CTPA can evaluate both.
  • •Before administering contrast, assess renal function (eGFR) and history of contrast allergy. For eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m², consider low-contrast protocol (≤20 mL) with hydration, or alternative imaging. Premedicate patients with prior moderate-to-severe allergic reactions.
  • •Use bolus tracking or test bolus to time image acquisition. A typical trigger threshold is 100 HU in the pulmonary trunk. In patients with low cardiac output, increase the scan delay. Ensure intravenous access of at least 18-20 gauge in an antecubital vein to accommodate flow rates of 3-5 mL/s.
  • •Interpret CTPA systematically: assess pulmonary artery opacification, then trace the arterial tree from main to subsegmental branches. Identify filling defects (complete, partial, saddle). Measure the RV/LV ratio on axial views at the level of the tricuspid valve.
  • •Report the location and extent of thrombus (central, lobar, segmental, subsegmental). Document the RV/LV ratio and any signs of right heart strain (interventricular septal bowing, contrast reflux into IVC/hepatic veins). Incidental findings (pneumonia, nodules, etc.) should be reported with management recommendations.
  • •A negative CTPA of adequate quality rules out PE in low- and moderate-probability patients. In high-probability patients with a negative study, consider alternative diagnoses or further testing (e.g., V/Q scan, pulmonary angiography). For subsegmental PE, the clinical significance is debated; correlate with clinical probability and D-dimer trend.

High-Yield Associations

  • •Use low tube voltage (≤80 kVp) with iterative reconstruction or deep learning reconstruction to reduce radiation dose by 50-80% while maintaining image quality. This is the standard of care for dose-conscious patients, including young adults.
  • •Reduce contrast volume to 15-20 mL using dual-low dose protocols (80 kVp + iterative reconstruction) or spectral CT with low-energy virtual monoenergetic images (40-55 keV). Deep learning reconstruction with contrast-enhancement boost can achieve AUC 0.986 for PE detection at these low doses.
  • •In patients with poor breath-hold capacity, consider the (forced inspiration against resistance) to eliminate transient interruption of contrast, which occurs in ~12% of standard breath-hold CTPA. The maneuver improves contrast dynamics but may increase breathing artifacts without clinical consequence.
  • •For patients with contrast allergy or eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m², is a viable alternative with pooled sensitivity 88% and specificity 97%, and a low non-diagnostic rate (3.3%). V/Q scintigraphy has a 34.7% non-diagnostic rate.
  • •In pregnant patients with normal chest radiograph, V/Q scan is preferred over CTPA to minimize maternal breast radiation. If CTPA is necessary, use low-dose protocol (70-80 kVp, ≤30 mL contrast) and iterative reconstruction.
  • •Interpretation pitfalls: streak artifact from dense contrast in the SVC can mimic right upper lobe PE. Use saline chaser, reduce contrast concentration, or review on coronal/sagittal reformats. Motion artifact creates pseudo-filling defects; use ECG-gating if available.
  • •Chronic PE mimics: look for eccentric, crescentic defects, web-like bands, intimal irregularities, and distal vessel tapering. The affected artery is often smaller than adjacent normal vessels. Do not confuse with acute PE to avoid inappropriate thrombolysis.
  • •Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) occurs in ~14% of patients after CTPA. Prophylaxis with normal saline (1 mL/kg/h for 12 hours before and after) is recommended for eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m². N-acetylcysteine and sodium bicarbonate offer no additional benefit over saline alone.
  • •AI-assisted CTPA interpretation improves sensitivity from 80% to 92% and specificity from 96% to 99% on ultra-low-dose CTPA, and reduces interpretation time by 15-20%. AI is not yet standard but is promising for routine use.
  • •In patients with massive or submassive PE (defined by RV/LV ratio >1.0 and hypotension or RV dysfunction), CTPA findings guide escalation to thrombolysis or embolectomy. The STORM-PE trial is evaluating CTPA-measured RV/LV ratio as a primary outcome for vacuum thrombectomy.
  • •For chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), CTPA has sensitivity 98% and specificity 99% when read by expert radiologists. Dual-energy CT with iodine mapping provides additional perfusion information (sensitivity 88%, specificity 91%).
  • •Avoid non-diagnostic CTPA by ensuring adequate contrast opacification: use bolus tracking, appropriate injection rate (4-5 mL/s), and saline chaser. If suboptimal, repeat with adjusted timing or consider alternative modality.

