Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm: can YEARS do more for pregnant women?

Aleksandar Bokan, Jovan Matijasevic, Jadranka Vucicevic Trobok
Breathe 2020 16: 190307; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0307-2019
Aleksandar Bokan
1Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Dept for Emergency Pulmonology, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
2University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Aleksandar Bokan
  • For correspondence: a.bokan@hotmail.com
Jovan Matijasevic
1Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Dept for Emergency Pulmonology, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
2University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jadranka Vucicevic Trobok
1Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Dept for Emergency Pulmonology, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
2University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm provides high certainty in ruling out pulmonary embolism and high efficiency in reducing the need for CTPA http://bit.ly/2GgH4sv

Commentary on:

Van der Pol LM, et al. Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1139–1149.

Context

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), as a term that encompasses pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), is one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality [1], especially in developed countries, where PE takes second place after complications of hypertensive disorders [2]. When compared to non-pregnant women of similar age, pregnant women have an approximately four to five times higher risk of VTE [3], with an incidence of 1 in 1000 pregnancies [4]. Approximately 20–25% of VTE cases are caused by PE and 75–80% of cases are caused by DVT [5]. About 60% of DVT occurs antepartum, with the highest risk of antepartum pregnancy-associated VTE being in the third trimester.However, about 60% of PE occurs postpartum [3].

As a consequence of physiological changes all three elements of the Virchow's triad are present during pregnancy and the postpartum period [6]. Changes occurring in bio-humoral status (elevated D-dimer level) [7], as well as altered morpho-physiology of pregnant women (swelling and dyspnoea) [6], may delay clinical suspicion for PE. Moreover, the sensitive state of the female body and fetus during pregnancy, as well as the lack of clear and explicit recommendations, makes the diagnostic process more difficult. There are various diagnostic algorithms for exclusion of PE in pregnancy [8]. The most frequently used modalities include computerised tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) and perfusion or ventilation/perfusion (V′/Q′) lung scan, but also compression ultrasonography (CUS) of the lower extremity and chest radiography [9]. The order of the four listed imaging methods is different depending on the recommendations. Additionally, some studies in the diagnostic algorithm include D-dimer values [10]. CTPA and V′/Q′ scan provide a similar diagnostic yield for diagnosing PE during pregnancy, but V′/Q′ scan involves a lower radiation dose to the mother (effective dose and breast dose) and fetus [11].

A few years ago the YEARS algorithm was developed. It includes three clinical criteria (clinical signs of DVT, haemoptysis, and whether PE is the most likely diagnosis) and one laboratory criteria (D-dimer value) to determine the need for CTPA (figure 1) [12]. With the creation and validation of this algorithm, a step forward was taken and with the algorithms adaptation to pregnant women [13].

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

YEARS algorithm for the general population.

Methods

A study by van der Pol et al. [13] entitled “Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism” has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine [13]. The study was a multi-center, international study conducted at 18 hospitals. During the period from October 2013 to May 2018 the study included pregnant women aged ≥18 years who had been referred to a hospital because of a suspected PE. All pregnant women were grouped based on the pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm (figure 2). Pregnant women who had clinical signs of DVT underwent CUS of the symptomatic leg. Patients in whom DVT was diagnosed were treated with anticoagulant therapy and no other tests were performed. In the case of a normal CUS or absence of clinical signs of DVT, the rest of the algorithm was continued. Patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out were followed for 3 months [13].

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm.

The primary end-point analysed safety of the algorithm. It was based on cumulative incidence of proven PE during a 3-month follow-up period of the subgroup of patients in whom a diagnosis of PE was ruled out using the algorithm. The secondary end-point analysed efficiency of the algorithm, which was based on the proportion of patients for whom CTPA was not indicated using the algorithm [13].

Main results

The study included 510 women, with 12 being initially excluded. After a total of 498 patients were analysed using the YEARS algorithm, 252 (51%) did not meet any of the YEARS criteria and 246 (49%) met at least one of the criteria. In patients with clinical signs of DVT CUS was performed, and DVT was confirmed in three out of 43 patients. PE was confirmed in 16 patients, with CTPA being used in 15 cases and V′/Q′ scan in one case. None of them had DVT and only one did not meet any YEARS criteria, but had an elevated D-dimer value.

During a 3-month follow-up period, VTE, i.e. DVT, was diagnosed in one out of 477 patients (0.21%; 95% CI 0.04–1.2) who did not initially fulfil any YEARS criteria and had D-dimer levels in the reference range. CTPA was not indicated in 195 (39%) out of 494 patients (95% CI 35–44). Considering the efficiency of the algorithm in relation to stage of pregnancy, its value has a downward trend: 65% in the first, 46% in the second and 32% in the third trimester.

