JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 33 No. 7 1417-1422
© 1992 by Society of Nuclear Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klingensmith, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Holt, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Klingensmith, W. C., III
Right arrow Articles by Holt, S. A.

Lung Scan Interpretation: A Physiologic, User-Friendly Approach

William C. Klingensmith, III and Steve A. Holt

Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Saint Joseph Hospital, Denver, Colorado

Correspondence: For reprints contact: Wm. C. Klingensmith III, MD, 3333 S. Bannock St., Ste 600, Englewood, CO 80110.

ABSTRACT

A physiologically-oriented, user-friendly algorithm for interpretation of ventilation-perfusion (V/P) lung scans was compared to the widely used Biello criteria. The physiologic algorithm relies primarily on the observer's degree of certainty that a V/P mismatch is present rather than on the size (relative to a whole segment) and number of V/P mismatches. One hundred five patients who had undergone a ventilation study with 133Xe gas, a perfusion study with 99mTc-MAA and pulmonary angiography were reviewed. Each V/P lung scan was interpreted once with the physiologic algorithm and once with the Biello criteria by two observers. Fifty-nine percent of the 105 studies were classified as indeterminate with the physiologic algorithm versus 62% with the Biello criteria. The prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the high probability, indeterminate, low probability and normal categories for the physiologic algorithm were 60%, 26%, 7% and 0%, respectively; and for the Biello criteria were 50%, 31%, 11% and 0%, respectively. Analysis of the data with receiver-operating-characteristic curves indicated that the physiologic algorithm performed better than the Biello criteria (p < 0.05). In addition, the physiologic algorithm has the advantages of being more intuitive and easier to remember. We conclude that further evaluation of the physiologic approach for the interpretation of V/P lung scans is warranted.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 1992 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.