Board Review — High Yield

  • •Filling defect, definitive sign of acute PE on CTPA, appearing as low-attenuation (30-50 HU) central or eccentric defect.
  • •RV/LV ratio >1.0, most validated marker of right ventricular dysfunction on CTPA, predicts 30-day mortality (OR 2.08).
  • •Transient interruption of contrast, artifact from inspiratory inflow of unopacified blood, occurs in ~12% of standard breath-hold CTPA; eliminated by Mueller maneuver.
  • •Dual-low dose protocol, uses ≤80 kVp and ≤20 mL contrast with iterative reconstruction to reduce radiation by >50% and contrast by 40%.
  • •Spectral CT, low-energy virtual monoenergetic images (40-55 keV) boost iodine attenuation, enabling diagnostic studies with as little as 20 mL contrast.
  • •Deep learning reconstruction with CE-boost, achieves AUC 0.986 for PE detection, significantly higher than hybrid iterative reconstruction.
  • •Age-adjusted D-dimer, for patients >50 years, use age × 10 ng/mL threshold to reduce false positives and unnecessary CTPA.
  • •PERC rule, if all negative, PE ruled out in low pretest probability; reduces CTPA use by ~10%.
  • •Chronic PE, eccentric, crescentic defects, web-like bands, often with RV hypertrophy; distinguish from acute to avoid inappropriate thrombolysis.
  • •Contrast-induced nephropathy, occurs in ~14% after CTPA; low-contrast protocols (15-20 mL) reduce risk; saline hydration is standard prophylaxis.

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

References

  1. [1]

    Pagkalidou E, Doundoulakis I, Apostolidou-Kiouti F et al.. “An overview of systematic reviews on imaging tests for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism applying different network meta-analytic methods.” Hellenic journal of cardiology : HJC = Hellenike kardiologike epitheorese (2023). PMID: 37271191 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Introduction and Definition
  2. [2]

    Lasserson D, Gaddu P, Mehta S et al.. “Stopping anticoagulation for isolated or incidental pulmonary embolism: the STOPAPE RCT protocol.” Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (2024). PMID: 38970429 ↗

    L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Introduction and Definition, Technical Principles and Protocol
  3. [3]

    Le Pennec R, Le Roux PY, Robin P et al.. “Comparison of three diagnostic strategies for suspicion of pulmonary embolism: planar ventilation-perfusion scan (V/Q), CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and single photon emission CT ventilation-perfusion scan (SPECT V/Q): a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.” BMJ open (2024). PMID: 38754880 ↗

    L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Introduction and Definition, Technical Principles and Protocol, Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  4. [4]

    S S, Pradhan A, Kadavigere R et al.. “Reduction of radiation dose and contrast volume in CT pulmonary angiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences (2025). PMID: 41237681 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Introduction and Definition, Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations
  5. [5]

    Hammache M, Simard C, Hamel S et al.. “Diagnosing Pulmonary Embolism During Pregnancy.” Chest (2025). PMID: 40404047 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Introduction and Definition
  6. [6]

    Pu J, He JQ, Yi Q et al.. “Simultaneous pulmonary and intracardiac bone cement embolism after vertebroplasty: a case report and literature review.” Journal of cardiothoracic surgery (2025). PMID: 41153029 ↗

    L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Introduction and Definition
  7. [7]

    Jacobs G, Emblin K, Kadam U et al.. “Heart Failure Masked as Pulmonary Embolism in Non-adherent Patient With Atrial Fibrillation: Case Report and Analytical Review of the Literature.” In vivo (Athens, Greece) (2025). PMID: 39740893 ↗

    L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Introduction and Definition
  8. [8]

    Maas AFG, Wyers C, Dielis A et al.. “The Incidence of Pulmonary Embolism in Hospitalized Non-ICU Patients with COVID-19 during the First Wave: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in the Netherlands.” Journal of vascular research (2024). PMID: 38631294 ↗

    L3COHORTCited in: Introduction and Definition
  9. [9]

    Ferrández-Ferrández D, Arenas-Jiménez JJ, Ureña Vacas A et al.. “Vascular attenuation and volumetric lung iodine density in dual-layer spectral CT pulmonary angiography: a randomized controlled trial comparing three contrast doses.” European radiology (2026). PMID: 41612078 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations, Advantages and Limitations, Special Populations
  10. [10]