Commentary

A universally accepted algorithm for the diagnosis of PE in pregnant women is not yet available. This is in part because types of imaging techniques, as well as bio-humoral markers, do not yet have a clear and universally accepted order and place in available guidelines [8, 14]. The aim of each study addressing this issue is to create an algorithm that concurrently reduces the need for imaging techniques, while increasing the sensitivity and specificity of PE exclusion. The pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm is on the right track to accomplish the tasks mentioned above.

Results of the aforementioned study show an impressive decrease in the need for CTPA with high certainty in ruling out PE. Based on the algorithm in a study by Righini et al. [10], CTPA was only not performed in 28 (8%) out of 349 patients, compared to the results of the study in question, in which CTPA was not indicated in 195 (39%) out of 494 patients [13]. In line with this, a study by Langlois et al. [15] published in May this year used a standard YEARS algorithm. Based on this algorithm CTPA was not performed in 77 (20%) out of 371 patients [15], a higher proportion compared to the algorithm from Righini et al. [10] but lower compared to the new YEARS algorithm. Taking into consideration the adverse effects of radiation on both the mother and newborn, as well as the cost of PE imaging, less frequent use of CTPA is of great importance [1], and so far this has been achieved in the highest percentage with pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm.

In addition, knowing when it is justified to suspect PE and indicate further examination in this group of patients is questionable. In the general population, pre-test probability is determined using questionnaires, such as the Wells score, Geneva score or their revised versions [16]. The current study clearly emphasises that the algorithm is not determining pre-test probability, but evaluating the need for CTPA. The question is “how does the physician cast suspicion on PE?” At the same time, it is not clear whether it is justified to suspect PE in the case of symptoms such as sudden onset of dyspnoea or chest pain. Some authors have examined the Wells score in pregnant women, but the studies are insufficient because complete follow-up is missing [9]. Also, some studies found that clinical features associated with PE in pregnancy include age, previous thrombosis, family history of thrombosis, temperature, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation and PE-related chest radiograph abnormality [17]. This might be useful to define pre-test probability in pregnancy.

One of the elements that pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm does not include is chest radiograph. However, other guidelines, such as the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism, advise its inclusion [8, 18]. Chest radiography has the lowest estimated fetal radiation exposure (<0.01 mGy) compared to CTPA (0.05–0.5 mGy) and low-dose perfusion lung scan (0.02–0.20 mGy) [18]. Moreover, it is of great importance in the diagnosis of lung diseases. Abnormalities on chest radiography can be relatively specific to PE and can prevent further imaging tests. Also it can be helpful in identifying or excluding other lung diseases or diseases of other organs systems [19].

CUS of the lower extremity is the main difference between YEARS algorithm and pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm. CUS has several advantages including no ionising radiation exposure and being readily available, but also several disadvantages including limited detection of pelvic vein thrombosis and being operator dependent [20]. Despite limitations, CUS is a satisfactory initial diagnostic test that can rule out the need for CTPA [21]. More recent studies indicate that ultrasound of lower extremity, lung and heart as point-of-care ultrasound, can replace the use of methods with ionising radiation [22].

Implications for practice

Diagnosing PE in pregnancy is still a challenge. The choice of diagnostic method that would achieve the greatest benefit and do least harm in pregnancy is still under consideration. CUS is certainly the safest method for pregnant women. Results of the study by van der Pol et al. [13] indicate high certainty in ruling out PE and high efficiency in reducing the need for CTPA. Application of this algorithm, with possible additional modifications according to local protocols, would improve the current diagnostic procedure in pregnant women. Additional studies have the potential to confirm the results of this study, which would allow the algorithm to be implemented in the guidelines on the diagnosis of PE in pregnancy.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: A. Bokan has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Matijasevic has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: Jr. Vucicevic Trobok has nothing to disclose.

