In the present work, the two groups of patients with and without PE-related adverse events/ mortality were comparable in terms of the median DAE/MPAE. For the first time in 2012, Park et al. (
13) suggested that DAE/MPAE might predict PE-related major adverse events in patients with massive pulmonary embolism. The authors assumed that in case of severe PE and right ventricular dysfunction more contrast agents are retained in the pulmonary circulation, leading to decreased DAE and increased MPAE.
Most likely this assumption dates back to 1998, when Miller et al. (
20) suggested that the reflux of contrast dye into the inferior vena cava might be a sign of right-sided heart dysfunction. Later on, Kang et al. (
21) confirmed their findings, but Collomb et al. (
22) found no prognostic role for the reflux of contrast dye into the inferior vena cava in PE patients. In line with our finding, a recent study by Hefeda and Elmasry (
23) on 32 patients with PE also documented no significant difference between survivors (n = 23) and non-survivors (n = 9) in terms of the mean DAE/MPAE.
Many factors may affect contrast enhancement including the amount of injected contrast material, flow rate, and in particular, the scan delay (
24-
26). It should be noted that empiric bolus timing could be difficult especially when the pressure of pulmonary artery is elevated and poor performance of the right cardiac side is present (
26). In addition to these parameters, the presence of bronchopulmonary collateral vessels in some patients with previous chronic inflammatory diseases may serve as an extensive left-to-right shunt, and affects the attenuation of the pulmonary vessels (
25,
27). A preexisting patent foramen ovale may also cause insufficient attenuation of the pulmonary arteries. Although this condition may seem rare, in a previous study patent foramen ovale caused abnormal contrast dynamics in 16% of patients with suspected PE (
26). Other miscellaneous factors that may cause inadequate pulmonary artery enhancement in PE patients are air space consolidations, intracardiac shunts, preexisting undiagnosed heart failure, high cardiac output, and obstruction of the superior vena cava (
24-
26,
28).
Besides contrast material administration, respiration may also dramatically influence scan quality in PE patients, because the dedicated guideline of breathing during computed tomographic scanning is usually hard to follow by patients with suspected massive or submassive PE (
24,
25,
29).
It has been suggested that DAE/MPAE could be obtained more objectively and more reliably than similar previously defined prognostic factors in association with right ventricular dysfunction (
13). We also showed very low inter-observer variation in reporting DAE/MPAE in the present work. On the basis of discussed parameters in association with attenuation of the pulmonary vasculature, however, a considerable variation could be expected with employment of DAE/MPAE as a prognostic factor, as the present study confirmed.
It has been proposed that a mechanical obstruction by the intravascular clot is not the sole contributor to pulmonary vascular resistance and other factors such as systemic arterial hypoxemia, reflex vasoconstriction and release of vasoactive agents may also come to play (
30). In addition, many clots lodge in small peripheral pulmonary arteries with no significant contribution to overall obstruction in pulmonary vasculature in PE (
31). Therefore, the degree of enhancement of pulmonary vasculature in PE may not reflect actual severity of the obstruction. An insignificant correlation between DAE/MPAE and PAOS in the present work supports this surmise.
Finally, we found a significant reverse correlation between patients’ age and DAE/MPAE. Age is a known risk factor for untoward consequences in patients with PE (
32). In a recent study, our group found age as the only prognostic factor in patients with PE, which was independent of right heart failure and PAOS (
33). In the international cooperative pulmonary embolism registry, age of > 70 years has been suggested as a negative prognostic factor in patients with PE (
34). At the same time, it has been shown that an increasing age aggravates right ventricle (RV) dysfunction (
35). Accordingly, it could be suggested that a significant association between DAE/MPAE and patients’ outcome in PE is only the effect of age. Unfortunately Park et al. did not examine age as a prognostic factor in their study. The mean age of their patients (71.4 years), however, was significantly more than that in the present work (61.7 years) and in Hefeda’s series (56.8 years).
Our sample size is larger than that of the original report (
13), but for more definite prognostic purposes, larger sample sizes should be studied in future works. In addition, although a 3-month follow-up encompasses the critical period in patients with PE (
3), longer follow-ups are needed to fully examine the prognostic importance of DAE/MPAE.
As mentioned earlier, some pathologies such as air space consolidations, intracardiac shunts, preexisting undiagnosed heart failure, high cardiac output, and obstruction of the superior vena cava may affect the prognostic value of DAE/MPAE in PE. Although many of these conditions are rare, more controlled studies are needed to reach a definite conclusion in this regard.
Finally, accurate separation of PE-related and unrelated complications/death is impossible and this may limit drawing a solid conclusion in examining the prognostic value of DAE/MPAE in PE. It should be noted, however, that in the present study we showed significant associations between the extent (and severity) of PE and PE-related complications/mortality, which may, at least partly, confirm the accuracy of proposing those outcome variables as PE-related ones.
In summary, this study showed that DAE/MPAE on PCTA could not be considered as a reliable short-term prognostic factor in patients with massive or sub-massive PE.