    Shen L, Lu J, Zhou C et al.. “Deep learning reconstruction combined with contrast-enhancement boost in dual-low dose CT pulmonary angiography: a two-center prospective trial.” European radiology (2025). PMID: 40411550 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations, Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Advantages and Limitations, Special Populations, Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  11. [11]

    Kristiansen CH, Thomas O, Nyquist AB et al.. “A randomised controlled trial comparing three clinical administration strategies in spectral detector CT pulmonary angiography with low contrast medium dose.” European radiology (2025). PMID: 39969554 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations, Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Advantages and Limitations
  12. [12]

    von Münchhausen N, Janssen S, Overhoff D et al.. “Influence of device-assisted suction against resistance (Mueller maneuver) on image quality in CTPA for suspected lung embolism.” European radiology (2023). PMID: 37338555 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations
  13. [13]

    Yaghoobpoor S, Fathi M, Taher HJ et al.. “Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) among trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Emergency radiology (2024). PMID: 38844660 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol
  14. [14]

    Zhang QH, Lin SS, Zhao X et al.. “Nonrigid temporal registration of multiphase CT pulmonary angiography using low-kV and low contrast: a feasibility study with dual-source CT.” Clinical radiology (2025). PMID: 40279855 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol, Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations, Special Populations
  15. [15]

    Wang C, Fang P, Zhou D et al.. “Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial of Catheter-Directed Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Systemic Thrombolysis in Patients with Acute Intermediate-to-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Study Protocol.” Cardiovascular and interventional radiology (2026). PMID: 42056311 ↗

    L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Technical Principles and Protocol
  16. [16]

    Nguyen ET, Hague C, Manos D et al.. “Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Best Practice Guidance for Investigation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism, Part 2: Technical Issues and Interpretation Pitfalls.” Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes (2021). PMID: 33781102 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations, Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Advantages and Limitations, Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use, Complications and Pitfalls, Guidelines and Recommendations
  17. [17]

    Alobeidi H, Alshamari M, Widell J et al.. “Minimizing contrast media dose in CT pulmonary angiography with high-pitch technique.” The British journal of radiology (2020). PMID: 32436788 ↗

    L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Patient Preparation and Contrast Considerations
  18. [18]

    Patel P, Patel P, Bhatt M et al.. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism.” Blood advances (2020). PMID: 32915980 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  19. [19]

    Lu J, Shen L, Zhou C et al.. “Image Quality Improvement and Artificial Intelligence Performance in Pulmonary Embolism Detection at Deep Learning Reconstruction-Based Ultra-low Radiation Dose CT Pulmonary Angiography.” Academic radiology (2025). PMID: 41067972 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Advantages and Limitations, Special Populations, Guidelines and Recommendations, Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  20. [20]

    Du Y, Yang A, Wang X. “Accuracy of transthoracic lung ultrasound for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.” Thrombosis research (2024). PMID: 39126978 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy
  21. [21]

    Dissaux B, Le Floch PY, Robin P et al.. “Pulmonary perfusion by iodine subtraction maps CT angiography in acute pulmonary embolism: comparison with pulmonary perfusion SPECT (PASEP trial).” European radiology (2020). PMID: 32279113 ↗

    L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Complications and Pitfalls
  22. [22]

    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 (London, England) (2017). PMID: 28549662 ↗

    L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  23. [23]

    Chan K, Wahome E, Tsiachristas A et al.. “Inflammatory risk and cardiovascular events in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease: the ORFAN multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.” Lancet (London, England) (2024). PMID: 38823406 ↗

    L2COHORTCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  24. [24]

    Revel MP, Chassagnon G, Sanchez O et al.. “CT venography for the diagnosis of postpartum venous thromboembolism: a prospective multi-center cohort study.” European radiology (2024). PMID: 38782788 ↗

    L2COHORTCited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  25. [25]

    Le Roux PY, Le Pennec R, Salaun PY et al.. “Scintigraphic Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: From Basics to Best Practices.” Seminars in nuclear medicine (2023). PMID: 37142520 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  26. [26]

    Teerapuncharoen K, Bag R. “Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension.” Lung (2022). PMID: 35643802 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings, Complications and Pitfalls
  27. [27]

    Douillet D, Roy PM, Penaloza A. “Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Gestalt, Scoring Systems, and Artificial Intelligence.” Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine (2021). PMID: 33592653 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  28. [28]