  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Breathe articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bates SM,
    2. Rajasekhar A,
    3. Middeldorp S, et al.
    American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy. Blood Adv 2018; 2: 3317–3359. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024802
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Frölich MA,
    2. Banks C,
    3. Brooks A, et al.
    Why do pregnant women die? A review of maternal deaths from 1990 to 2010 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Anesth Analg 2014; 119: 1135–1139. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000000457
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Bennett A,
    2. Chunilal S
    . Diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. Semin Thromb Hemost 2016; 42: 760–773. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1587684
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Simcox LE,
    2. Ormesher L,
    3. Tower C, et al.
    Pulmonary thrombo-embolism in pregnancy: diagnosis and management. Breathe 2015; 11: 282–289. doi:10.1183/20734735.008815
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 196 Summary: thromboembolism in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132: 243–248. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002707
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Greer IA
    . Thrombosis in pregnancy: maternal and fetal issues. Lancet 1999; 353: 1258–1265. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10265-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Khalafallah AA,
    2. Morse M,
    3. Al-Barzan A-M, et al.
    D-Dimer levels at different stages of pregnancy in Australian women: a single centre study using two different immunoturbidimetric assays. Thromb Res 2012; 130: e171–e177. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2012.05.022
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Wan T,
    2. Skeith L,
    3. Karovitch A, et al.
    Guidance for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: consensus and controversies. Thromb Res 2017; 157: 23–28. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2017.06.025
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Cutts BA,
    2. Dasgupta D,
    3. Hunt BJ
    . New directions in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 102–108. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Righini M,
    2. Robert-Ebadi H,
    3. Elias A, et al.
    Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: a multicenter prospective management outcome study. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 766–773. doi:10.7326/M18-1670
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Grüning T,
    2. Mingo RE,
    3. Gosling MG, et al.
    Diagnosing venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20160021. doi:10.1259/bjr.20160021
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. van der Hulle T,
    2. Cheung WY,
    3. Kooij S, et al.
    Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet 2017; 390: 289–297. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30885-1
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. van der Pol LM,
    2. Tromeur C,
    3. Bistervels IM, et al.
    Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1139–1149. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1813865
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Conti E,
    2. Zezza L,
    3. Ralli E, et al.
    Pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2014; 37: 251–270. doi:10.1007/s11239-013-0941-9
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Langlois E,
    2. Cusson-Dufour C,
    3. Moumneh T, et al.
    Could the YEARS algorithm be used to exclude pulmonary embolism during pregnancy? Data from the CT–PE-pregnancy study. JThromb Haemost 2019; 17: 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Tritschler T,
    2. Kraaijpoel N,
    3. Le Gal G, et al.
    Venous thromboembolism: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA 2018; 320: 1583–1594. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14346
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Goodacre S,
    2. Horspool K,
    3. Nelson-Piercy C, et al.
    The DiPEP study: an observational study of the diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment, D-dimer and chest X-ray for suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy and postpartum. BJOG 2019; 126: 383–392. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15286
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Konstantinides SV,
    2. Meyer G,
    3. Becattini C, et al.
    2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 543–603.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Shawn TH,
    2. Yan L,
    3. Lateef F
    . The chest X ray in pulmonary embolism: Westermark sign, Hampton's Hump and Palla's sign. What's the difference? J Acute Dis 2018; 7: 99. doi:10.4103/2221-6189.236822
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Durán-Mendicuti A,
    2. Sodickson A
    . Imaging evaluation of the pregnant patient with suspected pulmonary embolism. Int J Obstet Anesth 2011; 20: 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.ijoa.2010.07.018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Righini M,
    2. Le Gal G,
    3. Aujesky D, et al.
    Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism by multidetector CT alone or combined with venous ultrasonography of the leg: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 1343–1352. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60594-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Squizzato A,
    2. Galli L,
    3. Gerdes VEA
    . Point-of-care ultrasound in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Crit Ultrasound J 2015; 7: 7. doi:10.1186/s13089-015-0025-5
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 16 Issue 1 Table of Contents
Breathe: 16 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm: can YEARS do more for pregnant women?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm: can YEARS do more for pregnant women?
Aleksandar Bokan, Jovan Matijasevic, Jadranka Vucicevic Trobok
Breathe Mar 2020, 16 (1) 190307; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0307-2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Pregnancy-adapted YEARS algorithm: can YEARS do more for pregnant women?
Aleksandar Bokan, Jovan Matijasevic, Jadranka Vucicevic Trobok
Breathe Mar 2020, 16 (1) 190307; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0307-2019
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Context
    • Methods
    • Main results
    • Commentary
    • Implications for practice
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Pulmonary vascular disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Expert opinion

  • Lung cancer screening by volume CT
  • In pursuit of the primary
  • A rare complication in a case of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma
Show more Expert opinion

Journal club

  • Impact of triple therapy on mortality in COPD
  • CPAP for secondary cardiovascular prevention in OSA patients
  • Maternal vaccination during pregnancy against infant respiratory viruses
Show more Journal club

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society