| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clinical Investigation |
1 Office of the Dean and Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College and Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas; 2 Department of Critical Care, Section of Respiratory Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 3 Department of Radiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; and 4 Department of Research, St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital, Pontiac, Michigan, and Department of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: H. Dirk Sostman, Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin St., Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: dsostman{at}tmhs.org
We used the archived Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II) data and images to test the hypothesis that reading perfusion scans with chest radiographs but without ventilation scans, and categorizing the perfusion scan as "pulmonary embolism (PE) present" or "PE absent," can result in clinically useful sensitivity and specificity in most patients. Methods: Patients recruited into PIOPED II were eligible for the present study if they had a CT angiography (CTA) or digital subtraction angiography (DSA) diagnosis, an interpretable perfusion scan and chest radiographs, and a Wells' score. Four readers reinterpreted the perfusion scans and chest radiographs of eligible patients. Two readers used the modified PIOPED II criteria and 2 used the Prospective Investigative Study of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISAPED) criteria. The chest radiographs were read as "normal/near normal," "abnormal," or "nondiagnostic," and the perfusion scans were read as "PE present," "PE absent," or "nondiagnostic." The primary analysis used a composite reference standard: the PIOPED II DSA result or, if there was no definitive DSA result, CTA results that were concordant with the Wells' score as defined in PIOPED II (CTA positive and Wells' score > 2, or CTA negative and Wells' score < 6). Results: The prevalence of PE in the sample was 169 of 889 (19%). Using the modified PIOPED II criteria, the sensitivity of a "PE present" perfusion scan was 84.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.1%–88.8%), and the specificity of "PE absent" was 92.7% (95% CI, 91.1%–94.1%), excluding "nondiagnostic" results, which occurred in 20.6% (95% CI, 18.8%–22.5%). Using PISAPED criteria, the sensitivity of a "PE present" perfusion scan was 80.4% (95% CI, 75.9%–84.3%) and the specificity of "PE absent" was 96.6% (95% CI, 95.5%–97.4%), whereas the proportion of patients with "nondiagnostic" scans was 0% (95% CI, 0.0%–0.2%). Conclusion: Perfusion scintigraphy combined with chest radiography can provide diagnostic accuracy similar to both CTA and ventilation–perfusion scintigraphy, at lower cost and with lower radiation dose. With modified PIOPED II criteria, a higher proportion of scans were nondiagnostic than with CTA, and with PISAPED criteria none were nondiagnostic.
Key Words: respiratory • vascular • PIOPED II • perfusion scintigraphy • pulmonary embolism
COPYRIGHT © 2008 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.
Related articles in JNM:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. D. Stein, L. M. Freeman, H. D. Sostman, L. R. Goodman, P. K. Woodard, D. P. Naidich, A. Gottschalk, D. L. Bailey, F. Matta, A. Y. Yaekoub, et al. SPECT in Acute Pulmonary Embolism J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2009; 50(12): 1999 - 2007. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Parker Improving Lung Scintigraphy J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2009; 50(12): 1919 - 1920. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Reinartz To PIOPED, or Not to PIOPED J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2008; 49(11): 1739 - 1740. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | RSS | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