    Revzin MV, Raza S, Warshawsky R et al.. “Multisystem Imaging Manifestations of COVID-19, Part 1: Viral Pathogenesis and Pulmonary and Vascular System Complications.” Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc (2020). PMID: 33001783 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Image Interpretation: Normal and Pathologic Findings
  29. [29]

    Lanza E, Ammirabile A, Francone M. “Meta-analysis of AI-based pulmonary embolism detection: How reliable are deep learning models?” Computers in biology and medicine (2025). PMID: 40412084 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  30. [30]

    Melo RH, Gioli-Pereira L, Lourenço ID et al.. “Diagnostic accuracy of multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Critical care (London, England) (2025). PMID: 40269937 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  31. [31]

    Silva RF, Zanon M, Ackman JB et al.. “Comparison of the diagnostic performance of non-contrast MR angiography and planar V/Q scintigraphy for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” European radiology (2025). PMID: 39863727 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Advantages and Limitations, Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  32. [32]

    Alsabri M, Abo-Elnour DE, Ayyad M et al.. “Epidemiology and management of massive, sub-massive, and non-massive pediatric pulmonary embolism: a systematic reviews.” BMC pediatrics (2025). PMID: 40287637 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  33. [33]

    Yang CH, Yu M, Wang DC. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.” BMC medical imaging (2025). PMID: 40114100 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy
  34. [34]

    Wu L, Wu S, Chen Q et al.. “Diagnostic value of low-dose CT pulmonary angiography combined with iterative reconstruction in suspected pulmonary embolism.” Clinical imaging (2025). PMID: 40743787 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy, Advantages and Limitations, Special Populations
  35. [35]

    Liao K, Ye B, Li X et al.. “Clinical application of third-generation dual-source CT-based dynamic imaging reconstruction for pulmonary embolism imaging.” Journal of cardiothoracic surgery (2025). PMID: 39849524 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Diagnostic Performance and Accuracy
  36. [36]

    Lysdahlgaard S, Hess S, Gerke O et al.. “A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of spectral CT compared to scintigraphy in the diagnosis of acute and chronic pulmonary embolisms.” European radiology (2020). PMID: 32112117 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Advantages and Limitations, Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  37. [37]

    Tran HA, Gibbs H, Merriman E et al.. “New guidelines from the Thrombosis and Haemostasis Society of Australia and New Zealand for the diagnosis and management of venous thromboembolism.” The Medical journal of Australia (2019). PMID: 30739331 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use
  38. [38]

    Renapurkar RD, Rajiah PS, Bartel TB et al.. “ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging for Pulmonary Embolism, Known Clot.” Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR (2025). PMID: 40409881 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use
  39. [39]

    Nguyen ET, Hague C, Manos D et al.. “Canadian Society of Thoracic Radiology/Canadian Association of Radiologists Best Practice Guidance for Investigation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism, Part 1: Acquisition and Safety Considerations.” Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes (2021). PMID: 33781098 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use, Guidelines and Recommendations
  40. [40]

    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.” Annals of internal medicine (2015). PMID: 26414967 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use, Guidelines and Recommendations
  41. [41]

    Leung AN, Bull TM, Jaeschke R et al.. “An official American Thoracic Society/Society of Thoracic Radiology clinical practice guideline: evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy.” American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine (2011). PMID: 22086989 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use, Guidelines and Recommendations
  42. [42]

    Lim W, Le Gal G, Bates SM et al.. “American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: diagnosis of venous thromboembolism.” Blood advances (2018). PMID: 30482764 ↗

    L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use
  43. [43]

    Wiener RS, Ouellette DR, Diamond E et al.. “An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians policy statement: the Choosing Wisely top five list in adult pulmonary medicine.” Chest (2014). PMID: 24889436 ↗

    L5GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use, Guidelines and Recommendations
  44. [44]

    Wang RC, Bent S, Weber E et al.. “The Impact of Clinical Decision Rules on Computed Tomography Use and Yield for Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Annals of emergency medicine (2015). PMID: 26747217 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use
  45. [45]

    Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A et al.. “Effect of the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria on Subsequent Thromboembolic Events Among Low-Risk Emergency Department Patients: The PROPER Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA (2018). PMID: 29450523 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Clinical Indications and Appropriate Use
  46. [46]

    Lambert L, Michalek P, Burgetova A. “The diagnostic performance of CT pulmonary angiography in the detection of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension-systematic review and meta-analysis.” European radiology (2022). PMID: 35482124 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  47. [47]

