HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gottschalk, A. Articles by Beemath, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gottschalk, A. Articles by Beemath, A.

Very Low Probability Interpretation of V/Q Lung Scans in Combination with Low Probability Objective Clinical Assessment Reliably Excludes Pulmonary Embolism: Data from PIOPED II

¹ Department of Radiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; ² St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital, Pontiac, Michigan; ³ Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; and ⁴ Office of the Dean, Weill Cornell Medical College and Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Alexander Gottschalk, MD, Department of Radiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1303. E-mail: Alex.Gottschalk{at}radiology.msu.edu

Use of a very low probability interpretation of ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) lung scans, if verified by prospective evaluation to have a low positive predictive value (PPV), will reduce the number of nondiagnostic interpretations of V/Q scans and may be particularly useful in patients with a relative contraindication to CT. The purpose of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that a very low probability interpretation of the V/Q scan has a PPV of <10%. Methods: Data are from PIOPED II (Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II). Very low probability criteria are (a) nonsegmental perfusion abnormalities, (b) perfusion defect smaller than corresponding radiographic lesion, (c) 2 matched V/Q defects with regionally normal chest radiograph, (d) 1–3 small segmental perfusion defects (<25% of a segment), (e) solitary triple matched defect in middle or upper lung zones, (f) stripe sign around the perfusion defect(s), and (g) perfusion defect from pleural effusion equal to one third or more of the pleural cavity with no other perfusion defect. Results: A very low probability consensus interpretation of the V/Q scan was made in 56% of patients. The PPV of a very low probability interpretation of the V/Q scans was 36 of 440 patients (8.2%). Among patients with suspected pulmonary embolism who had a low clinical probability objective clinical assessment and a very low probability V/Q scan, the PPV was 8 of 259 patients (3.1%). Among women 40 y, the PPV of the very low probability V/Q with a low objective clinical assessment was 1 of 50 (2%). Conclusion: The very low probability V/Q scan together with a low probability clinical assessment reliably excludes pulmonary embolism.

Key Words: V/Q scintigraphy • venous thromboembolism • very low probability criteria

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2007 48: 11A-12A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Freeman Don't Bury the V/Q Scan: It's as Good as Multidetector CT Angiograms with a Lot Less Radiation Exposure J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2008; 49(1): 5 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Strashun A Reduced Role of V/Q Scintigraphy in the Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2007; 48(9): 1405 - 1407. [Full Text] [PDF]