    Da Costa Rodrigues J, Alzuphar S, Combescure C et al.. “Diagnostic characteristics of lower limb venous compression ultrasonography in suspected pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.” Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH (2016). PMID: 27377039 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  48. [48]

    Fabiá Valls MJ, van der Hulle T, den Exter PL et al.. “Performance of a diagnostic algorithm based on a prediction rule, D-dimer and CT-scan for pulmonary embolism in patients with previous venous thromboembolism. A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Thrombosis and haemostasis (2014). PMID: 25373512 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  49. [49]

    Becattini C, Agnelli G, Germini F et al.. “Computed tomography to assess risk of death in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.” The European respiratory journal (2014). PMID: 24603813 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  50. [50]

    Vedovati MC, Germini F, Agnelli G et al.. “Prognostic role of embolic burden assessed at computed tomography angiography in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH (2013). PMID: 24134450 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  51. [51]

    Squizzato A, Rancan E, Dentali F et al.. “Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH (2013). PMID: 23574640 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Comparative Effectiveness: CTPA vs. Other Imaging Modalities
  52. [52]

    Jin ZY, Li CM, Wen JH et al.. “Computed tomography pulmonary angiography for detection of pulmonary embolisms in Chinese patients.” Phlebology (2025). PMID: 40884530 ↗

    L3TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Special Populations
  53. [53]

    Bruno E, Kewenter M, Creusen AD et al.. “Computed Tomography Yield and Predictors of Pulmonary Embolism in Mechanically Ventilated Patients-A Retrospective Study.” Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (2026). PMID: 41795931 ↗

    L3COHORTCited in: Special Populations
  54. [54]

    Oya A, Umezu T, Ogawa R et al.. “Incidentally detected abnormal findings on contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan during thrombosis screening after hip surgery: a retrospective study.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 41724968 ↗

    L3COHORTCited in: Special Populations
  55. [55]

    Roncon L, Zuin M, Barco S et al.. “Incidence of acute pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of internal medicine (2020). PMID: 32958372 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Complications and Pitfalls
  56. [56]

    Turedi S, Erdem E, Karaca Y et al.. “The High Risk of Contrast-induced Nephropathy in Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism Despite Three Different Prophylaxis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (2016). PMID: 27411777 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Complications and Pitfalls
  57. [57]

    Mitchell AM, Jones AE, Tumlin JA et al.. “Prospective study of the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy among patients evaluated for pulmonary embolism by contrast-enhanced computed tomography.” Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (2012). PMID: 22687176 ↗

    L2COHORTCited in: Complications and Pitfalls, Guidelines and Recommendations
  58. [58]

    Liu AZ, Winant AJ, Lu LK et al.. “Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for pulmonary embolus evaluation in children: up-to-date review on practical imaging protocols.” Pediatric radiology (2022). PMID: 35864243 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Complications and Pitfalls
  59. [59]

    Taslakian B, Latson LA, Truong MT et al.. “CT pulmonary angiography of adult pulmonary vascular diseases: Technical considerations and interpretive pitfalls.” European journal of radiology (2016). PMID: 27776659 ↗

    L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Complications and Pitfalls
  60. [60]

    Zhang Y, Begum HA, Grewal H et al.. “Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review.” Blood advances (2022). PMID: 34607343 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Guidelines and Recommendations
  61. [61]

    Rosovsky RP, Konstantinides SV, Moriarty JM et al.. “A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating anticoagulation alone vs anticoagulation plus computer assisted vacuum thrombectomy for the treatment of intermediate-high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: Rationale and design of the STORM-PE study.” American heart journal (2025). PMID: 40174693 ↗

    L5RCTCited in: Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  62. [62]

    Valizadeh P, Jannatdoust P, Shojaei S et al.. “The diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT in detecting chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: A systematic-review and Meta-analysis.” Clinical imaging (2025). PMID: 40544642 ↗

    L1SR_OBSCited in: Future Directions and Emerging Technologies
  63. [63]

    Hassan MSTA, Elhotiby MAM, Shah V et al.. “The Current State of Artificial Intelligence on Detecting Pulmonary Embolism via Computerised Tomography Pulmonary Angiogram: A Systematic Review.” British journal of hospital medicine (London, England : 2005) (2025). PMID: 40554436 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Revision History

All updates applied to this page

Loading revisions…